PHI 1500
Nikkei Lynch
Monday 15th December 2014
The Right to Believe
Philosophy of religion is a branch of religion that deal with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, and the examination of religious experiences, texts and vocabulary/ In most cases, philosophers of religion either agree or disagree with their views on certain topics relation to religion, that it, they may interpret and analyze subjects differently. The aim of this paper is to pose a discussion on the topic of “evidentialism,” as analyzed by William James and Alvin Plantinga. Firstly, I will look at the argument put forth by William James in his article, “The Will to Believe”, then proceed to describe the problem of “evidentialism” as seen …show more content…
Evidentialists are so focused on their requirement to be motivated by the fear of being wrong that they do not look at a set of evidence to see which motivation is more reasonable. He (James) says that the choice between these two reasons is entirely based on the individual’s passions and beliefs. For example, with the example of the existence of God, as seen by above, an evidentialist will continuously ask for evidence for one’s reasoning in accepting this belief whilst an individual who is looking for hopes would accept the existence of God because of the good things promised, even though there is a lack of evidence. James says that such a person (looking for hope) has a right to believe in the existence of God just as much as the evidentialist has the right not to believe in God. He says this because the decision to either believe or not believe is not entirely based on evidence alone, but other factors as …show more content…
Plantinga argues that the problem with this criterion is that it is very restricted. He says it ignores beliefs that re accepted by most people in the world. Another problem Plantinga argues is that the same criterion has self-problems. The foundationalism criteria is not self-evident, incorrigible or “evident to the senses”. Hence it cannot be properly basic and it should therefore have evidence for it. But there is no evidence, this shows that the criterion is in itself faulty and is in need of review. If such an argument exists without evidence, then the belief in of God can exist without evidence. This is one of the bases in which Plantinga answers the question.
Secondly, Plantinga states that with justification, it is true that a lot of beliefs, including theistic ones can be properly basic. According to him, justification happens when someone does not break his or her epistemic rights. For example, a child may believe in Christianity because this was how the child was raised by his or her parents and this belief will be in her rights. The child is justified that such a belief in God exists because of individuals around him or her believe in it as well, and this is enough proof that such a belief
Nikkei Lynch
Monday 15th December 2014
The Right to Believe
Philosophy of religion is a branch of religion that deal with questions regarding religion, including the nature and existence of God, and the examination of religious experiences, texts and vocabulary/ In most cases, philosophers of religion either agree or disagree with their views on certain topics relation to religion, that it, they may interpret and analyze subjects differently. The aim of this paper is to pose a discussion on the topic of “evidentialism,” as analyzed by William James and Alvin Plantinga. Firstly, I will look at the argument put forth by William James in his article, “The Will to Believe”, then proceed to describe the problem of “evidentialism” as seen …show more content…
Evidentialists are so focused on their requirement to be motivated by the fear of being wrong that they do not look at a set of evidence to see which motivation is more reasonable. He (James) says that the choice between these two reasons is entirely based on the individual’s passions and beliefs. For example, with the example of the existence of God, as seen by above, an evidentialist will continuously ask for evidence for one’s reasoning in accepting this belief whilst an individual who is looking for hopes would accept the existence of God because of the good things promised, even though there is a lack of evidence. James says that such a person (looking for hope) has a right to believe in the existence of God just as much as the evidentialist has the right not to believe in God. He says this because the decision to either believe or not believe is not entirely based on evidence alone, but other factors as …show more content…
Plantinga argues that the problem with this criterion is that it is very restricted. He says it ignores beliefs that re accepted by most people in the world. Another problem Plantinga argues is that the same criterion has self-problems. The foundationalism criteria is not self-evident, incorrigible or “evident to the senses”. Hence it cannot be properly basic and it should therefore have evidence for it. But there is no evidence, this shows that the criterion is in itself faulty and is in need of review. If such an argument exists without evidence, then the belief in of God can exist without evidence. This is one of the bases in which Plantinga answers the question.
Secondly, Plantinga states that with justification, it is true that a lot of beliefs, including theistic ones can be properly basic. According to him, justification happens when someone does not break his or her epistemic rights. For example, a child may believe in Christianity because this was how the child was raised by his or her parents and this belief will be in her rights. The child is justified that such a belief in God exists because of individuals around him or her believe in it as well, and this is enough proof that such a belief