Clifford states that it is always wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence. This quotation helps to demonstrate the view that justifies belief depending upon having good reasons or evidence. His firm belief in evidentialism, which means without certainty and a solid basis of evidence and knowledge of a situation you, should never put fully believe it. Meanwhile reformed epistemology states that you can rationalize the belief of god based upon given evidence. Reformed epistemology use of both faith and minimal evidence to justify their beliefs is not reasonable. Thus I lean more towards believing in Clifford’s rationalization that we should never fully believe something until we have sufficient evidence. The idea of Epistemology
…show more content…
While reformed epistemology is essentially your personal evidence to justify your belief. Evidentialism makes more sense in a scientific approach choosing to only believe in things that can be proven to be true through the use of appropriate evidence. Such as Clifford’s analogy of the ship owner and his crew which die due to his blind faith, instead of finding evidence to prove his ship is truly sea worthy. Reformed epistemology uses minimal evidence and faith to rationalize beliefs, leads to situations such as the great pumpkin. Where given very little evidence but extreme faith that the pumpkin king does exist is the same rationale they would use to justify their belief in god. The Evidentialism point of view appeals more to my sense of beliefs because I find it necessary to have substantial evidence in order to believe something. Furthermore I agree to the point that ones private belief can indeed harm someone in situations like the ship owners people own beliefs lead to the harm of others. Reformed Epistemology has an unwavering confidence in their beliefs that even when provided evidence that they are wrong they still chose to believe. Plantiga pointed out evidentialism inconsistency but that is due the restructuring of their beliefs based upon the new evidence gained. Evidentialism beliefs are malleable and flexible and change based upon the evidence given it disproves or reassure what they already know. Therefore showing how evidentialism depicts a working system that is open to new ideas based upon
While reformed epistemology is essentially your personal evidence to justify your belief. Evidentialism makes more sense in a scientific approach choosing to only believe in things that can be proven to be true through the use of appropriate evidence. Such as Clifford’s analogy of the ship owner and his crew which die due to his blind faith, instead of finding evidence to prove his ship is truly sea worthy. Reformed epistemology uses minimal evidence and faith to rationalize beliefs, leads to situations such as the great pumpkin. Where given very little evidence but extreme faith that the pumpkin king does exist is the same rationale they would use to justify their belief in god. The Evidentialism point of view appeals more to my sense of beliefs because I find it necessary to have substantial evidence in order to believe something. Furthermore I agree to the point that ones private belief can indeed harm someone in situations like the ship owners people own beliefs lead to the harm of others. Reformed Epistemology has an unwavering confidence in their beliefs that even when provided evidence that they are wrong they still chose to believe. Plantiga pointed out evidentialism inconsistency but that is due the restructuring of their beliefs based upon the new evidence gained. Evidentialism beliefs are malleable and flexible and change based upon the evidence given it disproves or reassure what they already know. Therefore showing how evidentialism depicts a working system that is open to new ideas based upon