The Compatibility of Faith and Reason Comparing WK ​​Clifford and William James's two selections on the compatibility of faith and reason, I think both arguments make very valid points. However, I think, after careful reading and based on my experience, that William James has the stronger argument. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayWilliam James The Will to Believe asserts that our passionate nature not only can legitimately, but must, decide an option among propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that, by its nature, cannot be decided on intellectual grounds. James's argument is that, under certain circumstances, it is perfectly legal for a person to go ahead and believe something for which there is a lack of scientific evidence. Doing so is not unreasonable. This argument becomes useful in the religious hypothesis of the existence of God. James himself believed that there was a Consciousness Higher than that of the human beings to which we are connected. Among other things, this Higher Consciousness cares for and preserves many of the things we hold dear, such as love, truth and justice. This is done so that the values ​​held by these things continue to exist in the world rather than perish with us when we die. James's thesis in this regard was that his beliefs on this matter were perfectly legal even though there is currently no scientific proof of the existence of a Higher Consciousness. He argued that if we had an infallible intellect with its objective certainties, going ahead and believing in something without scientific proof would not be legal. However, this is certainly not the case, so according to James it is our intellectual duty to regulate what we believe through science. Returning to the argument for the existence of God, since the existence of God is not a question of scientific fact, why should we suspend our belief in God? James believed that modern science was a kind of organized nervousness. The tests we subject theories to before accepting them as truth serve a kind of human interest: the fear of being wrong or of being caught by surprise by the course of events. Another way to avoid this is through our constant hope of discovering new things. According to James, because of these different interest groups, we have no obligation to suspend belief in God just because to date the existence of God has not been proven by modern science. It depends on which set of interests we choose to prioritize regarding the hypothesis that God exists: (a) because of our fear of being wrong or (b) because of our hope of being right. The person who conforms to his hope in the existence of God is just as reasonable as the person who gives in to the fear that there may be no God at all. Part of James's argument was recently used by Pope John Paul II. In his Reflections on Fides et Ratio, the Pope states that human beings are seekers of truth. And during this search, reason cannot support us alone. Whether it is the truth of immediate experience or scientific truth, a carefully elaborated philosophical thought or an existentially experienced idea, the search for truth is always accompanied by an act of faith. As social beings, in fact, human beings are incapable of verifying and ascertaining everything on their own; at every level it is necessary to place enlightened trust in the testimony of others and in one's own cultural tradition. As a seeker of truth, man is, precisely for this reason, one who lives by faith. However, having said that, knowledge through faith - without personal proof of the truth,.