Nonevidentialism and Evidentialism

Nonevidentialism is not the inverse of evidentialism, but it does necessitate greater personal experience in order to justify faith in something. The two conflicting arguments revolve around God’s existence and religious faith. After carefully evaluating the two arguments offered in the class reading and conducting extensive research on philosophy, I conclude that the nonevidentalist argument is consistent with my religious system. I support my stance by citing non-evidentialist philosophers’ criticisms and comparing arguments presented by Clifford (246) in his work The Ethics of Believing. Nonevidentialism claims that belief can be legitimate without practical evidence which contrasts Clifford’s example of a ship owner who believed in its state without substantial evidence. We do not need enough evidence about God before we claim that he exists. Additionally, Clifford suggests that had the ship owner examined himself; he would have noted that he made a mistake of not repairing and checking the ship before allowing it to sail. In his argument, he asserts that it was wrong to send the ship out without concrete evidence to support the owner’s belief in its state (Clifford 246). Evidentialism theory says that all ideas influence actions in different ways. Nonevidentialism is about the passion that changes one’s attitudes and values towards a particular thing. However, insists that measures based on mere thought but have no evidence are harmful to the holder of the belief or others. His argument is that beliefs are not private and can affect other people other than the holders.

Objections

One of the objections to evidentialism is Pascal Wager’s argument; it can be used to support nonevidentialism. The evidentialism idea was used to prove that God’s existence did not have a strong argument during the time of medieval philosophy when philosophers ignored theology, and medieval philosophy was dead. Pascal Wager did not convince a man of the existence of God. Its intention was to force us to choose between God and Christianity (Hacking 189). The Wager proposed could not lead people to a deep faith. However, it became a starting point for the majority, which later took a cork to the growth of atheism to a particular level. Wager’s premise is that we have a choice to make between God and God is not. Those who accept Pascal Blaise’s wager and choose the former found out the there is God and gained infinitely. However, those who believe in God who does not exist only have a finite loss. The win was about finite life and nothing else. From an evidentialist point of view, no reasoning can create a better argument that defends Pascal’s positions. Pascal knew this hence gave people a forced option, and no one could avoid a choice. Death is a reality for us. Another practical objection is that we can only believe in a possible God. Pascal responded this complaint by stating that one can only act on the choices he made if they believe, even if they could not work on the selection they made. It is evident from Pascal’s argument that evidence is not necessary when forming a belief in God. We already have the knowledge of both finite and infinite existence. The infinite has extensions making it unnecessary for humans to know it. God has no limits or extensions like us. However, we come to know his nature and existence by faith.

William James’ article The Will to Believe is another objection for evidentialism. He objects to the idea of never holding a belief without evidence. James contends that we believe in things even though there is little evidence to support it because of our reassigning. His argument is that it is necessary to take risks involved in having faith without evidence. True faith is involved taking risks. Religious ideology is eternal like perfection. We are therefore better off believing in something than having faith in nothing at all. James calls religious principles momentous option because having faith in God could make a huge difference n someone’s life if God indeed exist. One has two choices; either be agonistic or a Christian. The thinker has the two appealing hypotheses although they draw towards one is weaker than the other. James suggests that we cannot continue at the fence of antagonism and miss the good we would grow if religion and the belief in God are true. Remaining agonistic without a primary choice about our faith and belief in God cuts us from enjoying a religious life that others have. It also leaves us stuck in the position of the possibility of denying the truths that we are concerned about.

Response

William James’s objection disputed Clifford’s examples. According to Clifford (246), a ship owner who has doubts about how his ship is sea worthy and sends it to the sea without repairing and examining it is responsible for any life lost. Our reasoning forces us to believe things with little evidence. Clifford argues that a ship owner has no moral obligation to believe in the soundness of his ship based on the experience with his vessel. His argument is not valid, especially when used in religion. Every Christian has had a different experience with God; their stories act as testimony to influence other believers who have never seen God and have no evidence of a physical God. It is, therefore, true, based on James’ argument that previous safe journeys influenced the owner’s belief in the soundness of the ship. The owner, therefore, needed no justification or evidence to believe that his ship was sea worthy (James 198).

While Evidentialism requires that a belief should influence a holder to act on something, one cannot act on infinite things. Clifford states that the owner did not have a belief to repair and examine a ship. The argument provided in this illustration is based on predetermined objects without extensions and is inconsistent with religion and faith. God is an infinite being and is limitless. It would be wrong to compare God to an object that one can predict its future behaviors and control. Besides, religion and faith are beyond natural control hence our reasoning would want to lock the truths about faith out. James (201) states that the truth about our self can be found in religion.

Pascal’s theory that we can only act on what we believe in helping to avoid the agnostic position taken by most people who believe in evidentialism. We do not benefit from looking for evidence of God to make decisions about our lives. Kierkegaard suggests that heartfelt beliefs and passions are lived by actions. A christens that has a passion for the things of God can have a mystical experience that is beyond human understanding. Those who believe in God, have practices that show their actions towards God such as singing worship and sacrifice. Christian’s actions are based on the principles of God and what God wants. The argument that people who do not act according to their values store activities for future guidance are consistent with the case that one can be private inward or internally. However, no man can have internal belief since faith is shared to win more people. A privately held opinion does not harm others because it based on what drives an individual.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I object to evidentialism and agree with the nonevidentialist position because we do not need hard evidence to have faith or form an opinion about certain things. Conviction comes from a personal experience even when there is no practicality in what we are convicted to trust. Belief in religion is privately held and does not require any form of justification. Waiting for or looking for evidence about God is impractical since he is infinite and limitless. Instead of evidence based belief, we need passion to act on something. My inward desire has caused me to believe in God, and I seek new opportunities to grow my religion. I agree with Pascal and Kierkegaard that passion can drive one to act on his or her faith. I also believe that God is infinite and limitless hence personal experiences with him are finite beings such as humans. When one is passionate about religious activities, they should to act on it and avoid agnosticism.

Works Cited

Clifford, William K. “The Ethics of Belief.” Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (1877): 246.

Hacking, Ian. “The Logic of Pascal’s Wager.” American Philosophical Quarterly 9.2 (1972): 186- 192.

James, William. “The Will to Believe” (1897): 193-213.