James’ Implications for Evidentialism, Essay Example

In James’ line “A rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule” talks about James’ views on faith. With this he argues against evidentialism and he does this in order to justify hypothesis venturing. This is often seen for James’ to justify religious beliefs, however he gives examples of friendship and the like to back up his claims. He uses his philosophy of pragmatism which supports his hypothesis’ truth on the matter of faith. The essay on “Will to Believe” allows him to assume belief in God and prove God’s existence by stating what the belief in God brings to an individual’s life.

James believes that the only true beliefs are those who come in useful to the believer. Truth can be verified if thoughts and statements correspond with the actual beliefs in where they all fall in place together. The real value of truth really depends upon the individual holding that truth, that it varies from one person to the next, depending on how you understand or interpret it.

James’ line in “Will to believe” states that there are just some things in the world where you cannot justify with reason, you need faith to believe that it is true. Truth and fact are two different things, when something exists in a physical sense and you can perceive it, it is just there, it does not make it true. However, since the truth is a dynamic thing, and its only meaning is what meaning someone gives it, then you cannot define it in terms of facts. This is because what is true for one person may not be true for the next. So, for there to be a rule which would prevent anyone from acknowledging truths just because they were not justifiable, it is irrational. This would mean that people have to conform to certain truths in society, and there has to be universal meaning of truths for all, everyone needs to have the same beliefs and the same pattern of thinking for us to be able to define what is true.

James’ claim is right in a sense that truth is very dependent. You cannot give one meaning to it, since it varies depending on the person holding that truth. Because this truth is so dynamic, you simply cannot impose a rule saying that the only truths you should believe in are the ones that are already and really there. Something which is true for one person can be true for another person, but maybe to a different degree. Therefore, you cannot justify a truth or a belief just based on evidences, because these evidences may also vary, just as truth does.

Clifford Presented Evidentialism in a way or rule of how to prove truth. The line speaks of faith, and how there are just some things in life that you cannot justify through evidence. He believed that it is wrong to believe in something that had insufficient evidence. You need to nhave enough evidence for a truth, for it to be classified as real. As evidentialism claims, a belief can only be justified on a person’s physical evidences on the matter. It is a system which defines what it takes for one to believe in something; that it has to be reasonable, and or justifiable. In turn, evidentialism believes that the only truths are the ones we can justify with sufficient evidences, and if there are lacking evidences, then there should be no reason to believe in that matter. James argued that it is not necessary to believe justifiably.