Thursday, October 29, 2015
Evidence and Theism
In response to Demea and Philo's attack on reason in Part I, Cleanthes proposes a principle that he thinks should be applied to any belief, including belief in God's existence. He proposes that believers "proportion their assent to the precise degree of evidence which occurs" (9). In other words, we are justified in believing something if and only if we have evidence -- and the degree of our belief should be calibrated to the strength of the evidence. Is that true in every case? What about regarding our belief in God? Pascal, for example, proposed in his famous wager argument that, assuming there is no strong evidence either way, it is in our best interest to believe in God. Given the importance of accepting or rejecting theism for one's life values, is it ever permissible to believe (or disbelieve) in God on flimsy evidence?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I disagree with Cleanthes that our belief should be proportional to our evidence. The first problem with this argument is what qualifies as evidence. The definition of what qualifies as evidence is unique to every single person. Because of the unclear distinction on what actually justifies what constitutes as evidence there is no real way to determine what degree of belief one must assert for the position. An example could be one person constitutes evidence as a study conducted by a bias political organization. Another could define evidence as something only the person perceives as true for the moment. A concrete set of standards is the best way to define what is required to qualify as evidence. The only way to ensure that everyone sees can assert the same amount of belief per amount of evidence supporting the claim. Since the standards for evidence cannot be agreed on by the world consensus there can be no debate on whether God exists or not. However, this has not been implemented so there can be no formal discourse that can be weighed fairly. The result of this to reject asserting any belief to a concept based on evidence because evidence itself cannot be given a set of guidelines. The argument where we should proportion belief should never be the truth in any case because the unclear standard of what defines evidence. The second problem is all arguments that try to prove or disprove God use "evidence". Since there is no distinction this debate should reject all "evidence" since there would be no possible way to weigh arguments. The claims that may still exist then lack any support, causing them to be hollow assertions. I believe that the importance surrounds theism is one that cannot be solved through the traditional sphere of using "evidence" to prove or disprove it. I believe before any of this we must define what "evidence" is.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s unfair of Cleanthes to argue that someone should only have the right to believe something if they have evidence to support that belief, because believing has the potential to be invaluable. However, when it comes to allowing beliefs to influence decisions and actions, doing so without reason can be incredibly destructive, and this is often the case with religion. My stance isn’t that proof of god’s existence should be a requirement for belief in god’s existence, but the determination that certain people deserve to be treated differently than others, for example, shouldn’t stem from only the revealed theology of the bible. Furthermore, I disagree with Pascal that, without undeniable proof one way or the other, it is always best just to believe in god. Is it permissible, as the prompt asks? Sure, in most cases at least, as most religious people aren’t bigots or extremists in god’s name, but that doesn’t make it wise. If believing in god means counting on something better after this life, even though there is no proof of god or a heaven’s existence, then having faith risks living with complacency. It’s not “impermissible”, as this doesn’t directly harm anyone other than the believer themselves, but it’s not somehow a superior way of going through life, either. I, for one, would want proof of the existence of a god like being before adopting the mindset that I’m being watched over and protected. As we are constantly reminded, it’s so, so easy to be fooled by something that appears to be indisputable evidence, but is only deception, that believing in a thing that lacks even seemingly concrete proof, even if it provides a sense of comfort, is not as valuable as Pascal says.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is incredibly presumptuous for Cleanthes to propose that beliefs are ‘true’ if and only if they have substantial evidence behind them. This principle diminishes the whole purpose of having a belief in the first place. Merriam Webster defines belief as, “a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true.” Based on this definition, there is no prerequisite for evidence in order to hold a belief. Moreover, Cleanthes doesn’t provide a way to decide whether or how evidence can be considered credible. For example, Romans strongly believed in Roman gods that provided for them in many different ways. Many of the masterpieces of Roman poetry or great advancements in culture the Romans brought about may have been inspired by their strong dedication to their beliefs. They may have had little evidence to believe that their gods actually existed, but they still held these beliefs deeply. Would Cleanthes be correct in arguing that, in this society, their beliefs were not justified only because this great civilization had no ‘evidence’ for their beliefs? It would very arbitrary to take this stance.
ReplyDeleteObviously, humans have not found conclusive evidence or scientific data that truly proves the existence of God (yet?). But I agree with Pascal. To most religions, the existence of God is vital. Many people believe in God’s existence with so much fervor that they cannot envision a world in which he doesn’t exist. From that perspective, it is permissible and understandable to believe in God even without the usual forms of evidence. Regardless of evidence that would prove God’s existence, people still have strong reasons for their belief of God, such as historical tradition, revelation and sacred texts. These should not be discounted as false arguments, in exactly the same way as Hume’s arguments for God should not be discounted as false. While it might be advantageous to have evidence for one’s beliefs, when it comes to religion and the existence of God, the requirement for evidence is not essential as it would diminish the whole purpose of a sincerely held set of beliefs.