Clifford's Argumentative Analysis

Improved Essays
Clifford and James are two philosophers who have contradicting opinions on whether having sufficient evidence is always necessary to believe in something. Where Clifford believes you cannot believe in anything without sufficient evidence, James believes that if the evidence doesn’t point in one way or another, it is justified to believe something based on our will. I will be arguing that James’ side is indeed correct.
In James’ paper, he provides concrete evidence as to why his opinion is correct. One of the reasons I support James’ argument is because James does not disregard the importance of evidence. He believes that if there is sufficient evidence, then you should believe it (James 13). However, he also emphasizes that if adequate evidence
…show more content…
The case where this occurs is when it is forced, momentous, and live. Following this, one of the examples James gives of this situation occurring is the choice of whether you believe in God or not. He believes that you cannot have no opinion on the matter, but instead are forced to choose whether you believe or not, so it is forced (James 17). He also believes that this is a momentous and live option (James 17). Clifford could potentially argue that there is more evidence for believing God does not exist than that he does exist. However, it is important to note that he is not forcing you to believe in God, but instead saying you must choose between the two. Another point brought up by James was that there were no negative consequences that would occur with deciding either to believe or disbelieve in God. James used Pascal’s wager to prove this point (James 17). The argument James’ presented was convincing that even though sufficient evidence is not always present, you can still believe in it. The reason I found it convincing was that if there is no evidence proving your belief to be incorrect, then you should not have a reason to not believe in

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    The presence of a sort of tension between faith and reason has been innate to humans since people first started to question what the true purpose of life is. The existence of this separation could be clearly viewed by looking comparing Athens and Jerusalem, with Athens representing truth through reason and philosophy and Jerusalem representing truth through insights of revelation and purity of soul. Therefore, faith and reason have always posed tension by their proximity and their constantly juxtaposing views. Many view these two concepts as complete opposites, that reason is proven by fact and that faith cannot be proven. However, some philosophers have described how faith and reason can actually come together to come to the truth and how faith can be an extension of the reason that works to reach a higher truth.…

    • 1716 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this paper I will explain and evaluate two popular arguments regarding the existence of God, A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God by Robin Collins and The Inductive Argument from Evil Against the Existence of God by William Rowe; then I will discuss how the conclusions are not compatible with one another due to the conflicting structure of the conclusions as well as how one cannot accept both conclusions without compromising one of the arguments. First I will explain the basis of Collins’ argument, which is one of the most frequently used arguments in favor of theism. In A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God, Collins centers around the observation of how finely tuned the physical constants of the universe are to the ability for any form of life to exist, if any of them were to change even the smallest bit then no life would possibly be able to develop not to…

    • 1636 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In William James', “The Will to Believe, James provides a defensive response to religious faith regarding W. T. Clifford's position in his essay, "The Ethics of Belief" (James, 2001). Within his stance, James suggests that his views have a somewhat broader scope that Clifford’s (Princeton University, n.d.). Moreover, that in certain cases, it is not only permissible but inevitable that a person’s passional, non-rational nature will determine that person’s belief (Princeton University, n.d.). In summary, James presents that anything that is proposed for our belief is a hypothesis and that any question about which of the two hypotheses to accept is a person’s option (Princeton University, n.d.).…

    • 1184 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the House of the Lord, a man appears to be walking down the aisle to arrive at the pulpit to serve as the connoisseur of the Bible. He wears a long black trench coat and sets down his notes on the podium. He stares out onto his followers and beings reading in a monotone voice. Although people should be uninterested in this man, he captures their attention. He entrances his audience.…

    • 1078 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To fully value faith, he would argue without hesitation or without this escape route that one hundred percent God is real. That isn’t saying that faith cannot be lost or broken when new evidence arises, just that if you have faith that is what you believe…

    • 1025 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this essay I first outline Pascal’s wager to the existence of God and then evaluate his argument. Pascal argues that one ought to wager “that God is” because “[i]f you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing,” and that given this, one can bring oneself to believe in God. I argue that one cannot truly bring themselves to believe in God. Pascal’s argument is set up in three parts. The first part accepts that God is infinitely incomprehensible.…

    • 818 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In “Reasonable Religious Disagreements,” Richard Feldman posits that two reasonable peers cannot come to a reasonable disagreement. The premise of a “reasonable disagreement” has various conditions, in short being that the peers must be epistemic, and they must have shared all of their evidence pertaining to the argument. By this criteria, it is not plausible for two epistemic peers with access to the same body of evidence to ever reach reasonably different conclusions. However, a problem arises with the previously stated criteria when examining the point regarding full disclosure of evidence. When examining Feldman’s article from this perspective, it is possible that it may not be considered fully viable.…

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Also, we wouldn’t need sufficient evidence in every case to believe something. We wouldn’t sit there and take hours on looking for evidence on something we want to be true. In contrast with him is James’s theory; he thinks it is impossible for everyone to think that way and for that to ever happen. He gives examples on situations where you don’t need sufficient evidence believing will cause the belief to become true. However, I will argue that…

    • 1127 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One person could have a belief with absolutely no evidence and it wouldn’t seem reasonable, but if a couple others have this same belief it suddenly seems…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Anselm’s Ontological Argument v. Pascal’s Wager In this paper, I will be describing Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Pascal’s Wager and then contrast the differences between the two. These two arguments help to determine the existence of God. There are three norms of belief: ordinary belief, religious belief, and faith seeking understanding. The norms of ordinary belief are based on sufficient evidence to prove it is true.…

    • 730 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The evidential problem of evil determines the degree of how much evil must be a part of the evidence of God’s existence. While on the other hand the logical problem of evil is seen through our own eyes. It bares the question whether God is a perfect because of all wrong taking place in the world. Through these two problems it is hard to even imagine that God is perfect. Through Richard Swinburne’s theodicy (theodicy - an attempt to defend God's omnibenevolence in the face of evil) , one comes to find the case that initially escapes the evidential and logical problems…

    • 1073 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Supreme Court, as Justice Madison puts it, is the Supreme interpreter of the law, and all laws that are not constitutional must be strike down. Brandeis also thinks this way. He thinks the interpreter of the law has supervisory powers. They must be impartial and not allow a citizen or government official to break the law. If citizens break the law, then the appropriate punishment applies according to the statutes; however, if the government breaks the law, then sanctions applies to uphold the integrity of the law.…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Clifford states that it is always wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence. This quotation helps to demonstrate the view that justifies belief depending upon having good reasons or evidence. His firm belief in evidentialism, which means without certainty and a solid basis of evidence and knowledge of a situation you, should never put fully believe it. Meanwhile reformed epistemology states that you can rationalize the belief of god based upon given evidence. Reformed epistemology use of both faith and minimal evidence to justify their beliefs is not reasonable.…

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    In Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief,” Clifford argues the immorality of believing without sufficient evidence. In most situations, Clifford’s point of view would be practical; if we wish to be true seekers of the truth, it would be unethical to ever believe in something without sufficient evidence. This is a valid statement, but there are exceptions to this idea which are dependent on the situation. When it comes to the type of evidence presented, a belief can be justified or found to be wrong. Clifford sets two questions we are to ask ourselves when it comes to believing things that aren’t proven with physical evidence, rather shown by testimony.…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the book Science and Religion, two philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett, share their opposing viewpoints on whether they believe the two are compatible. Plantinga is a Christian and he believes that the two are in fact, compatible. His arguments are based on rationality from a theistic view and how it is not present in a naturalist view. He says, (page 9) "As I argue in Warranted Christian Belief, if theistic belief is true, then very likely it has both rationality and warrant in the basic way, that is, not on the basic of propositional evidence. If theistic belief is true, then very likely there is a cognitive structure something like John Calvin’s sensus divinitatis, an original source of warranted theistic belief.…

    • 853 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays