Should religious beliefs require evidence, or should they be matters of faith?

Paper instructions: A popular idea suggests that religious beliefs, unlike scientific beliefs, should be merely a matter of faith. In this paper, tell me what you think. Do you think that religious beliefs require evidence, or should they be matters of faith (c.f. Clifford and James)? Are there good, philosophical or scientific reasons to believe in God? In answering this question, you may want to consider:
    William Cliffords argument in The Ethics of Belief regarding evidence and epistemic responsibility and William Jamess counter-proposal in The Will to Believe
    The three theological arguments and responses that weve looked at so far such as the cosmological argument, the design argument, or the ontological argument. Do any of these arguments give us good reasons to belief in god or accept religious beliefs?
    Pragmatic reasons for belief such as Pascals Wager, the medical benefits of religious belief, or Jamess claims about religion. Do these offer good reasons to believe in God?

I NEED THIS PAPER TO BE REVISED…AND CHECK IF IT ANSWERS THE INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE! ALSO, IT NEEDS TO SOUND LESS FORMAL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Order Now

Top