Clifford's Argument Is He's Characterizing the Belief

3min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

Clifford: If you were consistently unable to arrive at any belief, it would be irrational. I think James is arguing that the strictness of the evidentialist view will make it impossible for people to adopt certain beliefs. He's using rhetorically the extremeness of the Clifford argument to argue what he thinks is another extreme. But again, I like I think that well, it wouldn't prevent you from seeing truth.

David and Tamler argue about William James' classic essay "The Will to Believe." What's more important - avoiding falsehood or discovering truth? When (if ever) is it rational to believe anything without enough evidence? What about beliefs that we can't be agnostic about? Are there hypotheses that we have to believe in order for them to come true? Does James successfully demonstrate that faith can be rational?

Plus, a philosopher at Apple who's not allowed to talk to the media - what are they hiding? And why are academics constantly telling students that academia is a nightmare?

Support Very Bad Wizards

Links: