Comparing James And Clifford's Principle

Two philosophers by the name of William James – supporter of religious belief without sufficient evidence – and Richard Feldman – a supporter of Clifford’s Principle – argue their side in separate essays on what to think about beliefs. James denies that one must always use sufficient evidence and insist on using a set of rules called “hypotheses”. When all three hypotheses are used at once, then it leads to the final answer known as a “genuine” option. Feldman disagrees with James and uses Clifford’s Principle, which conveys that believing in something that was derived from insufficient evidence is always wrong, no matter what the case is. Both are philosophers with opposing ideas and stances upon the subject of belief, so who does one believe? One must use the evidence in this case to fix ones thought. Examining the three hypotheses – be live, be forced, be momentous – that create a genuine belief and the opposing thought of using sufficient evidence may lead one to the final answer. Is using this evidence putting Clifford’s Principle into play? Or is the thought of rational …show more content…
Feldman believes that James is not rational thinking with using the genuine choice. Feldman is a strong advocate of the Clifford Principle, do not believe anything off of insufficient evidence. There must be rational evidence presented to a person in order for them to form a belief, and he believes that religion – what James believes is justifiable – does not provide sufficient evidence; therefore, he does not advocate the belief of any religion. Feldman does not believe that one can intellectually decide on a belief if it is counterbalanced. He believes that a person must find the sufficient evidence or be skeptical and believe what is rational. If one part of the evidence fails to justify a belief, then that belief must be dropped and that person must advance to further