In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith? , she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.
There is much belief to suggest that we can depend on our senses unless there is just cause or evidence suggested to question their reliability. Therefore, the belief of reality may be subjected to interpretation or skepticism, but without solid evidence to discard what we believe to be true, we should be confident in what we hold to be true. Skepticism or Justified True Belief
There is no way to know everything there is to know. This means that knowledge will always be inherently limited by numerous different factors. According to DesCartes, knowing can only be applied to what one has clearly observed to be true (111). Observable knowledge can be limited by things such as background and sex. However, the greatest limitation may be lack of skepticism, whether it be questioning oneself or an authority.
In “The Problem of the Criterion,” Chisholm sketches a rough description of two forms of epistemology and seeks to display their interdependence in the designation of knowledge. By demonstrating this interdependence, he seeks to propose the position of the skeptic who asserts what is referred to as “universal skepticism,” the idea that it impossible to know anything. Chisholm begins this discussion by isolating two dividing questions: A) “What do we know? What is the extent of our knowledge?” B) “How are we to decide whether we know?”
Peter Elbow presents the believing game and the doubting game in “The Believing Game-Methodological Believing.” He states that, the doubting game represents a form of thinking that is mostly recognize and taught. The doubting game intention is to be skeptical and analytical with every idea that one experiences. On the other hand, the believing game principle is to embrace as much as possible every idea one experiences, by actually trying to believe different views. He believes that both the doubting game and believing game has weaknesses.
Skepticism is the force that drives philosopher to continue challenging the unquestioned mass opinions. Skeptics are people who deny that we have knowledge about a specific subject. For example, a skeptic of the external world believes that we do not have any knowledge of the external world due to our perception of the world. Skepticism of the outside world argues that due to our perception, we are unable to have knowledge of the outside world. For instance, our eyes have deceived us do to illusions, like when hot asphalt looks like it has water on it.
It is essentially doubting the previous beliefs one has before analysis and in this case, doubt reality.
Clifford argues that all beliefs must be justified. In his writing, The Ethics of Belief, Clifford states that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe in anything upon insufficient evidence” (Clifford 5). Clifford means that it is morally wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence. This can be a problem when one examines the very definition of belief. A belief is a thought, which may have a foundation in reality, but does not require it.
In the 1963 philosophy paper titled “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Edmund Gettier attempts to deconstruct and disprove the philosophical argument that justified true belief is knowledge. Justified true belief, also commonly referred to as JTB, is used as a certain set of conditions that are used to explain someone s knowing some sort of proposition p. More specifically, JTB is used to say that s has knowledge of p if and only if p is true, s believes that p is true, and s is justified in believing that p is true. Gettier offers main points as the conclusion of his argument against this claim. First, he states that s can be justified in believing that p is true while p is actually false.
William K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” is an essay about justification and how we are morally required to prove our beliefs. Clifford’s theory throughout the essay was “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford thinks that it is a moral obligation for you to confirm each of your beliefs with sufficient proof, no matter how questionable or insignificant the beliefs may be. I believe he thinks this because beliefs have serious effects and consequences on others.
Plato’s short story the Allegory of the Cave, Plato portrays a scene in a cave to the reader that analyzes human actions. The story is about a group of men that are chained for their entire life. The only thing they are exposed to are shadows on the wall of a fire burning by people behind them. The people exposing these men are hiding the truth of the outside world. Plato reveals that humans are easily fooled into believing what they see.
Or, stating that there is a God who created this universe on one hand, and advancing the scientific theory of the Big Bang and the random chaotic creation of this world on the other hand. So after showing the different kinds of oppositions and antitheses the skeptics advance in their search for the truth, we come to analyze their main reasoning attitude: they don’t deny nor affirm anything, they therefore suspend judgment. Elaborating, to deny something is to assert its falsity, just as to affirm it is to assert its truth. And since the skeptics point out and recognize the mere conflicts and opposition between two equally plausible or implausible claims, they suspend the two arguments against each other.
Marisa Moreno Professor Sennet Philosophy 001 31 Oct 2017 First Paper Topic When someone thinks of the word knowledge, the first thing that tends to pop into their head is that they know something. The question is, do they really know something to the fullest or do they only know a part of it?
Methods of Rationalism by Plato and Descartes Philosophy has had an impact on mankind for thousands of years. This topic attempts to answer questions about the everyday world, and how things are the way they are. In Philosophy, there are many different topics that are discussed. These topics include Epistemology, Ontology, Ethics, Political and Social Philosophy, Aesthetics, Logic, and more. The topic that will be discussed in this paper is Epistemology, or the study of knowledge.
Historically, philosophers and scholars have been known to argue and disagree about the most trivial matters because of the prejudices and biases towards the subject matter. Descartes popularized the methodological doubt because he realized that throughout his life he had acquired and maintained certain opinions and beliefs that he later discovered were false. Methodological doubt was a process that sought to attain the truth that was beyond dispute or was doubted by human beings and his fellow philosophers. Therefore, the methodic doubt was an approach to knowledge that would filter and sift through all the beliefs and opinions that people had and categorize then to create indubitably true knowledge. It was important in establishing a firm foundation of unchanging facts and knowledge from which people could base or dispute the knowledge, beliefs, and information they had amerced in their lifetimes.
