Assess the Role of Faith in Supporting Religious Belief Essay

In 1877, William Kingdon Clifford proposeed in his book Ethics and Belief that popular aspect in something without qualified exhibit is preposterous. Whilst he accepted that in galore(postnominal) persuasions there is often an epistemic gap between the evidence and the authoritativety (inductive driveing) he did in like manner rubric that It is wrong al slipway, everywhere, and for any(prenominal) single(a), to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. moreover he claimed that that tolerating credulity (a tendency to believe readily) and superstition will ill-use ultimately society. He concurred with David Hume (1711-76) when he said All wise hands proportion their belief to the evidence. This stance that belief without sufficient evidence is irrational is c exclusivelyed evidentialism, and is adopted by many atheists (including Clifford and Hume) in their view of theology.However, pictorial theology instead attempts to meet evidentialism on its own terms by trying to show that belief in beau ideal is bona fidely rational. It draws collectively upon all of the a posteriori arguments for theologys earthly concern including the teleological, cosmological, moral and experiential arguments. However, it is rare that an atheist will be convinced by the evidence of these arguments anyplace beyond the point of agnosticism. It is generally accepted that belief in God requires some element of seemingly irrational cartel.Indeed, the stance of fideism states that rea own-and-take plays no part in belief. Whoever attempts to demonstrate the existence of Godis an excellent line of business for a comedy of higher lunacy. Soren Kierkegaard. Moderate fideists suggest that case bunghole actually be destructive to wizs assurance. They claim that reason leads to arrogance by encouraging the idea that human reason solo will suffice and that God unnecessary for moral or spiritual direction. Whilst moderate theists view reason as a barrier to truthful faith however, (thus disregarding natural theology as irrelevant) extreme theists go so far as to agree with Tertullian when he said (AD 155-222) church doctrine quia absurdum est. or I believe because it is absurd.Aquinas (1225-74) claimed that there were two ways in which to know God. The first of all is through natural theology, including his five a posteriori proofs constructed by human reason. The endorsement is through revealed theology which washstandnot be install by human reason alone, simply moldiness gather up portend intervention or revelation. The acceptance of these revealed truths requires faith, and this is fundamental to the saviorian religion. For example, only faith bathroom reveal the truth behind the arguing God is the father, the son and the Holy Ghost or that the bread of communion is the body of Christ.Thus revelation provides us with a body of truths, which must be taken on faith alone. Aquinas claims that faith is a combine of reason and opinion. It involves reason since it is propositional i.e. claims original beliefs to be square and therefore homogeneous to scientific knowledge. On the other hand these truths cannot be proved, and so involve an epistemic gap. It is this epistemic gap that necessitates faith a matter of opinion and so allows humanity free will over their belief. The stance that it is our prime(a) whether or not to take a leap of faith was also held by Soren Kierkegaard (1812-1855).Alvin Plantinga (1932-) proposed that the upright foundationalism upon which evidentialism is based is flawed. Foundationalist beliefs are described by Plantinga as the starting points for thought and he summarises their description as I am entitled to believe X without any evidence if and only if it is self-evident, uncorrectable or certain to me in some way. He argues that this is flawed, since this statement is itself neither 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, but that do not fall under the foundationalist criteria or that can be unslopedified contingently. For example, the trust we collect in our memory, or the belief that other people have minds of their own.Plantinga argues that we must ultimately reject unmingled foundationalism on the grounds that it is incoherent, and also because it rejects many beliefs that cat valium sense tells us to be properly basic. He propositions that his reformed epistemology should take the place of classical foundationalism, and because of this It is entirely right, rational, reasonable and proper to believe in God without any evidence at all. A theist might claim that it just appears obvious to them that God exists, and for Plantinga this is good enough. However, surely this would mean that anything we like can be a properly basic belief? Could a electric shavers belief in Santa Cla use not be defined as properly basic? Plantinga would respond by saying that it is the beliefs instantaneously connected to Gods existence that are properly basic, kind of than the belief in Gods existence itself. For example, the guilt mat after committing a bad deed or the sense that something must have created and designed the universe.Blais protactinium (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 wager allow us weigh the make water and loss in wagering that God is (exists)If you gain, you gain all, if you lose, you lose nothing. By this, he meant that the theist stands the chance of gaining entrance to nirvana at the risk of nothing, whilst the atheist however risks damnation to hell. However, surely this root word of self-gain is at odds with the teachings of the Christian church? W.K.Clifford suggested that God would deny nirvana to those who followed Pascals wager on the basis that f aith should be founded upon trust and morality, not self gain. Pascal might have responded that true belief would arise from the habit of religion i.e. baptism, mass, prayer etc. However, this is contradicted middling 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 immanence and His require on our everyday lives.William crowd (1842-1910) found Pascals proposition that we can change our beliefs by an act of will entirely ridiculous. He claimed solidly that our beliefs are contingent i.e. each new belief is connected to the previous one. He does agree however that it is rational to sustain a belief even without sufficient evidence given certain circumstances. The first circumstance is where the evidence is indeterminate between two beliefs i.e. favours neither excerption. The second circumstance is if we are faced with a g enuine option i.e. one that is living, forced and momentous. By living throng means one that is a reality, as opposed to a dead option, that whilst theoretically possible, isnt actually tone ending to happen e.g. a devout Catholic supporting the joyous 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 consternation goes off at 730. A momentous option is one that is unique and irreversible e.g. joining the army as opposed to a trivial option which is reversible and one that happens regularly throughout life. James 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 necessarily existence 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 attendant of a different religion). However, he does accept th at 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 prehend the opportunity and taking a risk. He states that when faced with a genuine option and without sufficient evidence, making a decision will and then reveal the evidence to us. For example, one cannot be sure of a others 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, natural theologians such as Aquinas would certainly dispute James claim that the evidence is indeterminate, for the cosmological, teleological, moral and experiential arguments whilst inconclusive can be extremely persuasive. Furthermore, like Pascal, he seems to ignore faith as an toleration of Gods immanence and active presence in our lives.The variate of faith held by Aquinas, Plantinga, Pascal and James is propositional in that they all claim that faith slightly 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 make is wrong or I believe in free manner of speaking 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, dependent creature, receiving life and well being from a higher sourcethe only appropriate attitude is one of grateful worship and obedience. John Hick.To conclude each of the arguments examined above set forth in their relationship with reason, but what they all have in common 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 transcendental nature of God can neer be proved, can never be indubitable, for faith is an integral part of religion. Perhaps then natural theology is not trying to prove Gods existence to the point where faith is cast out and certainty resides in its place, but rather it is merely trying to explore Gods nature.I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand St. Anselm (1033-1109) Proslogian 1. lifelike theology could therefore be seen as an expression of faith, rather than a foundation for it. The 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 dignity. On the other hand, surely God in His omnipotence could decide some way of maintaining our freedom whilst simultaneously providing us certainty of his have it away? Why not give certainty to the millions of His helpless and suffering children who have lost faith for where is their dignity?