Evidentialism vs Non-Evidentialism

Evidentialism can be considered in a broad scope as only trusting that for which one has proof. Non-evidentialism, however, is not the inverse of evidentialism, rather, it takes into consideration more individual proof to legitimize one’s conviction. These two contentions will be focused especially on religious faith and assurance in the presence of God because our class is founded on faith and values. Considering both claims displayed in class reading assignments and further research, the non-evidentialist aspect falls most inside my system of assurance in God and issues of faith. In this analysis, I will shield my position utilizing points made by non-evidentialist supporters, differentiating contentions put forward by evidentialist theorist W. K. Clifford in his resourceful article, The Ethics of Belief.

CLIFFORD’S EVIDENTIALIST ARGUMENT

Clifford begins his paper relating a tale around a boat-owner who sent to the ocean, a ship that was hoary and in urgent need of renovation. The boat-owner had uncertainties about the boats seaworthiness, yet rather than looking at the problem and repairing it, he sent the boat to the ocean on a disastrous voyage. The ship sank, and the owner of the vessel handled the loss of lives because he had no right to trust the soundness of the vessel. Clifford contends that there was insufficient confirmation in this particular case to permit him to continue with sending the boat to the sea. Moreover, Clifford argues, had the ship owner analyzed himself in foro conscientiae, he would have acknowledged that sending the ship to the sea without examining and repairing it was wrong. Clifford further recognizes that it was not the boat owner’s faulty faith in the reliability of the boat that wasn’t right, but rather the activity of sending the boat to ocean without adequate confirmation to bolster his conviction of the vessel’s value  (Clifford Web)

 In Clifford’s contention for proof with a particular end goal to sustain a conviction, he recommends that unless a conviction impacts the holder to make a move, one does not genuinely have a conviction at all. I found this intriguing because the particular explanation reflects a section of Kierkegaard’s existentialism argument, which proposes that one’s enthusiasm, or ardent conviction, is lived out by action. Kierkegaard further recommends that it is in the activity where one lives his presence based on his internal enthusiasm. Clifford further states and, suggests that if one does not act promptly upon his convictions, it is put safe for future direction, included with different opinions, and, in the long run, will bring about a blast of action . Moreover, Clifford assumes that in the situation of the boat owner, believing in the inadequate proof isn’t right, and people should not encourage their conviction by suppressing their questions and dodging further research. Clifford’s argument is based on the fact that all opinions affect people’s activities; activities in founded on convictions without proof cause harm many people because beliefs are not wholly  private affecting one person only (Clifford Web).

THE NON-EVIDENTIALIST ARGUMENT

Pascal’s Wager By Braise Pascal

Braise Pascal was a Christian theorist who accorded himself the task of turning non-believers into believers. While the wager is thought to be one of the poorest philosophical contentions against evidentialism, there is more quality behind for people who understand Braise and his era. Medieval philosophy was long gone, and religious philosophy was being disregarded by seventeenth-century people. The excellent arguments to demonstrate God’s presence no longer held any basis amid this season of extreme uncertainty. Pascal’s wager was composed to make people consider going against the common conviction of that era, skepticism, and power of choice for or against God and religion. Pascal realized that a wager like the one he suggested was not making people have deep faith in God (Kreeft Web).

           The basis of the wager is that people have a decision to make, and the decision is either to believe in God is or not to belief in God. In the event that one acknowledges the wager and picks the later, after figuring out that God exists, he will have gained perpetually everything. If a person chooses to believe in God and in the end finds out he does not exist, the loss is minimal because only the human life will be lost. An evidentialist would contend that reason in like that won’t permit a person to protect either commendation from Pascal and would deem any individual who makes a choice to be at fault. Rationalists of the time would argue that the only plan of action is not to decide; not to wager. Pascal was ready for this and reaffirmed that people must make a choice. It was a constrained alternative and dodging a decision was not a part of the choice (Kreeft Web).

Death is a consequent reality for everyone. Therefore, the wager caused a constrained alternative options decision. For this reason, the wager lives up to expectations and is more grounded than it looks at first. Another viable protest to the wager would be that one just cannot make himself to trust in God. Pascal reacts with a practical theory and recommends that one action into the choice as though one believed. Pascal believed that conviction would come. Pascal had a conviction that proof was not important to develop faith in the presence of God because knowledge gives us a finite and infinite existing. However, he states that it is not important to recognize the nature of the infinite because it has extension.  While God has neither extension nor limits, people come to know their nature and existence through faith (Kreeft Web).

The Will To Believe By William James

William criticizes Clifford’s notion of choosing not to have an opinion or believing without proof. William argues that that people’s reasoning make them believe even in situations with little or no evidence to support. Further, William argues that if people are to experience true belief in something, unlike stated by Clifford, it is occasionally essential to take the risk in believing in without proof. As far as religious convictions are concerned, William had only two expansive definitions. One stated that the best things such as perfection are interminable and the other states that people are better off when they believe than not believing at all. William had a conviction that religious belief is a momentous alternative  (James 48).

This implies that trusting it or not could have a tremendous effect if happens to be true. It is an alternative to either be doubtful or true Christian. Each of the speculations may appeal to the philosopher regardless of the possibility that one is weak. It is also a constrained alternative. Like Pascal’s restricted choice with his wager, William recommends that people cannot stay in rationalism. This is because if Christianity and the faith in God are genuine, they will not get what they would have got if they were real followers. Staying in skepticism cuts people off from practicing a religious life. The skeptic additionally places one in the position of conceivably never recognizing a few sorts of truth; the only ones they are most worried about knowing. Finally, William demonstrates that Clifford’s reception of the rule of proof is unreasonable if it drives people to stay in skepticism (James 61).

Conclusion

The non-evidentialist position engages my system of beliefs than evidentialism. This is because I believe hard evidence is not relevant to form an opinion and have a firm conviction. Besides, I differ that a person’s secretly held opinion could bring about damage to other people and I. My faith and trust in God and religion originates from an internal enthusiasm, and that has driven me to search other avenues for development of my spiritual life. I do things out of passion as recommended by Pascal and Kierkegaard in many ways that instill faith in other people. I do not try to sway or confuse them, but rather, to inform them about the gospel. This is almost like Pascal’s explanations behind creating the wager. I additionally feel that aspects such as religion are profoundly private and cannot be legitimized by exact proof always. They are an anointing from God, perhaps deemed a mysterious ordeal because it occurs interiorly for my advantage. No one else is obliged to follow my belief. As much as I concur with tangible experience promoting discovery of an individual’s passion, I additionally concur that believing and having faith in God is a significant choice. People can discover their enthusiasm, but must follow it to be in truth.

Works Cited

Clifford, William Kingdon . “The Ethics of Belief.” 2010. 11 August 2015 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/>.

James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, and Human Immortality. Boston: Digireads Publishing, 2011.

Kreeft, Peter. “The Argument from Pascal’s Wager.” n.d. 11 August 2015 <http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm>.