Perspectives on Religious Faith

Perspectives on Religious Faith

Introduction

The concept of religious beliefs has raised heated arguments among scholars and philosophers. While some philosophers like Richard Dawkins and William K. Clifford believe that religious faith is morally impermissible, William James and Stephen Jay Gould claim that there is evidence to show that it is permissible. The perception of those who oppose the existence of faith, such as Clifford and Dawkins, base their arguments on the science domain that offers no proof for religious belief, to the extent of terming miracles done in religious sects as violating nature laws (Clifford 10). James and Gould, on the other hand, maintain that faith does not occur in the domain of science since it is impossible for science can either disprove or confirm if religious beliefs are right. The arguments that this paper present considers the claims of Dawkins and Clifford that religious faith is morally impermissible, while at the same time discussing the notion of Gould and James that religious belief is ethically permissible, as they try to respond to criticisms of Clifford and Dawkins.

Faith as Morally Impermissible

The argument of Dawkins vividly depicts his opposition to the concept of religious belief based on science domains. Dawkins argues that science is a substitute of religion since because it provides answers to all problems facing humankind, within the confines of scientism. He criticizes the researchers of religious faith in the sense that they exclude science in the investigations. In other words, religion does not acknowledge the scientific phenomenon since it relies on the supernatural happenings that seem to be a violation of nature. According to Dawkins, religion, and science work hand-in-hand with each other. He illustrates this argument in the statement that “I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith” (Dawkins 61). His further claim is that while science examines the existence of the universe and way things function, religion fails to recognize this role. He applauds the famous religious people such as Pope John Paul II who started acknowledging evolution, implying their respect for science (Dawkins 66). This shift from spiritual faith to science makes Dawkins believe that religion cannot have moral standing in the community..

Clifford is also viewed as another critic of religious faith. The statement that “No evidence . . . can justify us in believing the truth of a statement which is contrary to, or outside of, the uniformity of nature” depicts his opposition to the fact that religious faith is morally permissible (Clifford 10). He based his arguments on the definition that philosophers often provided about miracles as disrespecting the nature rules, holding that there lacks proof to justify faith in miracles. He opposes that notion that comes with a religious belief that nature gains its meaning from universal and absolute uniformity. He advances his arguments by indicating that people tend to have faith in what surpasses their experience. According to him, believing what another person says should only occur when there exists reasonable ground to suppose that he or she is aware of the subject of which they talk about (10). The faith in these words also needs to indicate that someone is telling the truth per the knowledge he or she has about it. He, therefore, concludes by asserting that it is unacceptable to have faith in something that lacks enough evidence, indicating that it morally wrong believe in everything as the religious faith presumes.

Faith as Morally Permissible

Despite critic of religious belief, there exist philosophers who believe that this practice has a moral acceptance in the community. Among them are Stephen Jay Gould and William James, who says that faith should be separated from the domain of science because science does not confirm or disprove the correctness of religious faith. In a similar vein, they indicate that science does not belong to the domain of beliefs, as suggested by Dawkins and Clifford. Despite Gould establishing that achievement of wisdom in a complete life calls for extensive attention to both areas of faith and science, the two should be separated from each other in the sense that faith comes from the Bible. This claim emanates from the fact that this excellent book assures people that the truth can make them free and makes them live in optimal harmony with one another when they learn to love mercy, walk humbly, and do things justly. However, he is amazed when he realizes that some religious leaders are in support of faith lies in the science domain when it comes to the theory of evolution (Gould). Overall, Gould’sGould’s argument indicates presents science as making no sense in a religious context and thus regarding religious belief as morally acceptable.

William James holds that moral belief should be separated from scientific underpinnings. According to him, the religious faith accurately responds to the question of what is right or what would be good if it existed, unlike science, that only dwells on the discovery of what exists. While science can inform of what exists, both what does not exist and what is present, and it cannot compare the values. Therefore, science cannot address this issue by confirming or disproving the religious faith, and thus making it not fit to be mentioned in the domain of religion.

Response to Criticism

Criticism from Dawkins and Clifford has received some responses from James and Gould. Gould responds to Dawkins concerning the issue of religious leaders supporting science by pointing out that it was a mere way of Pope John Paul’s competing for news headlines at a specific time (Gould). He goes ahead to make things clear religious faith has never opposed evolution, as Dawkins argues based on what the Pope said in the Times. James, on the other hand, provided an answer to Clifford concerning the rules of nature. He posits that if those who support science used faith in their discoveries, there would be a significant advancement in science that it is at the moment (James 6). Therefore, he reminds Clifford of the human passion or faith being more reliable as compared to scientific or technical laws.

Conclusion

The argument has pointed out how different philosophers have different views concerning religions faith. Dawkins and Clifford present their cases in the domain of science, while Gould and James stick to the religious faith dimension in their debates. The critics of faith indicate that miraculous occurrences violate the laws of nature within the context of science. The supporters of religious beliefs, on the other hand, hold that there is no way faith has opposed evolution, but instead, depending on science may be morally wrong. The study also highlights the responses that the critics of religious beliefs have received from James Gould.

Works Cited

Clifford, William K. The Ethics of Believe. London: Macmillan and Co., 1886.

Dawkins, Richard. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Harvard University, 2003.

Gould, Stephen J. “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Gould%20Nonoverlapping%20Magisteria.htm. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.

William James. The Will to Believe and Other Essays. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897.