Thursday, November 6, 2014
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)
Cleanthes’s statement that belief should be based off of the strength of evidence—and notably not any other forces— is typically true. It is logical that, when deciding which of two opposing beliefs we should accept, if one option of belief has more evidence than another—especially if that option has indisputable evidence—that that belief is more likely to be true than the other and should be followed instead of the other. The problem in Cleanthes’s conclusion lies in situations where evidence for both cases is weak or non-existent, and such is the case for the issue of God’s existence. When faced with the predicament of a lack of certainty, we might look towards other means of determining which beliefs are superior, the most common of which is judging the effect that the belief will have on our lives. Pascal attempts to utilize this strategy, but although he proposes the idea of choosing the seemingly better option when no evidence is present to steer a decision one way or another—in this case choosing to believe in God—since Cleanthes’s statement is very logical in the majority of arguments it makes more logical sense to adhere to his reasoning for all cases. If, according to Cleanthes’s idea, evidence must be clear for a belief in order for it to be accepted, should no evidence be apparent the best course of action would therefore be to not believe in either direction. In the case of believing God, Cleanthes would explain that since there is no definitive evidence in either direction that the best course of action would be to simply admit that we don’t know what the right answer is and to leave it at that without allowing less reliable aspects like emotions and consequences to factor into the decision.
ReplyDeleteI think that we can only be justified in believing something if we have sufficient evidence to do so. Since justified belief is knowledge, Cleanthes’ principal really proposes that evidence is necessary for knowledge. Therefore, I think that Cleanthes’ principal is true in every case; knowledge can only come from true occurrences in reality. As a result, our belief in God cannot be justified because we have no real evidence concerning God. Nonetheless, we can still maintain a belief in God that can play a beneficial role in our lives. Beliefs do not have to be justified to be effective. A belief in God can lead to more virtuous behavior and greater appreciation for the world even if God does not really exist. We model our behavior around what we think exists so a belief can influence us just as much as a proven truth. As a result, I partially agree with Pascal. I think that beliefs based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence are still permissible because they can improve our lives. However, I do not think that it is always in our best interest to believe in God. There is no absolute set of beliefs that every person should hold. A belief that improves one person’s life could just as easily damage another person’s life. While one person could find comfort in God, another could find that God represses his free will. Thus, I think that belief in God is permissible, but such a belief must be chosen to improve one’s life. Likewise, a belief in God must be dismissed when such a belief is harmful. Since God cannot be proven to exist, our beliefs about God are created solely by us. No external deity controls our beliefs so our beliefs do not need to follow a preordained system. Therefore, we can and should choose our beliefs to benefit our lives the most.
ReplyDeleteI think that Cleanthes is correct in is claim that the strength of the evidence of a belief should correlate to our willingness to believe in that belief. I think that whenever you want to determine what is necessarily true and correct between two things, whichever has more evidence is most likely to be the best choice to assent your opinion. With Cleanthes’ claim, he argues that his analogy only shows that the strongest evidence proves that God exists. At that point, he provides no real evidence of God, just probable evidence. As a result, there is no specific set of beliefs that everyone is required to follow.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, it isn’t necessarily true that everyone only desires to know the truth about things. Many don’t care about obtaining absolute knowledge but assent their belief to whatever suits them best. Pascal is in a way correct in saying that it is in our best interest to believe in God. Although, I think that his claim is only true if we leave the term God undefined. As long as God is undefined, the idea of his existence can align with any religion or system of beliefs. And so, by agreeing with Pascal we agree that religion is something that positively contributes to each individual’s life values. Insofar that there is no specific God, everyone’s life can be improved. People can choose whatever entity that they believe would be most conducive to improving their lifestyle. If they need guidance, they can adopt a God that will guide them. If they need protection, they can adopt a god that will protect them. This idea is just like the reason for Santa Claus’s existence in the minds of young children. Undeniably, there is not sufficient evidence to support his existence. Yet, children choose to believe because he gives them something to excitedly anticipate. Even once a child learns that Santa doesn’t exist and is forced to accept the truth, they are reluctant and devastated because regardless of his reality, their belief in him contributed to their overall happiness and quality of life. What Santa Claus can do for young children, God can do for anyone in the world.