Category: Belief

Introduction

The subject of philosophy of religion is complex but exciting because of the possibility of discovering a variety of opinions. A number of ideas were introduced in the 19th century, and such authors as William Kingdom Clifford and William James remain the brightest contributors to the field. In both words, the philosophers discovered the same subject that is the significance of faith and beliefs through the prism of evidence. In his essay The Ethics of Belief, Clifford discussed the importance of formulating human beliefs in regard to available evidence. Despite situations, knowledge, and past experiences, it is an obligation for a person to use sufficient evidence in order to introduce and protect a belief.¹ Compared to such a radical thesis of Clifford, Jamess approach allows the possibility to combine knowledge and passions that may influence society in different settings. The role of sentiments is lawful, and it is normal to leave questions open to enhance passionate discussion on it.² Both ideas make sense, and the goal of this review is to compare the opinions of James and Clifford to strengthen an understanding of the connection between beliefs, evidence, and sentiments.

Summary

The chosen articles aim to discuss the conditions under which a reasonable belief must be formulated. However, the role of evidence may be differently discovered, and the analyses offered by Clifford and James serve as strong examples of how the representatives of the same epoch could view the same topic. In general, Clifford performed the role of a defender of sufficient evidence, and James supported sentiments in decision-making.

Clifford began his discussion with a story of a shipowner who knew about defects of the ship but allowed sailing. The man put his trust in Providence without even trying to gather enough facts and check a factual condition of a ship.³ As a result, the ship and people in it sank, having no opportunity to be saved. Clifford concluded that he had no right to believe on such evidence, and it was a mistake to acquire his beliefs not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts.⁴ In this essay, the author wanted to find a connection between human beliefs and actions. The example of a shipowner proved that as soon as a belief is built and fixed, there is a tendency to behave in a certain way. Insufficient or the lack of evidence results in poorly developed judgments, and a wrong solution made by one person could change the lives of millions of people. Therefore, it is expected to gather as much sufficient evidence as possible and use it carefully.

The article written by James as a part of a lecture begins with several clear definitions and explanations. The author explained their importance because they may contradict commonly used terms; thus it is necessary to learn them and understand his intentions. A hypothesis as anything that may be proposed to our belief can be live (a real possibility) or dead (impossibility).⁵ Options, both living and dead, forced and avoidable, momentous and trivial, determine the way of how a person is able to evaluate a situation and make a decision. In comparison to Clifford, who promoted the possibility of believing in nothing, James underlined the role of feelings and allowed errors to happen. He said that this world is not perfect, and a certain lightness of heart seems healthier than this excessive nervousness on their behalf.⁶ Considering the achievements of James, religion should exist because it is one of the possible ways to recognize the needs and interests of people and consider them in life.

Assessment

Reviewing the works done by Clifford and James, one should admit that their main distinction lies in their attitudes towards evidence and its contribution to the formulation of a belief. On the one hand, evidentialism offered by Clifford has its strengths and weaknesses because people are free to develop their own opinions and take actions in accordance with their knowledge and available resources. Clifford himself recognized certain challenges in his position due to the impossibility of predicting outcomes of all human decisions. On the other hand, there is James with his doubts, errors, and opinions. He stated, passionate nature influencing us in our opinions and there are some options between opinions in which this influence must be regarded both as an inevitable and as a lawful determinant of our choice.⁷ Following these arguments, both authors did well in identifying their values and morals. There is no right or wrong answer to the question of how to create a belief. It is the responsibility of society to weight their resources and define their future actions.

The strengths of Cliffords essay include the use of clear real-life examples and the presence of definite facts. The author did not want to provide the reader with a choice but gave statements that did matter. One of his well-known propositions is that it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.⁸ Clifford used the example of the shipowner and his neglect of ships recheck or the inhabitants of the island where a religious teacher failed to follow commonly accepted doctrines to explain his position. When people prefer to take everything for granted and avoid an opportunity to improve their knowledge by reading books or addressing different sources, they take sin against mankind.⁹ When a person has doubts about something, it is obligatory to work with available evidence and check all options to find out sufficient explanations and definitions. Beliefs do play a significant role in human life, but only if they are well-grounded and commonly proved.

In case of James, another definition of terms is given to prove that beliefs can be built in regard to human sentiments and emotions. If Clifford found it necessary to use real examples and situations, Jams based his discussion on the works of other writers, Cliffords included. For example, following Hume, James explained that things are the whole fabric of the truth, and people should not believe in all of them in case they are unseen.¹⁰ Another support was found in work by Pascal, who believed that Christianity had to be approved by reasoning resembled with the stakes of a game of chance.¹¹ It means that people are free to choose what to believe, following their personal interests or the nature of things. Still, James mentioned that human will could not influence human beliefs. For example, if a man truly likes to believe that his wife can survive in a car crash after getting serious injuries, he cannot make himself believe in positive outcomes. It turns out to be clear that the nature of injuries contradicts the possibility of survival, and the persons beliefs must include such evidence.

Therefore, it seems that Clifford had a definite position to use strong evidence and was not going to change it by any means. James relied on human passions and the possibility to use different sentiments to influence beliefs. At the same time, the task is not to understand how people must formulate their attitudes but to get a good guide on what should be done. In both cases, the authors failed to provide the reader with a chance to study how to search for evidence (Clifford) or how to choose between emotions (James). According to Clifford, our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by social purposes.¹² People use their properties to make decisions, improve their lives, and choose necessary directions. However, the weakness of the discussion is that no clear examples of how to differentiate good and bad things were given. Similar shortages are observed in Jamess article, who said that faith in a fact can help create the fact.¹³ The reader does not get a clear picture of how the already established faith was formed.

The worth of evidence is discussed in terms of agnosticism and pragmatism. Evidentialism is the choice made by Clifford, who wanted to make people avoid defining statements as true if they are not supported by good evidence. However, such a radical point of view questions the importance of religious beliefs because if Clifford was correct, then religious beliefs and faith in God is not only impossible but also wrong. His thoughts gave rise to agnosticism and the necessity to investigate previous decisions that were based on faith, including killing each other for religious benefits. Still, many aspects remain unclear in Cliffords work because the reader should know how to understand what evidence is sufficient, and Clifford did not give clear instructions. James, in his turn, approved the possibility of situations when sufficient evidence should be a determinant. He tried to prove the importance of knowing the truth and avoid errors, but these concepts should not be compatible.¹⁴ Being a pragmatic philosopher, James wanted to base faith on personal opinions and external motivators rather than evidence and facts. His major weakness is the absence of a major controller who possesses power.

In general, the offered readings help clarify the idea of faith in the modern world through evidence gathering and passion evaluation. Many people find it necessary to support the position developed by Clifford that evidence cannot be neglected in beliefs formulation. As soon as sufficient evidence is obtained, it is easy and lawful to make judgments and behave without being accused of something wrong. However, as well as any opinion, Cliffords one is characterized by certain shortages, including the lack of guidelines and criteria according to which evidence may be classified as wrong or right. James is the author of an opposite opinion to add the worth of sentiments to human actions. Although evidence plays a significant role, the supporters of James believe that sometimes passion cannot be ignored. Therefore, religion and faith in God can be approved only in Jamess discussion. Despite weakly organized examples, his essay makes sense and contributes to the philosophy of religion. The opposition between Clifford and James strengthens religious beliefs and the need for evidence in human life.

Bibliography

Clifford, William Kingdom. The Ethics of Belief. Contemporary Review 29 (1877): 289-309.

James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1896.

Footnotes

1. William Kingdom Clifford, The Ethics of Belief, Contemporary Review 29 (1877): 295.
2. William James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1896), 11.
3. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief, 289.
4. Clifford, 290.
5. James, The Will to Believe, 3.
6. James, 19.
7. James, 19.
8. Clifford, 295.
9. Clifford, 295.
10. James, 5.
11. James, 5.
12. Clifford, 202.
13. James, 25.
14. James, 17.

The thesis of Gettiers article Is Justified, True Belief Knowledge? is centralized around methods of substantiating knowledge. According to the author, knowing that something is true takes several dimensions.

A persons claim to knowledge depends on several factors including what the individual knows is true, his/her belief, and his/her right to be convinced. According to Ayer, these three factors form the basis of knowledge and its underlying definition.

On the other hand, Gettier argues that justified belief knowledge is false because it does not incorporate the element of sufficient truth. Consequently, justified belief knowledge cannot be used to ascertain that a particular person knows that a certain proposition is true.

In addition, the article reveals that the concepts of the right to be sure that and has adequate evidence for only work if the element of justified true belief is not introduced in an analysis. Gettiers argument in the article Is Justified, True Belief Knowledge? focuses on the premises of truth, justified knowledge, adequate knowledge, and the right to be sure about something.

According to Gettier, in order for someone to know certain information several conditions have to be met. The first important condition for knowing certain information is the truthfulness of the particular suggestion. For instance, for someone to know a proposition, believe in it, accept it, and be sure it is the truth, the information itself has to be true.

Gettier refutes the premise of justifiable true belief using the arguments of two other scholars; Chisholm and Ayer. According to Chisholm, a person has to accept a proposal and have adequate evidence to prove it in order for the aforementioned proposal to be true.

On the other hand, Ayer argues that any proposal is initially true. Consequently, a person becomes sure that the proposal is true, and he/she has the right to believe that it is so. According to Gettier, Ayer and Chisholms arguments are only true if the concept of justified true belief is not introduced into their assertions.

Gettiers main protest against justified true belief is the fact that a person can use it to believe falsehoods. This argument is valid because believing in a proposition chiefly depends on the truthfulness of a conviction. Consequently, believing a falsehood cannot be equated to knowing it.

For example, someone can belief that person X is honest because he/she is justified to believe this to be true. The persons conviction does not qualify to be termed as knowledge, because the persons justified belief does not amount to true knowledge. When the same person finds out that X is dishonest, the premise of justified true knowledge will subsequently be nullified.

Gettier uses parallel situations to access the premise of justified true belief. This method is quite effective because it enables Gettier to explore every possible outcome of a scenario that involves justified true belief. The author also offers a step-by-step analysis of what constitutes knowledge.

For example, the article contains two case-examples that pose hypothetical knowledge scenarios. In both scenarios, the author is able to prove that justifiable true belief does not provide substantial grounds for knowledge. Another argument that the author dwells upon although it is not given prominence involves changes in knowledge.

The article clearly proposes that propositions that are subject to future changes cannot be considered to be true. In retrospect, the authors argument against justified true belief is another way of proving that true knowledge does not change.

In Cliffords article The Ethics of Belief, the author argues that individuals beliefs are not private matters. The author illustrates this argument using a set of two stories that involve religious views and ship voyage into the sea. The author supports his argument based on the incidents that occur in the two stories.

The authors foundation of argument is that individuals beliefs can affect a large population in a negative way. The author, therefore, states that an individuals belief is not a private issue. However, this is not the case as various individuals have different beliefs and opinions. The belief of an individual, therefore, should be treated as a private matter.

The authors view on the issue of an individuals belief is correct to some extent. In certain instances, individuals beliefs may result in a great loss in a large population. This is evident in the story encompassing the ship owner. The ship owner disregarded beliefs of individuals who lacked confidence in the ship.

Eventually, he allowed the ship to carry people who ended up drowning in the sea. The authors decision, therefore, can be termed as positive move. However, the authors view can also be disregarded in the situation in which the ship would not have capsized. This implies that people should not emphasize on the beliefs of individuals because they can hinder the achievement of certain goals. In the story of the ship, had the ship not capsized, the owner would have achieved his aims. The incident, therefore, can be treated as a mere accident.

This is because the ship, in many occasions, had survived critical conditions in the sea. Furthermore, people have different potentials in life. In academics, for instance, many students consider mathematics as difficult. However, some students still manage to perform well in this subject. In cases where all people embrace the idea that mathematics is difficult, no student performs well in this subject. Individual belief, therefore, is a private matter. Besides, it does not have to be the right thing as the society would expect.

Individuals beliefs are founded on personal issues that do not relate to the interest of the public. In addition, the issue of considering individuals beliefs as not private can lead to discord and injustice. This is illustrated in Cliffords story that encompasses the islands dwellers.

The island dwellers were deceived that religion was disrupting order in their society. Those against religion claimed that it was inculcating negative attitude in their children. This saw the development and proliferation of negative influence among the people. This led to a rebellion against that religion.

Eventually, the allegations turned out not to be true. The religion in the island seemed to have enemies. In their bid to bring it down, the enemies decided to spread negative ideas in the area. In the end, they managed to put people against it through their beliefs. This led to discord and injustice to the region. It was later established that the claims were false. This illustrates that individuals beliefs are founded on personal interests. In addition, the interests of people are not similar.

In conclusion, Cliffords argument that individuals beliefs are not private is not justified. This is because the abilities and interests of individuals are different. Treating an individuals interest as a public matter, therefore, can result into negative effects.

William Cliffords famous essay The Ethics of Belief is aimed at showing that it is immoral to believe something without sufficient evidence because unjustified opinions can pose a significant threat to others.

In his work, the author demonstrates that in some cases, a persons conviction can imperil the lives of many people; therefore, one has to ensure his/her decisions are based on facts or reliable observations, rather than wishful thinking (Clifford unpaged). Overall, it is possible to develop an objection to William Cliffords argument. In particular, there are circumstances when people can derive evidence only when they act on some preliminary and often unsupported beliefs about something.

For example, researchers often try to substantiate a certain theory or conjecture, but their efforts are guided by the assumption that this conjecture can be true. Very often, peoples convictions and opinions lead to the discovery of data that can eventually establish the truth or falsity of these convictions. This paper is aimed at examining this objection to Cliffords essay in more detail. To a great extent, this critique relies on the ideas of William James who discusses the nature of faith in his lecture The Will to Believe.

First, it should be noted William Clifford formulates his argument in a very concise way; in particular, he says, it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence (Clifford unpaged). This is the main claim that he makes in his work.

In order to explain this viewpoint, Clifford describes a situation when a person can convince oneself that something is true without even trying to obtain any evidence (Clifford unpaged). One can remember the famous example of a ship-owner who convinces himself that his ship is safe and takes no effort to determine whether this assumption is true. As a result, he endangers the lives of the sailors (Clifford unpaged).

Certainly, it is possible to accept this example, because it shows that very often an individual can choose to believe that some proposition is true; moreover, he/she does not search for the facts that can verify this proposition. Clifford believes that this behavior is unethical because it can pose a threat to the wellbeing of other people. It seems that this idea should be kept in mind by every person who has to take important decisions.

Nevertheless, the central argument of Cliffords essay cannot be fully accepted. In some cases, people have act on a certain belief, and only in this way, they can gather empirical evidence substantiating this belief. For instance, in his lecture, William James mentions a chemist who conducts a series of experiments in order to demonstrate that a certain hypothesis is true (James unpaged). Additionally, medical workers have to test a drug on human subjects, even though that they cannot ensure that it is completely safe.

One can also refer to the empirical studies carried out by physicist who try to demonstrate the validity of their theories or models. In other words, the actions and decisions of these people are based on preliminary and unsupported beliefs. Nevertheless, there is nothing unethical in such behavior; moreover, in some cases, it can lead to scientific discovery. On the whole, such situations are familiar to people who study natural or social sciences.

In his lecture William James argues that researchers often have to act on insufficient evidence and only in this way they can make meaningful discoveries (James unpaged). This is one of the main issues one should bear in mind. William Cliffords implies that evidence should precede the beliefs or conviction of a person. However, the example provided by William James indicates that this process can be reversed. Therefore, the validity of Cliffords views can be questioned even by people who conduct empirical studies.

It should be noted that William Clifford might have responded to this objection in order to defend his arguments. In particular, he could have pointed out that many researchers can easily twist facts so that they could fit their theories. Moreover, they may deliberately disregard the evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

In other words, their studies can become biased, and the validity of their discoveries can be easily undermined. Such a possibility does exist and it creates significant problems for researchers; however, modern scientists take various safeguards to make sure that their research methods are objective and unbiased.

As it has been said before, unsubstantiated conjectures can guide the research efforts of many scientists. This is better for them to have at least unsupported beliefs, than no conjectures at all. Without them researchers may not be able to achieve any progress in their work. This is how one can justify the existence of opinions that are not sufficiently supported by empirical observations. It should be pointed out that very often one cannot gain sufficient evidence.

For example, in mathematics, a statement cannot be called true, even when it is supported by thousands of observations or empirical tests. Therefore, the main task is to find a proof showing that a theorem or conjecture is true in every possible case. This is why mathematician may spend many years in order to prove theorems or conjectures. So, William Cliffords emphasis on sufficient evidence may not always be justified because it may be difficult to determine when the evidence is sufficient or not.

Secondly, peoples relations with one another are often based on beliefs without sufficient evidence. These beliefs become substantiated only in the course of their day-to-day interactions and experiences. In this case special attention should be paid to the concept of trust or reliance on someone elses good intentions, expertise, friendship, or loyalty. It implies that people may have confidence in something without having substantial evidence.

For example, people can put trust in the competence of medical workers, even knowing that sometimes they can commit errors. Similarly, a person has to rely on the loyalty and integrity of his/her friends, colleagues, or relatives. It is difficult to find something unethical in these actions, in part because they are often inevitable. Very often, these decisions can be based on intuition or impressions produced by other people.

These intuitive opinions may turn to be true or false in the future, but very often people can determine it only through action. So, William Cliffords approach to beliefs may not be applicable to daily lives of many people whose decisions are based on intuition, rather than empirical data.

Admittedly, one can argue that such behavior can lead to very adverse effects, especially in those cases, when their trust is abused by others. Nevertheless, one cannot say that people always act unethically when they rely on their intuition. Overall, these examples indicate that people can act on unsubstantiated belief and sometimes they can find evidence that support or refute their convictions only in this way. So, this examples show the limitations of Cliffords ideas.

Certainly, one cannot entirely overlook his argument because he warns people about the dangers of unsupported beliefs and their effects on people. Moreover, his essay clearly highlights the need to search for empirical evidence or at least some confirmation of a persons opinions.

Nevertheless, he does not take into the possibility that evidence cannot be obtained unless a person acts on certain beliefs or assumptions. In some cases, an individual may have no other options. This is the problem that William Clifford does not address in his essay.

Overall, the nature of belief continues to attract the attention of many philosophers, scientists, and epistemologists who want to. One of the main issues is the need to prove ones convictions by providing logical or empirical evidence.

In his work, William Clifford attempts to demonstrate that it is unethical to have beliefs that rely on insufficient evidence. However, this argument extends only to those situations when people refuse to search for data that can support their conviction and prefer wishful thinking. Such conduct can indeed be criticized from an ethical perspective.

However, very often people have to act on the beliefs that are not fully supported by empirical observations, and only in this way, they can discover the necessary evidence. This is one of the main points that one can make in response to William Cliffords essay The Ethics of Belief. Still, despite these limitations, the work of this philosopher should be considered by modern scholars.

Works Cited

Clifford, William. The Ethics of Belief. 2008. Web.

James, William. The Will to Believe. 2001. Web.

Faith, according to the readings of Clifford and James is a strong belief inscribed in the mind of an individual that that what they think is right. They may be no prior evidence about the same yet the individual beliefs in their feeling. Different situations may lead to such a confidence, most of which are based on past events. Humans have a tendency of developing an attitude towards a situation or an event within their first encounters. It is therefore difficult to prove such an individual otherwise considering their first experiences. Faith may also be birthed and changed by the long-term experiences of an individual (James, 9). This basically means that the human mind is bound to change if continuous experience dictates so. This may however differ from one perspective to another. What may be seen as truth and right about one individual may be the opposite of another individual. This can hence never be a basis of dictating what is right or wrong to a bigger group of people. Every individual has a right to believe that what they prophase and do, is right even if it is viewed differently by another individual.

According to the readings, faith is a voluntary decision that can not be imposed on a person by the other. Even though different beliefs have impacts on their followers, it has not hindered men from developing their own theories. Everyone is looking out for something that will satisfy their understanding and once they get it, it becomes difficult to change their minds on the same. According to the philosophers there is basically no reliable evidence of the beliefs that are adopted by individuals. The tendency of one to trust what the other party is saying is based on their professionalism. For a person to be taken seriously and positively, then what they say should be a clear reflection of their skills and knowledge. This therefore means, however true something maybe, it will not be trusted if it is contrary to their skills and profession. This is the kind of attitude that men have developed towards each other. The desire for people to find facts has made them venture into different fields that tend to satisfy them. Such fields include science, culture and religion.

A weakness that has been displayed in the readings of Clifford and James is that there is no evidence of the beliefs that people prophase. For a person to hold on to a certain ideology especially for a considerable time, then they have some benefits which came through experience. For instance, there is basically nobody who can believe that death is bad unless they have had an experience of the same (Clifford, 6). There is practical evidence that people experience in their walks of life that makes them hold on to a certain belief. Nobody may be able to understand the essence of another persons belief unless they have had prior experience of the same. Scientists believe in science because they have practiced it for quite some time and have seen truth in it. The same also relates to Christianity and other religions. These are totally different categories of people that cannot understand each other due to unique experiences that they have. Faith is hence a matter of the heart rather than perception. All this is also developed through interest that has to do with ones background. This is the reason why most people tend to hold on to the practices of their forefathers rather than what they may see or experience.

Works cited

Clifford, K. William. The ethics of belief, New York: Chadwyck-Healey Ltd., 1998.

James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, New York: Cosimo, Inc., 2006.

There are two types of faith, these are: having trust in someone and acknowledging something to be true. Faith is the ability to trust someone or something without having sufficient reasons as to why you trust that someone or something. Further faith is acknowledging that something is true without having reasons as to why that thing is true. Lack of reasons does not infer the inability of thinking. Faith does not grow or rest upon reasons.

As stated above, there are two types of faith. These are: trust in someone and acknowledging truth without valid reasons.

1. The first type of faith (trust) is expressed in the continuity of the nation which one is born in and he is a member. It is believed that God has covenanted with the nation. The community which he is born in practices a certain faith and he automatically becomes part of the members practicing this type of faith. An illustration of this is the early period of Israel. The faith which the community of Israelis practiced resulted into the faith of the nation. This means that being born in the early Israeli nation or community automatically makes a person of that faith.
2. The second type of faith (acknowledging something to be true) is expressed by conversion of faith.A human being has to acknowledge certain beliefs to be true. An example of this type of faith is the period of early Christianity. The ancient Israelis who believed in the death and resurrection of the great son (Jesus) got salvation. As a result they were converted. Conversion only occurred if they believed that the great son died and was resurrected.

There are various philosophical issues that arise from Bubers writings. These are: trust in someone (as a type of faith) can be looked at in another way as affective faith: acknowledgement of truth can be looked at as cognitive faith.

Affective faith is emotional and personal. This type of faith gives assurance of peace and tranquility, that there is a provider for everything. This form of trust can be expressed by action. That is, willing fully being ready to do anything for the person you have trust in. As seen in our society todays society, extremists of a certain faith usually go out of their way to express this form of faith. For instance Jihad war by the Muslim faith.

Trust in someone (type of faith) connotes dependency on some Supreme Being. This type of faith is that of a relationship with the person you believe in.

Cognitive faith is the affirmation of truth, that certain propositions about God are true. Reasons for the affirmation are irrelevant. One can perhaps say intellectual acceptance of truth. For example belief in justice is an affirmation that justice actually exists. As asserted by one author, some forms of belief-in can be reduced to belief-that. Belief in fairies, for instance, is just another way of affirming that fairies exist; no relationship of trust is implied in such. (Price, p1-27) In this form of faith there is no assurance of any form of tranquility or peace. It is basically a belief that certain type of information are true.

Finally another philosophical issue that arises is that of reasons. Having trust in someone or acknowledging the truth of certain information does not require reasons. Lack of reasons does not imply inability to think. This is because faith does not emanate from reasons.

Works Cited

Price. Habberley Belief-In and Belief-That. Religious Studies, Vol. I, No. 1 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Print.

One of the oldest and most influential beliefs in human history and in the creation at large has been the belief concerning the origin of life and universe and the different theories that tried to give an explanation to the origin of life and the universe.

With the efforts to try and find solutions to one of the greatest mysteries, the ancient societies tried to come up with different suggestions that became a foundation for the creation of religion and religious beliefs, since most of the mysteries could not be easily explained and hence the human race hose to believe that there must have been an existence of a different and more powerful being that was involved in the creation and the presence of life and the universe.

From the different scholars who have laid their views on the trends that have been taking place concerning religion and the beliefs, there are a lot of issues that may be noted, especially the fact that there have been a lot of changes in the beliefs, a factor that has led to a separation in humanity resulting to two different groups in the line of religious beliefs.

One of the groups has chosen to allow change take its effect by arousing a lot of doubt in them towards religion. The other group, however, chose to stand for their religious believes irrespective of the changes around them.

For example, Freud totally opposed religion stating that it is just a form of mental and psychological delusion and that there is actually no proper basis for religious beliefs. He argues that humans are not willing to go an extra mile to explain their world so they have come up with different beliefs to try and stop them from going through the pain of the explanations and hence rely on religious beliefs that are quite baseless and unfounded.

However, he tends to believe that there is a lot of evidence to support the facts that oppose religion since there are a lot of inventions and discoveries that have been made to explain the world as it is rather than relying on beliefs. He is hence one of the main proponents of the doubt against religion and the integration of the modern mind into life (Freud 17-45).

In the same way, Russell argues that religion is founded on myths rather than on facts and that there is no need to stand so strongly for what you cannot prove. Most of the arguments in the religious beliefs concerning explanations relating to the world and life are actually baseless and seem to be just a way of escapism from the reality and from trying to explain better the issues being considered.

Therefore, traditional beliefs are viewed as being outdated and irrelevant in the modern life. Therefore, there is a need to embrace modernity and facts that have been proven beyond doubt by scientific and technological inventions.

Russell is hence a great proponent of the embracing of the modern mind that is totally opposed to the traditional ways and beliefs in religion to explain life and the world. He hence believes that the worlds may be able to run better and with more organization and coordination if all the traditional ways were evaded and new ways were adopted. The new methods would more specific and reliable as they would include scientific and technological facts that have been tested and approved (Russell 36-103).

Similarly, another strong opponent of religion is Nietzsche who believes that religion is just a baseless platform that is only enjoyed by the weak and those of little understanding. This scholar argues that the only people who stick with old and outdated beliefs are those who have somehow lost and are relatively disadvantaged in the society and hence they try to use religion as a way of escape from the reality.

However, there is a need for people to seek more knowledge and understanding of different aspects of life so as to be able to embrace life and all its occurrences in a more positive and clear manner. There is therefore no need to keep on with beliefs that have no foundation but rather there is a need to go for more elaborate and clear facts that have found proof in the modern world (Henderson 61-121).

On the other side, there are many scholars who have experienced the effects of modernity in different ways and have acted under different designations in the world and yet they have given religion a consideration in their lives. Malcolm, for example embraces religion and state that it should be given its due place in life irrespective of all the changes and inventions that have been made in the world.

Religion is actually a part of the society and humanity and not necessarily a theoretical approach to try and explain the world. He also states that religion is a fundamental part of humanity and that not only are human beings social beings but also spiritual beings and hence there is a need for them to believe in a supernatural, spiritual being that is in control of the universe and life and hence to be able to be fulfilled socially (Malcolm 1).

In a similar manner, Joyce argues that life is more baseless without religion and that religion has a very relevant and fundamental place in the society. Modernization cannot be used as a scapegoat from religion. Scientific inventions and technology has a limit beyond which it cannot be able to explain the world and life and hence the facts indicated in religion as being the ultimate explanations to the universe still stand.

Therefore, there is a need for the society to embrace religious beliefs and still maintain a place for religion even as it embraces modern life and the modern mind. Actually, there is no need to avoid implicating the whole issue on religion since there is no good reason for there to be any doubt concerning religion. Therefore, modernity is actually supposed to compliment religion rather than supplementing it (Joyce 45-83).

Also, according to Lewis, religion is inevitable since life is full of conflicts between the good and the evil and that only by embracing religion can a society be able to live with soberness and order. Without religion, there would be chaos and a lot of disorderliness and life would be without meaning (Lewis 24-59).

In the same way, Luther portrays a lot of religious belief in the aspects of his livelihood and his faith. He is a very influential and popular leader yet he gives religion its rightful place irrespective of the occurrences and happenings around him especially due to scientific and technological inventions. He believes that these factors should be integrated with religion so as to have a fulfilled life (Luther 1).

In general, even with the many scientific inventions and the technological advancements, there is a need for there to be a consideration of the basic factors in life, of which religion is one. Religion has stood the test of time and irrespective of the changes in life and in the world, there is a need to give it a place in the society so as to have order, soberness and even factors that unite and identify the society.

With these factors in place, the society is bound to be united as one and to progress even as the world progresses. Without this factor of belief, there will be a lot of advancements in the world but unfortunately the society will crumble and disintegrate under these very same forces of change.

I have observed that though there have hence been a lot of changes in the society which have resulted to a lot of doubts and uncertainties on beliefs and left many confused on the issue of religion and the associated beliefs leading many to seek to apply the scientific knowledge and facts in explaining life rather than sticking with what they see as traditional and outdated, other have stuck with religion and opted to integrate modernization with their beliefs.

In the same way, I propose that for the sake of the unity of the society, there should be a way of integrating religion with modernity so as to allow a multifaceted progress and development.

Works Cited

Freud, Sigmund. The Question of a Weltanschauung, 17-45. New York: ACM, 1932. Print.

Henderson, Bobby. Open Letter to Kansas School Board, 61-121. London: John Willey & Sons, 2005. Print.

Joyce, James. Araby, 45-83. London: John Willey & Sons, 1914. Print.

Lewis, C.s. The Screwtape Letters, 24-59. London: Prentice-Hall, 1941. Print.

Luther, Martin. Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963). Web.

Malcolm, X. Letter From Mecca (1964). Web.

Russell, Bertrand. Why I am Not a Christian, 36-103. Thousand Oaks: Saga Publications, 1957. Print.

Introduction

The book provides an insight on religious experience and examines arguments for the existence of God. Chapter 4 provides possible views of the relationship between faith and reason. It states that faith itself can be strengthened and natural and that doubt and questioning are the antitheses of faith and bitter enemies of religious life (Peterson et al 1). However, it is not easy to separate faith from reason. All religions make use of reason and, at the same time, sanction its use. Therefore, it leads to an understanding of the role of reason in the validation of religious beliefs. A satisfactory answer is considering strong rationalism for a belief system to be accepted. Indeed, rationalism means reliance on reason or intelligence. Therefore, it is necessary to consider if strong rationalism can be practical.

Body

The problem with strong rationalism is the assumption that reason exists in a man as a neutral faculty. Thus, it can be used to prove things to all people regardless of their individual views. The chapter also touches on fideism, which is a view that posits that religious belief systems are not subject to rational evaluation. Fideists believe that the most fundamental assumption is obtainable in the religious belief system itself. In addition, true Fideists have no problem with a lack of proof but rather they reveal it. It is necessary to make a conclusion that fideism and rationalism are strongly mistaken; hence, it is essential to analyze and evaluate religious belief systems in contrast with string rationalists. Thus, we should accept critical rationalism on the view that religious belief can be evaluated through conclusive proof. According to the author, like strong rationalism, critical rationalism tells us that rational capabilities are largely possible. Critical rationalism emerges automatically by rejecting both strong rationalism and fideism. The most fundamental approach considered is critical rationalism due to a good deal of emphasis placed on the open-ended nature of critical reflection advocated by it. Thus, according to the authors, those who judge the faith by objective and critical reflection would always remain that way. Therefore, religious faith is more of trust to an individual than mere acceptance of a scientific discovery. Therefore, a possible question that I may develop is whether acting irrationally may have negative implications for an individuals faith (Peterson et al 13).

Chapter 5 of the book discusses the divine attributes of God. It states that God is a being, and He exists in the inner reality of all things (Peterson et al 16). The chapter reveals that God is imperceptible to the senses of a man, and unconditionally pervades all the reality known to man. In addition, the chapter focuses on the existence of God commonly regarded as traditional theism. This reading provides a conception of the nature of God, that is the nature of a supernatural being, and the conception of His nature. In the development of the conception of God, the chapter introduces the reader to the existence of God as an object of worship. This is the primary religious importance of God. However, it results in the understanding of what must be considered true of God in order to make unreserved devotions appropriate. God is considered to be the greatest of all things; therefore, He must be entitled to some honor and obedience due to His superiority. In addition, God is perceived as a perfect being, and cannot be equated with anything. Depending on Gods perfection, and His attributes of love and sympathy, He is capable of being subjected to suffering together with His creatures. In addition, a further consideration of God is that He represents an actual being that should meet the requirements of logical consistency.

Conclusion

However, a man can be quite ingenious by imagining that God is a marvelous character and logically inconsistent. According to the views of traditional theists, we have to consider the self-existence of God. A man depends on both self-existence and the other external influences that may have an impact on their existence. Therefore, it is challenging to reconcile the concept of God with evil and suffering. Hence, this leads me to ask whether God can subject His creatures to suffering.

Work Cited

Peterson, Michael, Hasker William, Reichenbach Bruce, and Basinger, David. Reason and Religious Belief: An introduction to the philosophy of religion. London. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Human life is the most challenging in nature despite the presence of technology and modern skills to help people solve their problems. Human beings need to think and act after making wise decisions. For that reason, peoples ability to think, believe, and make rational decisions outweighs all other aspects of animals like physical strength and lethal poisons. However, debate continues to rage between science and religion despite the countless evidence to prove opponents wrong. One of the recent arguments is based on William Kingdon Clifford and his views on the suitability of belief based on evidence.

Clifford points out one controversial issue that human beings should not base their beliefs and faith on things that do not have evidence. However, this argument is, without doubt, one of the endless debates that will continue to dominate learning institutions and scholars organizations. It is evident that human beings base more than half their lives on hope and faith. For instance, when people leave their offices in the evening they are sure to get home safe and meet their family members. They dine and go to bed expecting to wake up early and prepare for the following days duties. However, none of these people has evidence that the following day they will be okay. Therefore, they base their hopes on the belief that all will be well with them, and they will wake up to continue with their daily activities.

Secondly, science and technology have led to the production of drugs meant to cure diseases all over the world. When people fall sick and go to healthcare facilities they hope to get well after treatment. Even though doctors efforts and drugs may be evidence that patients will recover, this depends on various issues. Some patients die as a result of common ailments that have vaccines and drugs to cure them. Therefore, it surprises that even though there is evidence to prove that these drugs have prevented and cured the disease. No one can explain why people die yet they get quality treatment and healthcare services.

Moreover, science is based on research and evidence as crucial ways of understanding phenomena and not belief in the existence of super natural powers. However, the same researchers and laboratories produce conflicting results with regard to an occurrence. Scientists have varying approaches to events and even if they use same research methods they are bound to come up with different answers. One basic factor that evidence based beliefs fail to uncover is the origin of human beings. Even though, scientists have sufficient evidence to prove the origin of human beings it is surprising how they fail to uncover the origin of life on earth. Therefore, scientific and common knowledge is suspicious and thus unreliable to offer solutions or foretell events.

In addition, belief is based on personal assumptions with regard to past experiences or future expectations. Clifford argues that people must have evidence before believing in anything. However, it is evident that some people will believe his arguments by simply reading what he wrote or listening to people talking about his arguments. They will have no evidence to support Cliffords arguments, but by believing in his arguments, they develop their personal opinions towards various aspects in the society.

One of the illustrations Clifford offers to dispute belief without evidence is The Sailors events. He argues that the sailor put the life of his crew in danger by navigating the waters without confidence that his ship will make it to the other end. Contrary to his arguments life is full of accidents and incidences that change the sequence of events. Sometimes motorists take their vehicles to garages and ensure they are tested and approved as roadworthy. However, along the way a motorist can hit a pedestrian or drive into a ditch due to poor visibility. Therefore, faith plays crucial roles in promoting a belief that nothing terrible will happen along the way. As a result, people do all they can to make sure their lives are safe but at the same time base their belief on their instincts that all will be well.

Clifford has strong convictions that human beings must have sufficient evidence before believing in anything. However, there are occasions where emergencies occur; therefore, this does not give them time to reason on what they should do next. Even though, people secure their homesteads against burglars and fit alarms, keep dogs and recruit qualified guards they still keep other weapons like short guns in their drawers. This means that even though they have physical assurance that their homes are safe their emotions and psychologies betray them. There is no need of keeping a short gun in the house if anyone believes they have adequate security against robbers and burglars.

Cliffords arguments are without doubt based on few isolated cases of human lives. However, human beliefs play vital roles in determining their future lives. People cannot afford to live happily if they do not have faith and belief in various events.

The question of peoples beliefs can be discussed from many perspectives. The issue of Gods existence is closely associated with the problem of believing in God when there is no sufficient evidence. From this point, William Clifford and William Jamess arguments are significant to be discussed in the philosophical and religious contexts.

Clifford and James present rather opposite visions of the issue of believing in something in relation to the question of real evidence. In spite of the fact, objecting the position of Clifford, the person can support Jamess views, and objecting the position of James, the person can discuss Cliffords ideas as relevant, it is possible to provide the critical discussion of both arguments with references to their strengths and weaknesses.

Although the basic ideas which are expressed by Clifford and James in their works are opposite to each other, the authors concentrate on the notion of rationalism and the role of mind in making the decisions regarding the issues of belief even in the religious context.

That is why, both authors can be considered as paying too much attention to the rational factor when the problem of beliefs should be discussed from the point of spiritual aspect and trust rather than from the point of mind.

In his essay The Ethics of Belief, William Clifford states that it is impossible to believe in something when there is no sufficient evidence to support the possibility of the fact. According to Clifford, the evidence is necessary for supporting the credibility of each fact. That is why, all the hypotheses should be tested before people can believe in them as true. It is impossible to rely only on the belief itself.

Thus, the investigation is the important factor to prevent the person from sufferings when the facts in which he believes are declared as insufficient. Any unjustified beliefs can be harmful, and these beliefs should be tested. However, when the definite belief was tested by another person it is possible to rely on the received evidence.

William James presents the opposite argument to the ideas expressed by Clifford and accentuates the possibility to believe without the evidence presented. On the one hand, James rejects the idea of the intellectual approach to discussing the problem of believing and claims that it is necessary to rely on the non-intellectual or passional nature.

On the other hand, James provides some details to support the vision that the religious belief in the form of faith can be also discussed as rather rational in its nature in spite of the fact there is no supporting evidence for it.

Thus, the idea of belief is based on the definite genuine option which should be living, forced, and momentous to provide the person with the effective choice between the extremes when it is possible to believe or not in something.

The option is a kind of decision or choice, making by the person regarding the issue of belief. According to James, there are no strict rules for believing in something as it is presented by Clifford who rejects the possibility to believe without evidence.

James states that people can choose in relation to the genuine option or wait for the situation when the truth of the definite belief is approved with some evidence. Although James can be considered as more flexible in his discussion of the conditions for believing or not, he presents the fact of believing as closely connected with the intellectual or rational processes.

In spite of the fact Clifford and James accentuate the rational factor regarding the question of belief in different ways, the moral aspect and the concept of heart in believing remains to be unappreciated. Thus, Clifford pays much attention to the issue of evidence when James concentrates on the choice between the possibilities to believe or not without any evidence.

Cliffords argument is based on two rational principles which are the investigation to find the necessary evidence and judgment to discuss the credibility of the evidence. From this point, the fact of evidence becomes more important than the fact of belief itself.

It is possible to state that Clifford is inclined to substitute the fact of believing in something with the fact of judging something according to the evidence. Moreover, Cliffords ideas in relation to the necessity of evidence can be interpreted to discuss the problem of believing in God. Thus, when there is no evidence to support the fact that God exists, the person cannot believe in God.

Nevertheless, there are no enough evidences that God exists, and there are no enough evidences to repute the statement. According to the Christian tradition, people believe in God basing predominately on their intuition and inner feelings, but not because of some evidence.

In this case, the evidence can be discussed as the supporting element for beliefs, but not as the basic one. Cliffords intentions to avoid some errors while believing in something untrue make the idea of belief more rational in nature than it is traditionally discussed in the religious context.

In his turn, James pays much attention to the fact that it is permissible to believe in something without reference to the evidence. However, he also emphasizes that such beliefs are permissible not only from the moral point but also from the rational perspective. Accentuating the idea of the option as the main choice making by the person, James focuses on the intellectual approach to resolving the moral problem.

Making the choice with references to the living, forced, and momentous options, the person concentrates on his rational arguments but not on the voice of his heart which is significant in relation to the issue of believing in something. James discusses the possibility to believe in God in spite of the wrong or write choices and in spite of the evidence, but the question of the religious faith is also presented as rational to a certain extent.

To conclude, believing in something, people are inclined to rely on their intuition and vision of the fact, idea, or concept. Clifford states that the beliefs which are not supported by the evidences can be harmful for people. James states that people have the right to believe without testing the hypotheses and ideas to rely on them.

However, both authors focus on the rational category in relation to the discussion of beliefs rather than on the moral or spiritual aspect. That is why, beliefs are perceived as the peoples visions associated more with the rational sphere than with the persons spiritual world. From this point, Clifford and Jamess arguments are rather controversial to explain the nature of the belief in God in spite of the issue of evidence.