The Compatibility of Faith and
The Compatibility of Faith and Reason When comparing the two selections by W.K. Clifford and William James on the compatibility of faith and reason, I feel that both arguments make very valid points. However I do think, after careful reading and based on my own experience, that William James has the stronger argument. William James' "The Will to Believe" claims that "Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by it's nature be decided on intellectual grounds." James' contention is that under certain circumstances, it is perfectly "legal" for a person to go ahead and believe something for which scientific evidence is lacking. To do so is not unreasonable. This argument makes itself useful in the religious hypothesis for the existence of God. James, himself, believed that there is a Greater Consciousness than that of human beings to which we are connected. Among other things, this Greater Consciousness cares about and preserves many of the things that we hold dear to us like love, truth, and justice. This is done so that the values possessed by these things continue to exist in the world rather than perishing with us when we die.
Another way of avoiding that is through our constant hope of discovering new things. The person who conforms to their hope of God's existence is just as reasonable as the person who gives in to their fear that there may not be a God at all. James' contention in this regard was that his beliefs on this matter were perfectly "legal" even though there is currently no scientific evidence for the existence of a Greater Consciousness. But in other respects, what knowledge is ascertained through self-sufficient means? Do we not put our trust in interpersonal relationships and believe, without much evidence, certain things and take them to be the truth? Especially when it is a question of the essential truths of life which concern the person's inner depths. Since it is vital for human existence, this ultimate truth will be reached, not only by pure reason, but also by enlightened trust in the testimony of others. (Pojman, 95)I think this is true for certain things but it is to strict when applied to others. It is the basis of our justice system (or we like to think that it is that way) and it does make a lot of sense to only believe in something when you are supplied with sufficient evidence. Some of James' argument has been used recently by Pope John Paul II. Consequently, the human quest for truth not only seeks the realization of limited truths and immediately useful truths; it also strives for an absolute truth, which is accessible by thought. For example, his use of the words 'moral' and 'sin'. Weseley Robbins, Indiana University)According to Clifford, if the known arguments for God's existence, including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be warranted in having full belief that there is a God. Whether it is a question of the truths of immediate experience or of scientific truth, of carefully developed philosophical thought or of an existentially lived idea, the search for truth is always accompanied by an act of faith. I believe that faith and reason go hand in hand and one without the other is useless. In fact, as social beings, humans are incapable of verifying and ascertaining everything alone; at every level one must put enlightened trust in the testimony of others and in one's cultural tradition.
Common topics in this essay:
Ratio' Pope,
According Clifford,
God James,
Ethics Belief,
James' Believe,
According James,
William James,
II Reflections,
religious beliefs,
God James',
Faith Reason,
faith reason,
scientific evidence,
william james,
existence god,
god's existence,
belief god,
enlightened trust testimony,
religious experience,
evidence truth,
suspend belief,
suspend belief god,
compatibility faith reason,
god james believed,
|
Acceptance Essays
