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. 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. He claimed that "If we had an infallible intellect with it's objective certitudes ..." then going ahead and believing something without scientific evidence would not be "legal." However that is certainly not the case, so it is our intellectual duty to regulate what we believe through science, according to James. Going back to the argument for the existence of God, because the existence of God is not a matter of scientific fact why should we s...