There are two opposing sides to the argument of faith and the existence of God, evidentialism and non-evidentialism. Evidentialism is believing that it immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation. Non-evidentialism allows for more personal evidence to justify one’s belief. When contrasting the two views my personally beliefs align more with non-evidentialism.
British Philosopher and evidentialist, W. K. Clifford, wrote, “The Ethic of Beliefs”. An essay in which he argues there is an ethic to belief that makes it is wrong for anyone to believe without sufficient evidence (498). That faith without evidence weakens us, robbing …show more content…
(Wager 497) We may not have physical proof of his existence but that is not a risk I am willing to take. If you were gambling would you place your money on black or red with only half a chance to win, or black and black, in which case you cannot possibly loose?
There are two opposing sides to the argument of faith and the existence of God, evidentialism and non-evidentialism. Evidentialism is believing that it immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation. Non-evidentialism allows for more personal evidence to justify one’s belief. When contrasting the two views my personally beliefs align more with non-evidentialism.
Contrasting both evidentialism and non-evidentialism only further affirms my aggreeance with the non-evidentialism. My beliefs are that of my own accord and personal experience in life and in the spiritual form. They are very intimate and no one has the authority to object to them and no one is required to agree with them. There may not be adequate physical efference to scientifically support the existence of a God, but I personally am not willing to gamble my eternity on a 50/50 wager when I can have a guaranteed
British Philosopher and evidentialist, W. K. Clifford, wrote, “The Ethic of Beliefs”. An essay in which he argues there is an ethic to belief that makes it is wrong for anyone to believe without sufficient evidence (498). That faith without evidence weakens us, robbing …show more content…
(Wager 497) We may not have physical proof of his existence but that is not a risk I am willing to take. If you were gambling would you place your money on black or red with only half a chance to win, or black and black, in which case you cannot possibly loose?
There are two opposing sides to the argument of faith and the existence of God, evidentialism and non-evidentialism. Evidentialism is believing that it immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation. Non-evidentialism allows for more personal evidence to justify one’s belief. When contrasting the two views my personally beliefs align more with non-evidentialism.
Contrasting both evidentialism and non-evidentialism only further affirms my aggreeance with the non-evidentialism. My beliefs are that of my own accord and personal experience in life and in the spiritual form. They are very intimate and no one has the authority to object to them and no one is required to agree with them. There may not be adequate physical efference to scientifically support the existence of a God, but I personally am not willing to gamble my eternity on a 50/50 wager when I can have a guaranteed