Multiple discussions and attitudes are developed toward the topic of faith and reason. In Chapter 6 of “Philosophy of Religion,” Rowe introduced several perspectives on how to understand the relationship between reason and beliefs, and the position of Clifford that evidence and reason always prevail over beliefs and religion is one of them. Using my experience and preferences, I would like to agree with Clifford about the necessity to strengthen the habit of testing things in the modern world, and I also want to support James, who defends the believer’s policy.
The main difference between the opinions introduced by James and Clifford is the nature of their beliefs. Clifford does not want to accept any policy but the agnostic one according to which it is wrong to believe in something that does not have strong evidence. James seems to be loyal in this context and permits the possibility of two positions, agnostic and theistic. Still, he prefers the theistic one when the believer’s policy is possible. I like the intention of Clifford to explain that the lack of evidence may result in social regression and primitivism. People have already made numerous achievements in knowledge governance, discovered many things, and shared their experiences. Evidence cannot be neglected and continues playing a crucial role in human life. At the same time, I am not ready to question James’ approach that both reason and passion should be considered in decision-making.
If people start suppressing their passion (preferences and interests) and rely on reason (evident judgments) only, they may easily lose their humaneness that is an integral quality of people. The neglect of passion can make people act like robots. Therefore, I choose a golden mean, accepting Clifford’s necessity to test things and look for evidence but never at the expense of human interests and beliefs defended by James.