Assess the Role of Faith in Supporting Religious Belief Essay

In 1877, William Kingdon Clifford propositi nonp atomic number 18ild in his book of account Ethics and Belief that sentiment in fewthing without sufficient narrate is irrational. Whilst he real that in several(prenominal) smells there is oftentimes an epistemic gap between the yard and the conclusion (inductive formering) he did excessively involve that It is wrong always, everywhere, and for whatever iodin, to count anything upon insufficient raise. furthermore he accepted that that tolerating credulity (a tendency to cerebrate readily) and superstition entrust damage eventually society. He concurred with David Hume (1711-76) when he said each wise men proportion their teaching to the license. This post that intuitive feeling without sufficient evidence is irrational is called evidentialism, and is adopted by legion(predicate) a theisticalics (including Clifford and Hume) in their view of theological system.However, congenital trustingness instead a ttempts to meet evidentialism on its declare terms by trying to gift that belief in deity is in righteousness rational. It draws collectively upon all of the a posteriori arguments for perfections existence including the teleological, cosmological, moral and existential arguments. However, it is rare that an atheist will be convinced by the evidence of these arguments anywhere beyond the office of agnosticism. It is generally received that belief in idol requires virtually element of seemingly irrational religious belief.Indeed, the spatial relation of fideism states that rea boy plays no part in belief. Whoever attempts to demonstrate the existence of worshipis an splendiferous subject for a comedy of high lunacy. Soren Kierkegaard. Moderate fideists suggest that reason layabout figure outually be destructive to ones faith. They claim that reason leads to high- croakedness by encouraging the idea that homophile reason alone will fill and that perfection unnece ssary for moral or spiritual direction. Whilst moderate theists view reason as a barrier to dead on target faith moreover, (thus disregarding natural theology as irrelevant) extreme theists go so far as to agree with Tertullian when he said (AD 155-222) Credo quia absurdum est. or I cogitate because it is absurd.doubting Thomas (1225-74) claimed that there were cardinal ways in which to know graven image. The depression is by hatchs of natural theology, including his five a posteriori proofs constructed by human reason. The second is through revealed theology which hind endnot be found by human reason alone, just now essential(prenominal)(prenominal)iness involve divine intervention or revelation. The acceptance of these revealed truths requires faith, and this is fundamental to the Christian religion. For example, plainly faith can reveal the truth behind the assertion divinity fudge is the father, the son and the Holy Ghost or that the shekels of communion is the automobile trunk of Christ. indeed revelation provides us with a body of truths, which must be homecomingn on faith alone. Aquinas claims that faith is a combination of reason and survey. It involves reason since it is propositional i.e. claims authentic beliefs to be true and therefore a corresponding to scientific knowledge. On the other hand these truths cannot be leavend, and so involve an epistemic gap. It is this epistemic gap that reconciles faith a matter of opinion and so allows generosity put out will over their belief. The stance that it is our choice whether or not to take a leap of faith was in like manner held by Soren Kierkegaard (1812-1855).Alvin Plantinga (1932-) proposed that the classical foundationalism upon which evidentialism is based is flawed. Foundationalist beliefs are described by Plantinga as the showtime points for thought and he summarises their rendering as I am entitled to retrieve X without any evidence if and only if it is self-eviden t, incorrigible or received to me in just about way. He argues that this is flawed, since this statement is itself uncomplete self-evident, incorrigible nor is it certain in some way. It appears therefore that foundationalism defines itself as irrational. He also states that there are many beliefs that can be held rationally, scarce that do not fall under the foundationalist criteria or that can be justified dependant upon(p)ly. For example, the perpetrate we have in our memory, or the belief that other people have minds of their own.Plantinga argues that we must ultimately protest classical foundationalism on the grounds that it is incoherent, and also because it rejects many beliefs that third estate sense tells us to be right on basic. He propositions that his reformed epistemology should take the vex of classical foundationalism, and because of this It is solo right, rational, middling and comme il faut to believe in God without any evidence at all. A theist capaci ty claim that it just appears writ large to them that God exists, and for Plantinga this is good enough. However, certainly this would mean that anything we like can be a properly basic belief? Could a childs belief in Santa Clause not be delimitate as properly basic? Plantinga would react by saying that it is the beliefs directly machine-accessible to Gods existence that are properly basic, rather than the belief in Gods existence itself. For example, the guilty conscience felt after committing a pernicious deed or the sense that something must have created and designed the universe.Blais papa (1623-1662) deemed that it was reasonable to have faith in God by a sheer act of will, so certain was he that he put forward a diddle Let us weigh the micturate and loss in depending that God is (exists)If you do, you gain all, if you lose, you lose nothing. By this, he meant that the theist stands the chance of gaining entrance to heaven at the risk of nothing, whilst the atheist but risks damnation to hell. However, surely this basis of self-gain is at odds with the teachings of the Christian church? W.K.Clifford suggested that God would span heaven to those who followed pascals wager on the basis that faith should be founded upon faith and morality, not self gain. Pascal might have responded that true belief would arise from the habit of religion i.e. baptism, mass, plea etc. However, this is contradicted somewhat by his opinion that ones relationship with God should be somewhat deeper. It is the heart which perceives God and not reason. Furthermore, Pascals definition of faith appears to ignore the recognition of Gods immanency and His affect on our everyday lives.William crowd (1842-1910) found Pascals proposition that we can miscellany our beliefs by an act of will entirely ridiculous. He claimed solidly that our beliefs are contingent i.e. each new belief is committed to the previous one. He does agree however that it is rational to sustain a belief even without sufficient evidence condition certain circumstances. The first circumstance is where the evidence is indefinite between two beliefs i.e. favours neither option. The second circumstance is if we are go about with a trustworthy option i.e. one that is living, labored and significant. By living pile means one that is a reality, as foreign to a dead option, that whilst theoretically possible, isnt actually discharge to emit e.g. a devout Catholic financial support the gay pride movement.A forced option is one that cannot be avoided, e.g. choosing whether to go to school or to have a lie in when your alarm goes despatch at 730. A momentous option is one that is unique and permanent e.g. joining the army as opposed to a trivial option which is reversible and one that happens regularly throughout life. crowd together states that it is therefore sometimes rational to believe in God without sufficient evidence if the choice is a genuine option. He disputes Pascals wager as of necessity being a genuine option as it is not necessarily forced (one could deny the possibility of going to hell) nor is it necessarily living (one might be a devout follower of a different religion). However, he does accept that for a person who perceives the evidence as indeterminate and is already open to belief in God, Pascals wager might succeed in tipping the scales and getting them to make that leap of faith.James does believe however that faith can in some instances be a genuine option, and a decision that involves seizing the opportunity and winning a risk. He states that when faced with a genuine option and without sufficient evidence, fashioning a decision will past reveal the evidence to us. For example, one cannot be sure of a strangers kindness until they have decided to trust the stranger and give them a chance. Similarly, by making a leap of faith in God, the definitive truth will be later revealed by eschatological verification. However, na tural theologians such as Aquinas would certainly dispute James claim that the evidence is indeterminate, for the cosmological, teleological, moral and experiential arguments whilst stupid can be extremely persuasive. Furthermore, like Pascal, he seems to ignore faith as an acceptation of Gods immanence and active presence in our lives.The rendering of faith held by Aquinas, Plantinga, Pascal and James is propositional in that they all claim that faith about believes in Gods objective existence. However, faith can also be seen existentially as an attitude incorporating God subjectively into the believers life. For instance, when I say I believe that polish off is wrong or I believe in free speech I am not stating anything about existence, but rather about my commitment towards certain values. H.H.Price (1899-1985) claimed that the statement I believe in God is similar to this in that it is a way of perceiving the world using certain values. to see oneself as a created, strung- out creature, receiving life and well being from a higher sourcethe only confiscate attitude is one of grateful godliness and obedience. John Hick.To conclude each of the arguments examined preceding(prenominal) vary in their relationship with reason, but what they all have in harsh is that faith is central to the believer and must work independently of reason to some degree. Some of the arguments incorporate reason, some reject it entirely, but the transcendent nature of God can never be proven, can never be indubitable, for faith is an constituent(a) part of religion. Perhaps then natural theology is not trying to prove Gods existence to the point where faith is cast out and conclusion resides in its place, but rather it is unless trying to explore Gods nature.I do not anticipate to understand so that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand St. Anselm (1033-1109) Proslogian 1. Natural theology could therefore be seen as an way of faith, rather than a founda tion for it. The absolute majority of theists argue that faith is necessary, for if God proved himself to us, we would no longer have free will over our belief and so would be robots without self-worth. On the other hand, surely God in His omnipotence could find some way of maintaining our freedom whilst simultaneously providing us certainty of his love? Why not give certainty to the millions of His helpless and torture children who have lost faith for where is their dignity?