To know a belief is false
To know a belief is false
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…
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…
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.…
He furthers in stating that, “our minds can’t plumb the depths of the universe for good answers to suffering, well, then, there can’t be any! This is blind faith of a high order.”…
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.…
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.…
(2) Some people are epistemically rational for not believing in God. (3) Therefore, God does not exist.” (Cullison, 2010, p. 119).…
I. Introduction Over the last few thousand years or so, the question of whether God exists or not has been under serious examination. There are only two answers to this question: either you do believe in God’s existence or you don’t. Even if all the evidence in the entire universe leans towards the latter, some people still assume that a supernatural being exists. Blaise Pascal was one of these individuals, and he also believes that regardless of whether it’s probable or not, it’s in your best interest to believe in the existence of God. This idea is called Pascal’s Wager, and it states that although the odds may be against it, the payoff for believing in God is much more fulfilling than not believing.…
Firstly, there are many religions and many gods, thus contradicting his theory of only two choices; to choose to believe in God, or not to believe in God. There isn't one God, there are thousands, so how do you know which…
In the piece of Ontological Argument, St. Anselm argues that being able to exist in both reality and in understanding is the best to humans. He specifically focuses on the topic of an omnient God. He does use a reducto in his argument, so part of the premises contradict, but this contradiction strengthens the proof for the conclusion. I agree with his point of view. St. Anselm refers back to the difference between conceiving in concept vs in realty, all though out his writing.…
In ‘The Subjectivity of Values’, J L Mackie examines error theory and objective morality vs non-cognitivism. Mackie’s report represents moral scepticism using moral error theory. By taking an error theory approach, Mackie confronts morality similarly to the manner in which an atheist confronts religion. Moral error theory could be broken down to a version of the Justified True Belief outline as follows: Moral claims are universally false There is reason to believe that moral claims are universally false There is no justification for believing any deniable claim…
Even before World War One, the desire to abolish the cycle of war was apparent in civilized society. This was made apparent by William James with his essay “The Moral Equivalent of War”. In his essay, James argues through anecdotes and multiple viewpoints that another method besides warfare should be used to advance civilization. James utilizes perspective throughout his essay to strengthen his argument through an ethos appeal. Throughout his work, he consistently acknowledges two parties: pacifists and advocates of war.…
Every human being has the ability to decide what they believe and what they do not. At a very early age, we develop judgement that allows us to choose whether or not to accept certain claims. These assertions may be tempting, but our reasoning allows us to critically analyze the information with respect to all of our previous knowledge. These claims may be faith based, fact-based, or opinion. Without recognizing it, we take every bit of information we gather, analyze it, and decide whether we accept its validity.…
In order to believe in God, an act of will, a passionate and personal commitment, a leap of faith is needed. Kierkegaard leveraged on this absurdity to portray his level of commitment. Such faith does not rely on reasons and is hence resistant against argument and uncertainty. Ultimately, when reasoned truths seem to be only ever…
Bernard Williams’s example of the moral dilemma involving Jim killing the one individual to save 19 is an interesting one that provokes much thought and it is a decision that utilitarian followers would find quite easy. Utilitarian’s subscribe to the view that everything that you do or do not do should be for the sake of maximizing total happiness, or utility. But individuals who subscribe to a different moral philosophy could potentially have a myriad of ethical concerns associated with making such a decision. In this paper, I will explain the moral dilemma that is presented in Bernard Williams’s piece, hypothesize what the utilitarian would do in that situation, why they would choose to do that. I will also demonstrate why Williams’s dilemma provides valid evidence to reject utilitarianism on the grounds that it weakens a person’s integrity, sense of responsibility, and their moral character.…