Pragmatic Justification

Does something's existence have to be proven to be believed? The argument of pragmatism has always been a touchy one for some. It is a topic that many will avoid, and many will fight tooth and nail about. Whether or not God does actually exist is completely subjective. Some people can go off of the writings of the Bible alone to make their beliefs in God valid, but on the other hand, there are also some that need physical proof in order to validate such. Should it be your choice to believe in faith or God?

There are three writers who have come to agree on this very touchy subject. Those writers are Blaise Pascal, William James, and Soren Kierkegaard (Lawhead. 351). The conclusions that these writers have agreed on are simple, but so complex at the same time. The first of the three conclusions is, "Reason is insufficient to provide rational grounds for belief in God's existence." What can actually prove God's existence? Do we have as humans, the ability to prove the existence of something that is "infinite" when we as humans are finite in thought and experience? The second is, "It is impossible to take a neutral standpoint with respect to God's existence." These authors have concluded that no matter what your beliefs are, there cannot be a standpoint of neutrality; you either believe or you do not. There must be a choice, and that choice is usually made without knowledge of whether or not there truly is a God. The final thought is, "When reason cannot guide us in making an unavoidable decision, it is legitimate to appeal to subjective justification in deciding what to believe." They felt that if there is objective evidence (evidence you can evaluate yourself) available, it should be used.

Expanding on the last conclusion, how can we make the objective decision that God is in fact real if we as a person if we cannot prove for a fact that God is real? Do we take the subjective "leap of faith" (Lawhead 351) that Kierkegaard argued? As with most theists, they would state that you do not need objective evidence; that going off of subjective evidence alone should suffice. But most Atheist thoughts are based off of the evidence only aspect of belief. If you cannot put your hands on it, it does not exist.

Dependent and independent pragmatic arguments are the first to come to most minds when talking about pragmatic justification. Truth-independent arguments are usually used most due to the ability to believe just for the sake of believing or "benefits gained by believing it" (Jordan). Some feel that without belief in religion, there would be no civility. Dependent arguments are truth dependent, but not in a sense that they can be proven, but the belief itself is true. How can we say that solely on faith can we base this to be factual? How can one say that "God is going to save us" when we have