Here are the Contrasts of Blaise Pascal "The Wager "nonevidentialism position and Wk. Clifford “The Ethics of Belief” (Helm, 2016). First evidentialism is the belief that for which one has the evidence while nonevidalism depends on personal evidence to justify one's belief. The argument is based on our faith the two arguments will be centered mainly in the regards to religious matters like faith and the belief in the presence of God. In my opinion nonevidentialist arguments, therefore, falls mostly within my arguments in the belief in God and faith. Therefore, I will now defend my point of view using the points highlighted clearly by nonevidentialist philosophers, and contrasting the arguments set forth by the evidentialist Clifford.
First, let me look at Clifford's evidentialist arguments. Clifford begins his discussions with a story relation (Williams and Saunders, 2018). The whole affair is about a ship-owner who allowed a ship to the ocean. It was very old, and it needed repair. He was torn between two royalties about the sea-worthiness of the ship. Unfortunately, he did not examine and repair his vessel, but he decided to send it to sea as it was. Unfortunately, the ship got sunk in the middle of the ocean. Additionally, all workers in the ship died. Now all the blame lies with the owner of the ship. He, therefore, needed not to have assumed by believing in the capability of his ship rather than the experience of his vessel.
Clifford tries to argue that in this particular case there was lack of tangible proof to enable him to continue with the sailing of the ship. If the ship-owner had examined himself, he would be in a position to realize that he did something terrible. In fact, allowing the ship to the ocean without first inspecting and having it repaired was a great mistake (Walsh, 2018). Clifford also clarifies that it was the owner of the ship fault assuming that the ship was in good condition. The action of sending the ship to sea but failing to have enough proof to support his belief in its worthiness misleads him.
Clifford's point of view is that to support evidence, you must be in a position to accept a belief. He points out that unless a belief had triggered the owner to check and repair the ship, then one actually does not have a belief at any instance. Ideally, his view concurs with Kierkegaard's existentialism argument which states that a person's deep faith is usually lived out one's action (Walsh, 2018). Furthermore, Kierkegaard also suggests that it is from the action that one's existence is based according to inward passion. Clifford furthers his view that if one fails to act immediately upon his belief, it is mainly stored for the future guidance. Due to this piling of other beliefs explosion of the action occurs. Comparing Clifford to Kierkegaard, he argues more than the beliefs can be easily internalized for future use. According to Clifford the ship-owner act of believing in the insufficient evidence is not in order. Therefore, one cannot welcome this belief of theirs.
From this Clifford, argument tries to show that all beliefs serve big in influencing our actions. Therefore, measures based on beliefs without evidence will cause great harm. Since beliefs regarding one are not private, it is always bad to believe anything without evidence.
Now let me look at nonevidentialist argument by Pascal's "Wager” (McCormick, 2016). He tasked himself to bring out unbelievers to God. During his time arguments to prove God's existence were not regarded. Pascal's "Wager" was written to choose those against God and the Christians beliefs. This would cork the flow of atheism.
The Wager argues that we should either believe God is or He is not there. For anyone who embraces the Wager's argument and upon choosing the former finds out that God exist will have taken the right path. However, if a person decides to believe that there is no existence of God fundamentally he suffers a finite loss. Hence the loss of one's finite human life because there is no other option. On the contrary, if one agrees to believe in God the creator and that he exists there is the finite win of life for human beings. While for the evidentialist in reality they will not allow anyone to defend Pascal beliefs (RoutleHossjer, 2018). Anyone who the will be at fault since there is no proof. People by then would try to bring out that the only best thing is not to choose but Pascal was wise enough and restated that one can have a choice to choose. Bearing in mind that death is a reality wager did not try to bring a forced option lather it is the reality.
Therefore, Wager point of view is stronger than it reveals in the first instance. The other point is that a human being cannot force himself or herself to have believed in God. Therefore, Pascal answers that if you believe you cannot get act out of the belief it is therefore hard to think otherwise (Dougherty, 2018). Therefore, the belief will bring itself out. Pascal’s argued that the evidence is not a measure of faith in the existence of God. Since the wisdom, we acquire in the finite and in the infinite are existing. Therefore, with no doubt it is not a mandatory to realize the nature of infinite since it has the extension, as we usually tend to do. But God does not have extension compared to us by our belief we get the knowledge to realize his existence and his nature.
The contrast in Pascal in this context compared to Clifford's believe in of not coming being in possession of a belief without the evidence. He points that our point of reason is enough to make us believe even though there is no proof (Dougherty, 2018). Pascal also rules if we believe in anything we need not avoid errors and not receiving regrets as Clifford states. In conclusion, it is good put yourself in risks and also believing without the presence of evidence.
Pascal only had two arguments that first perfection is eternal and is wise in believing in the first element than at all. According to him, religious beliefs are a momentous option. Hence any belief in something or not would only have a difference if the result is true. There are two options either a Christianity or atheism (Long, 2016). Therefore, it is wise to make a good choice. The agonistic view places someone in a position of not being able to acknowledge the reality. Finally, he draws Clifford's rule of evidence as irrational since it curtails one from basically making decisions.
The nonevidentialist arguments are more evident compared to evidentialism belief since it is not compulsory to believe for you to have some evidence to support one's faith in something. Am therefore opposed to the fact that a person's privately held belief could result to harm, belief in God and religion originates from inward passion which helps to grow of faith and the spiritual life. I concur with suggestions of both Pascal and Kierkegaard in actions of getting involved in the parish (Long, 2016). This is both for lay minister and catechist. Sharing my faith with other people is generally for inspiration and bringing them close to God. It is related to Pascal's reasons for developing the Wager.
Religion is a highly personal issue, and therefore relationship - oriented hence cannot be proved by empirical evidence. There is always a calling from God to serve which is considered very mysterious since it happens from within for own good. No one else is supposed to believe or get. In as much as I believe sensory experience to find ones destiny faith, God's belief is a reality. Human beings can look for their destiny, choose to follow it and also act on it but anything else would be amount to a lie (Surrounds, 2017). It is, therefore, to recognize the presence of God and be in a position to follow your faith. Even though nonevidentialist arguments carry the day, let us all respect the presence of our creator as we live in this great world. The two arguments are trying to poss a challenge to us but finally; make a wise decision in your life. As finally you cannot escape death as all of us shall die.
References
Dougherty, T. (2018). Taking Pascal’s Wager: Faith, Evidence, and the Abundant Life, by Michael Rota. Faith and Philosophy, 35(1), 147-153.
Helm, P. (2016). Belief policies. Cambridge University Press.
Long, E. L. (2016). The Nature and Future of Christianity: A Study of Alternative Approaches. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
McCormick, M. S. (2016). Believing against the evidence: Agency and the ethics of belief (Vol. 63).
RoutleHossjer, O. (2018). Becoming a Christian: Combining Prior Belief, Evidence, and Will. Wipf and Stock Publishers.dge.
Surrounds, F. I. (2017). Religious Openness Hypothesis: I. Religious Reflection, Schemas, and Orientations Within Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 34(2), 99-113.
Walsh, S. (2018). Kierkegaard and Religion. Cambridge University Press.
Williams, N. W., " Saunders, J. (2018). Practical grounds for belief: Kant and James on religion. European Journal of Philosophy.
