For Philosophy: Pascal and James argue that there are cases in which it is appro

Question

For Philosophy:

Pascal and James argue that there are cases in which it is appropriate to believe that God exists when the evidence is not sufficient (they of course have their own nuances). Clifford thinks this is entirely mistaken. What do you think? Are there things that you believe without sufficient evidence? There probably are and you probably are ok with that. If so, couldn't believing that God exists be one of those things that is ok to believe without sufficient evidence? Explain your response.

Explanation / Answer

Fear is that instantaneous tool for survival, that while it has no truth in it, is maligned as the factor to our survival as a species. Historians, as well as antiquities undocumented palates, have enhanced, and sometimes glorified this behavior às the underlying attribute to the unification and control of people. The funny thing is that once you realize that fear is only a mental barrier to hurdle and cross, it loses its uncanny abilities and disappears. It is almost like that ghost we worship day and night in our adolescence until we mature and see it for what it really is.Many think precaution and fear are the same thing, they are not. Being precautious is controlled by you. When you are fearful it’s underlined by the loss of control. Even in our day to day life, we can be led to false belief when we misattribute actual events to some belief we’ve been indoctrinated to hold. When we say “God is good.” or “Everything Good Comes from God.” and then a good thing happens to us, and we repeat. “Thank God’s Goodness”, we can come to believe that the actual thing (a good event) was caused by God, because we’ve asserted that “truth” so many times. Asserting otherwise would run contrary to one’s indoctrination.This is reversed causation, in which the goodness we can experience is attributed to a thing we have made up and proposed to be all good. Believing in god is a matter of faith.t's a comforting filler for the gaps that still exist in our understanding about the way the universe works.Speaking of whether they can prove it or not, there lies the bone of contention. Believers believe that merely the words written in their holy scripture is enough to prove the existence of god. A belief that is not shared by atheists and sceptics. It goes to show that faith, though irrational, makes perfect sense to a believer. No amount of objective evidence will be enough to dissuade them. If everyone could think rationally, no religion, much less the idea of god, could ever hope to survive and propagate into mainstream society. Confirmation bias is the reason people tend to trust sources of information that seem to confirm preconceived notions and at the same time doubt sources of information that contradict those notions, regardless of the nature of the source. That's why most self-proclaimed "seekers of truth" are really only seeking to confirm what they already believe. Death is the only given, and death is pretty scary too. It's the ultimate unknown. When people are scared, they want a strong authority figure. God is the ultimate authority figure. The idea that the creator of the universe isn't just watching but actually knows your name and cares about your personal welfare is an incredibly comforting thought. There's no reason to believe any of these things but fear makes people irrational. Evidence-driven logic has nothing to do to with it.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.