For some, the topic of religion is one they push aside and ignore, and for others it causes heated debates. In this essay I will argue that though both religious believers and non-religious believers when faced with the same evidence find different conclusions, it is still rational to continue believing what you have been. There are different positions that one can hold in there belief system and why they believe what they do. There is a movement that has people “believing only if their belief is self-evident” even though this movement contradicts itself. Trust is a big part of our faith and thus a big part in believing that what we believe is rational. As well, when we ground ourselves in something that supports what we believe then our rationality
…show more content…
The authors talk about three different positions that are held. The first one is “strong rationalism.” Strong rationalism is when you only believe something because there is proof for the belief to be real. The second is “fideism,” this is when a person believes what they believe even if there is no evidence. The final position is “critical rationalism” which is when “fideism and strong rationalism” are combined. This does not seem like it would work, however they take from the “strong rationalists” the idea that there should be some evidence to help support what it is they believe, but that this does not go so far as to be 100 percent proof in their belief system. The “critical rationalist” take the opposite of “fideism” and say that it should be rational to argue and search religious beliefs. Is it rational to keep believing in a religious faith even when your peers are looking at the same evidence and finding a different answer? This can be rational when you are a “critical rationalist.” People around the world do not, or cannot have the time and or intelligence to fully understand and grapple …show more content…
The first way is that there is physical proof to show that what the person believes is true. The second way is that someone may have a belief and know why they believe what they do without being able to spell out why they do. He uses the example of Sherlock and Watson for the physical proof, and the idea that Mrs. M loves her daughter as the belief without being able to spell it out. Sherlock and Watson are walking and they see a man who Sherlock says is a retired Marine sergeant, but Watson does not believe him until they ask the man himself if this is true. Sherlock says that the reason he knew this was through the observation that the man had a Marine tattoo and that he walked in a certain way that showed he was used to being in charge. This, as well as the confirmation from the man himself is physical proof that what Sherlock believed was in fact true and he was rationally correct in believing it. Than Hallett talks about the fact that from one look at Mrs. M he knew that she loved her daughter. This is physical in the sense that he saw the way she looked at her, however it was one moment and it did not/ will not stay that way forever, therefore only the people who saw it at that exact moment can use it as proof that Mrs. M loves her daughter. Nonetheless Hallett says that he is rational in believing that she loves her daughter because it is what he saw. He
The authors talk about three different positions that are held. The first one is “strong rationalism.” Strong rationalism is when you only believe something because there is proof for the belief to be real. The second is “fideism,” this is when a person believes what they believe even if there is no evidence. The final position is “critical rationalism” which is when “fideism and strong rationalism” are combined. This does not seem like it would work, however they take from the “strong rationalists” the idea that there should be some evidence to help support what it is they believe, but that this does not go so far as to be 100 percent proof in their belief system. The “critical rationalist” take the opposite of “fideism” and say that it should be rational to argue and search religious beliefs. Is it rational to keep believing in a religious faith even when your peers are looking at the same evidence and finding a different answer? This can be rational when you are a “critical rationalist.” People around the world do not, or cannot have the time and or intelligence to fully understand and grapple …show more content…
The first way is that there is physical proof to show that what the person believes is true. The second way is that someone may have a belief and know why they believe what they do without being able to spell out why they do. He uses the example of Sherlock and Watson for the physical proof, and the idea that Mrs. M loves her daughter as the belief without being able to spell it out. Sherlock and Watson are walking and they see a man who Sherlock says is a retired Marine sergeant, but Watson does not believe him until they ask the man himself if this is true. Sherlock says that the reason he knew this was through the observation that the man had a Marine tattoo and that he walked in a certain way that showed he was used to being in charge. This, as well as the confirmation from the man himself is physical proof that what Sherlock believed was in fact true and he was rationally correct in believing it. Than Hallett talks about the fact that from one look at Mrs. M he knew that she loved her daughter. This is physical in the sense that he saw the way she looked at her, however it was one moment and it did not/ will not stay that way forever, therefore only the people who saw it at that exact moment can use it as proof that Mrs. M loves her daughter. Nonetheless Hallett says that he is rational in believing that she loves her daughter because it is what he saw. He