•Both Clifford and James assert their arguments regarding evidence and belief in the context of larger social-moral implications. To what extent are they in conflict with one another? Do you find one more compelling? Explain your position and consider how this relates to religious belief in a contemporary context.

Both Clifford and James have very different ideas about the subject of belief. In his essay The Ethics of Belief, Clifford argues that people have a responsibility to form their beliefs in a way that is reasonable and responsible, and that is based on evidence. He argues that beliefs are good or bad based on how they were formed, not on what the consequences of these are.

On the other hand, James argues in The Will to Believe that beliefs do not always have to come from cold facts and certainty. Sometimes, beliefs can also be influenced by feelings and passions. Moreover, what we believe in is not only a independent exercise, but one that is shaped by the social forces that surround us.

The two theories are in conflict with each other mainly where it concerns the origins of beliefs. While Clifford tends to support cold, hard facts, James allows for more subjectivity and practicality. I find that James's theory is more appealing to me and better suited to beliefs in a contemporary context. Nowadays, religion cannot exist in a vaccum. It has to be reconciled with many other areas of life, such as technology, education and our community. I believe that the theory that James puts forward is better equipped to deal with these pressures.

they produces sugar..

hope this , question was a little open ended