D4: Faith and Reason

Pascal and James argue that there are cases in which it is appropriate to believe that God exists when the evidence is not sufficient (they of course have their own nuances).  Clifford thinks this is entirely mistaken.  What do you think?  Are there things that you believe without sufficient evidence?  There probably are and you probably are ok with that.  If so, couldn’t believing that God exists be one of those things that is ok to believe without sufficient evidence?  Explain your response. (I encourage you to refer to the readings, and when you do, please indicate the page number for all the readers)

D4: Faith and Reason Answer

The argument of religious experience is a good example of why believing God exists does not need sufficient evidence. As Pascal mentioned, “but by Faith we know, His existence” (141). There are “miracles” that happened and are happening that even science cannot explain. Why is believing in miracles widespread? People believe in miracles because they go against the so-called law of nature. For instance, how can a dead body not decompose? This is beyond logical explanation. Healings of fatal injuries and incurable illnesses also violate the laws of science as they cannot be explained by any discipline