FirstName LastName: Affiliate: Code: Date: Clifford’s Evidentialism contrary To Pascal’s Non-Evidentialism Clifford Kingdon William was a mathematician as well as a philosopher at the University of Cambridge he did very little in mathematics but wafted more towards the philosophical works. In his publication Contemporary review Clifford describes various ethical beliefs. He questions the presence of existence of the criteria which describes how a belief could be defended and held. According to his philosophical belief it is senseless to choose or opt for what you belief without any sort of guide leading to your belief or justification. Clifford settles that regarding beliefs it is ethically and morally erroneous to defend embrace and believe in something without the presence of adequate evidence thus drawing the evidentialism notion (Clifford. Pp 13). In a summary of his view Clifford tries to enhance the notion that there should not be a belief without the presence of proof is more rational to adopt in the contemporary society. However it is irrational to rule out the dependence on faith sometimes in elucidating various beliefs which cannot be proved. Religious views or statements for instance “God exists” is a perfect examples of understanding of the soul and contradicting such proclamations is merely being skeptic. Work Cited Clifford William Kingdon. The Scientific Basis of Morals: And Other Essays Viz.: Right and Wrong the Ethics of Belief the Ethics of Religion. No. 55. Fitzgerald 1884. Dole Andrew and Andrew Chignell eds. God and the ethics of belief: new essays in philosophy of religion. Cambridge University Press 2005. Kappelmann Kirsten Marie. Proportioning Theistic Belief: Approaches to Faith Reason and Evidence. Diss. 2014. Rinard Susanna. "Against the new evidentialists." Philosophical Issues 25.1 (2015): 208-223. Thébert Angélique. "A Permissivist Ethics of Belief. What Pragmatism May Learn from Common Sense." European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 9.IX-2 (2017). [...]
Recall Clifford’s evidentialist argument from Module 2 and contrast Clifford’s position with one of the nonevidentialist positions encountered in either Module 5 or Module 6. Decide which position, evidentialism or nonevidentialism, more closely aligns with your own point of view and argue for that position.