William James wrote in The Will to Believe, “Believe truth! Shun error! - these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may end by coloring differently our whole intellectual life.” There are many differing hypotheses on the existence of God and in this paper we must grasp that people will always be able to defend where they stand, and why.
Both parties in religion, as in, those who believe and those who do not are going to have evidence on their side. In this paper, we are going to look at my personal thoughts on the justification of God, while utilizing William James thoughts, “The Will to Believe.”
Most reasonable option to explain or justify the faith in God would be the discussion of the Living or Dead opinion. William states, “trained as you are, each hypothesis makes some appeal, however small, to your belief.” When we look at the opinion that when a hypothesis is a living or true we could look at this example from Plato’s Timaeus in …show more content…
This is because when someone states their theory of the existence of God, we are able to avoid It instead of engaging with their theory. James states, “Either love me or hate me," " Either call my theory true or call it false," your option is avoidable. You may remain indifferent to me, neither loving nor hating, and you may decline to offer any judgment as to my theory.” Pascal’s Wager said,” We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” In reference to Pascal, we are able to avoid the decision of the question does God exist. The reason I state this is because we are able excuse difficult questions without remorse. Would it be possible to explain the existence of God, if all questions around this topic were able to not be avoidable? Our disbelief will lead us to
Both parties in religion, as in, those who believe and those who do not are going to have evidence on their side. In this paper, we are going to look at my personal thoughts on the justification of God, while utilizing William James thoughts, “The Will to Believe.”
Most reasonable option to explain or justify the faith in God would be the discussion of the Living or Dead opinion. William states, “trained as you are, each hypothesis makes some appeal, however small, to your belief.” When we look at the opinion that when a hypothesis is a living or true we could look at this example from Plato’s Timaeus in …show more content…
This is because when someone states their theory of the existence of God, we are able to avoid It instead of engaging with their theory. James states, “Either love me or hate me," " Either call my theory true or call it false," your option is avoidable. You may remain indifferent to me, neither loving nor hating, and you may decline to offer any judgment as to my theory.” Pascal’s Wager said,” We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” In reference to Pascal, we are able to avoid the decision of the question does God exist. The reason I state this is because we are able excuse difficult questions without remorse. Would it be possible to explain the existence of God, if all questions around this topic were able to not be avoidable? Our disbelief will lead us to