Philosophy Essay #2
Different philosophers have had different thoughts on the idea of God and faith with regard to the need for proof or not. Spinoza believed that beliefs are foolish without proof. Bargman argued that sometimes it’s okay to have faith in something without proof. I stand more with Spinoza’s argument, however I am able to understand why some people will have faith in something that they cannot prove.
Spinoza makes the argument that believing without proof is like mindlessly mimicking something someone else said without real meaning. He says, “For what is invisible and only can be perceived by the mind, cannot be apprehended by any other means than proofs; if these remain unanswered, if these are absent, the object remains ungrasped; …show more content…
He says, “He knows God’s hand is extended to him. He speaks to God and receives an answer. He prays to Him, being just as certain of His existence as he is of his own or that of his neighbor. He requires no proof of this supreme certainty; yet should others desire proof he cannot provide it. He cannot offer objective evidence for what, in his heart, he knows to be utterly true and real” (Bergman 2). He argues that if you find a sense of security believing in God or a greater being, it is okay to have faith in something that can’t be proven. For the man who believes in a deity which provides him a place to feel important and loved, the only proof needed is the way that man feels on the inside. Basicly, Bergman and Spinoza differ because Spinoza doesn’t recognize proof of heart as real proof, as opposed to scientific proof. Spinoza doesn’t think people can believe what is created in their mind or in someone else’s mind. However, Bergman shows in his writing that sometimes, people can have faith without being fools because it provides an outlet for hope and peace. For those going through hardships, knowing that one day we might have a wonderful afterlife is a way of thinking that can’t be proven scientifically, but if it restores one's emotions, the evidence of the way it makes you feel inside is proof
Different philosophers have had different thoughts on the idea of God and faith with regard to the need for proof or not. Spinoza believed that beliefs are foolish without proof. Bargman argued that sometimes it’s okay to have faith in something without proof. I stand more with Spinoza’s argument, however I am able to understand why some people will have faith in something that they cannot prove.
Spinoza makes the argument that believing without proof is like mindlessly mimicking something someone else said without real meaning. He says, “For what is invisible and only can be perceived by the mind, cannot be apprehended by any other means than proofs; if these remain unanswered, if these are absent, the object remains ungrasped; …show more content…
He says, “He knows God’s hand is extended to him. He speaks to God and receives an answer. He prays to Him, being just as certain of His existence as he is of his own or that of his neighbor. He requires no proof of this supreme certainty; yet should others desire proof he cannot provide it. He cannot offer objective evidence for what, in his heart, he knows to be utterly true and real” (Bergman 2). He argues that if you find a sense of security believing in God or a greater being, it is okay to have faith in something that can’t be proven. For the man who believes in a deity which provides him a place to feel important and loved, the only proof needed is the way that man feels on the inside. Basicly, Bergman and Spinoza differ because Spinoza doesn’t recognize proof of heart as real proof, as opposed to scientific proof. Spinoza doesn’t think people can believe what is created in their mind or in someone else’s mind. However, Bergman shows in his writing that sometimes, people can have faith without being fools because it provides an outlet for hope and peace. For those going through hardships, knowing that one day we might have a wonderful afterlife is a way of thinking that can’t be proven scientifically, but if it restores one's emotions, the evidence of the way it makes you feel inside is proof