In this essay I shall assess the following argument and analyze how defensible it is as a valid and sound argument: It is reasonable to regard other people as generally trustworthy. The majority of other people believe in God. Therefore it is reasonable to trust that belief (and hence adopt it ourselves). Immediately it is clear that there are some questionable claims in the premises. These include whether or not it actually is reasonable to assume others are trustworthy, and whether or not the majority of other people really do believe in God. When looking at the argument, the first thing one has to notice is whether or not the argument can be defended as valid or not. In order to do so, we must analyze the first premise.
This argument claims that other people can ‘generally’ be trusted. If someone were to ask for directions to a location, they would assume that the answer given to them would be true, according to this premise. It then also seems reasonable that it is alright to consider that people do not have a reason to lie. However, it …show more content…
Unfortunately, this cannot happen as the likelihood of the majority of people having the same beliefs in everything in life is very slim. There is a distinction somewhere, and in many aspects of the majority’s lives, so why is it reasonable just for God? Another important factor to note is that the majority of those who do believe in God may not be the majority of those who we should consider as trustworthy, and vice-versa. There is no all-inclusive rule that encompasses both, so there will be overlapping and there will be separation between the two. Clearly, this marks a problem in the ‘majority’ and ultimately the premises clashing leading to the