Reference no: EM13156008

Both Pascal and William James put forward a kind of "prudential" argument for religious belief. They argue that we are sometimes forced to choose in the absence of available good evidence, and argue that we should make decisions on practical grounds in those cases. Contemporary philosopher Michael Bergmann, on the other hand, as a representative of Reformed epistemology, takes a different approach. Instead of arguing that religious beliefs can be justified based on prudential reasons, he instead posits that human beings have a "sense of divinity" that allows us to rationally form basic beliefs entailing God's existence. Are either of these two streams of nonevidentialism reasonable justifications of religious belief in your view? Why or why not?