Nonevidential Reasons for Belief: A Jamesian View

This content is available through online browsing (free) program dependent on page scan. Screen readers can not currently scan, so please contact JSTOR user support for access. We will provide PDF copy of your screen reader

Some believe that Clifford 's opinion is contradictory, but it attracts devaluation of possible outcomes of non - political beliefs and argues that the result is not related to this belief. My argument is that Clifford's view is the same and it is only necessary to clarify the impact on the role of "belief ethics" (and in this respect William James's "will believe"). As Clifford argues, the outcome of certain events not formed by a specific belief has nothing to do with the state of knowledge and moral belief. A moral problem is the use of non-political beliefs to form a policy that constitutes a commitment to the principle of opposition. (I) previous ethical obligations to minimize the risk of hurting themselves and other people (ii) blatant ignorance (i) risk policy, ie nonviolence

Of course, the problem of traditional religious believers is whether James is truly an alliance. James's claim seems to be an open descent and conversion; he seems to keep religious beliefs by distorting religious beliefs. It can be said that religious beliefs reconstructed by James are not entirely religious. In fact, James' religious belief seems to remain the same as that of Clifford. Therefore, the symbolic opposition between Clifford and James confirmed a settlement

For James, this is the situation of experience and beliefs, and morals and religious beliefs. For leads, it includes empirical beliefs and recognition principles. 4 I will test how much James' view on these beliefs is similar to Lead's view. James 'strategy for scientists can certainly be compared with lead and skeptics' practices. At first glance, James' dilemma (for example, accepting the assumption that God exists, you reject it, accepting to climb a mountain, ignore this possibility) Confidence, or you will pause your judgment). In either case, we need to choose insufficient evidence. To some extent, Lead and James provide the same type of answer: Given the lack of sufficient evidence, having those beliefs is actually rational if they play a central role in our lives It is.