Essay Example on William James & Clifford: Belief Debate & Theological Mysteries

Over the years, William James and William Clifford have been the most discussed religious theorists who focused on answering theological mysteries and significant creation. Although they had the same agenda, they had different views concerning belief debate. Each theorist formulated their own rational argument on how belief should be structured. The varying views are outlined in James "The Will to Believe" and Clifford's "Ethics of Belief." Since all these arguments discuss the idea of belief in a broader perspective, the discussions have differences.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In Clifford's "Ethics of Belief," he argues that it is wrong for someone to believe in anything that lacks sufficient evidence. In essence, Clifford tends to elaborate on his view by describing an analogy of a shipowner. Clifford argues that a shipowner always understands that his ship needs to be overhauled. Such that before the boat leaves the port, the owner begins to express his doubts. He comes to agree that the ship, on many occasions, had been sailing safely. Thus, the shipowner reminds himself of his belief in providence (Marketing Communications: Web // University of Notre Dame). For that reason, he develops a conviction to have full trust in contractors and shipbuilders who had previously worked on the boat. Eventually, the ship capsizes in oceans, and all the passengers die. Clifford insists that the shipowner should be morally be blamed for the demise of the people. In this context, the shipowner has let his beliefs to be control by the things instead of evidence. Clifford claims that the shipowner would be guilty even if the ship failed to sink. In other words, Clifford posits that what makes an action is not the outcome, but the shipowner was not right to believe that the ship was safe. Clifford establishes the wrong to be based on that belief. Clifford, as a religious theorist, agrees, has a strong belief in continuous criticism of belief based on loose evidence as he highly esteems proof-based beliefs. According to Clifford, to have a just and fair society, people's beliefs must be supported and evaluated by evidence that is just and fair which are not countered with apparent truisms that fit people's lack of interest, insecurities, and power of struggles.

Conversely, William James strives to reveal about permissible cases where it is intellectually respectable for a person to believe without holding on sufficient evidence. In "The Will to Believe," James establishes three criteria that should be used to judge a person on believing. He posits that belief can take the form of trivial or momentous, avoidable or forced, and living or dead. In this context, James argues that a live hypothesis is a supposition that the stated hypothesis appeals to the existing belief of the person. Ideally, an avoidable hypothesis is based on the belief where a person has an alternative to choose from and cannot proceed to the next step without making a choice (Marketing Communications: Web // University of Notre Dame). A trivial hypothesis is the belief where the decision made is irreversible. In other words, James posits that specific convictions and actions require pre-existing beliefs that hardly depend on sufficient evidence. James' arguments work in tandem with Pascal's Wager, where one can either decide to believe in God or fail to do so irrespective of any adequate evidence to authenticate His existence. James proposes that an individual passion or will can affect others in specific situations. In essence, he tends to support that people should choose religious questions based on the passional ground.

Premise 1: If Clifford's argument is logical that it is wrong for people to believe in something that lacks sufficient evidence, then it is illogical for William James to argue that permissible cases are respectful for a person to believe without holding the sufficient evidence.

Premise 2: Clifford argument will force everyone to belief based on sufficient, it is illogical to believe on insufficient evidence

Therefore, Premise 3: It is illogical for a person to believe in something based on permissible cases and insufficient evidence.

Clifford understands that belief in not only a private but extends from a broader perspective. He argues that people are guided by how they generally view things created by society for social goals. Thus, individuals' common property, phrases, and words are perfected and fashioned from generation to another. Such that believing for fault reasons could potentially corrupt and infect belief system. If such actions are orchestrated, they might lead to the weakening of people's critical faculties and self-control. In this context, Clifford tends to argue that believing in God without having sufficient evidence should be considered wrong.

James' arguments are centered towards a justification for faith. In his argument, James creates a foundation where believe that faith is appropriate and provides the reason why faith is deemed appropriate. He develops his definitions of terms as used in ordinary language. Such that, many beliefs of people are centered towards faith in other people's faith. James asserts that people should let passion to influence their belief. He reveals that people have two purposes for their beliefs. People tend to avoid errors and work towards believing in truth. For that reason, James tends to see religion as having two parts. He argues that the best thing is to believe in external things, where he further reveals that the inability to believe in external things may make people be unable to reap from the truth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Clifford argues that it is wrong for someone to believe in anything that lacks sufficient evidence. On the contrary, William James strives to reveal about permissible cases where it is intellectually respectable for a person to believe without holding on sufficient evidence. According to Clifford, to have a just and fair society, people's beliefs must be supported and evaluated by evidence that is just and fair, which are not countered with apparent truisms which fit people's lack of interest, insecurities, and power of struggles. James posits that belief can take the form of trivial or momentous, avoidable or forced, and living or dead.

Work Cited

Marketing Communications: Web // University of Notre Dame. "The will to believe: James // god and the good life // University of notre dame." God and the Good Life, godandgoodlife.nd.edu/digital-essays/the-will-to-believe/.