#import "template.typ": *
#show: template.with(
  title: "24.05 Essay 2",
  subtitle: "<NAME>",
  pset: true,
)

#note(
  title: "Prompt #2"
)[
  Develop an argument against the following claim: the same body of total evidence cannot both justify theism and agnosticism.
]

= Argument

#twocol(
  [
    / P1.1: In the presence of faith, it is often required to have external beliefs that may not be rooted in evidence.
    / P1.2: If it is often required to have external beliefs that may not be rooted in evidence, then a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions.
    / P1.3: In the presence of faith, a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions. 
    / P2.1: Theism exists in the presence of faith.
    / P2.2: Agnosticism exists in the presence of faith.
    / P2.3: In both Theism and Agnosticism, a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions.
    / P3: If in both Theism and Agnosticism, a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions, then the same body of total evidence can justify both Theism and Agnosticism.
    / C: The same body of total evidence can justify both Theism and Agnosticism.

    Note that the arrows are slightly off from what we have seen in the class, for example if I had full control over this graphic, the arrows from `1.1` and `1.2` would join at a center point before continuing onward to `1.3`
  ],
  bimg("img/essay2.png")
)

In this essay, I will argue that a total body of evidence can in fact, justify both Theism and Agnosticism. At the core of this argument is the idea of belief and faith. Both belief and faith are sensitive words in the context of human emotions, and finding the _true_ definition of either is extremely subjective. I will instead attempt to clearly define what I believe them to be, as well as other key terminologies that will be used throughout this essay. 

= Essay

In *`P1.1`*, I define a core part of what I believe it means to be faithful. I actually believe that this trait can be attributed to *trust* as well, but I will not be attempting to motivate that claim here.

I claim that in the presence of faith, it is often required to have external beliefs that may not be rooted in evidence. This is a core part of what it means to have faith - I would go as far to say that without this mindset of faith, we are not actually looking at faith, but rather logic.

This is not to say that faith and logic live on opposite sides of the spectrum. It of course can be the case that you have faith in something that is logically sound as well. If your favorite sports team has been doing well the entire season, having faith in them that they will also win the finals is equally logical. However, I mean to distinguish when faith becomes its own unique construct, which is when not all parts of it are rooted in evidence. When I say that I have faith in something, I usually mean that I believe in some intangible that I cannot show or prove through evidence. This is what I believe it means to have faith - that even if your sports team is doing poorly, you will have *faith* that they can perform in the finals.

I believe this interpretation of faith is reasonable and is consistent with what most people have as the sentiment when they have faith in something. The following parts of my argument relies on this definition of faith, and I will be using it throughout the rest of this essay. If one is to disagree with this definition, then my argument holds no weight to that person.

Then, I now believe in *`P1.2`* that if it is often required to have external beliefs that may not be rooted in evidence, then a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions. This is a direct result of the definition of faith that I have provided. If faith is the belief in something that is not rooted in evidence, then it is reasonable to say that a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions. Different parties can have different faiths not rooted in evidence, and thus can arrive at different conclusions. I want to note here that both of these conclusions are *correct*. Of course, people can always come to their own conclusions, but what differentiates them is whether they hold any weight. It is not of interest if there merely exist two conclusions, as long as only one is correct and the rest of somehow flawed. However, having multiple correct conclusions should be considered a point of interest. That is the claim I make here - that faith leads to equally correct interpretations of the data. You cannot say a sports team who is not in the finals is going to win, but you can have faith and conclude that one of the two teams in the finals is going to win.

This leads to counterpoint that this faith cannot be translated into a conclusion or a concrete belief. If you acknowledge that you have faith, you acknowledge that there is some illogical part of your reasoning, and thus it should compel you to conclude that although you might believe a certain way, any other party should view you as being unable to come to any definitive conclusion. I disagree with this point, as I hold the idea that the strength of the idea of faith is that it allows you to do exactly this - come to conclusions that are not rooted in evidence. Thinking about my time with religious friends and family, I have seen this absolute conviction of certainty that faith can provide in the face of insurmountable evidence or lack thereof. This is why I say that faith can lead to different conclusions, and that these conclusions can be equally correct.

*`P1.3`* simply connects these two points together. If faith is the belief in something that is not rooted in evidence, and if it is often required to have external beliefs that may not be rooted in evidence, then a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions.

I then say in both parts of *`P2`* that Theism and Agnosticism exist in the presence of faith. I don't mean to say that both require faith, although I do believe that Theism does, but rather that they both exist in a reality where faith is a construct that must be considered. I make this point because it is necessary for any conversation about faith. Otherwise there simply exist two frames of reference for different people where Theism and Agnosticism can be reached as a conclusion. I believe it is acceptable to say this because of whether or not you believe in someone's faith, I believe that everyone should conclude the idea of faith should be respected. Again, denying the existence of faith is denying the existence of a construct that is very real to many people.

Therefore, both people who are Theists and Agnostics can have faith in their beliefs. This is not to say that they must have faith, but rather that they can, and both parties should respect that.

*`P2.3`* then concludes that in both Theism and Agnosticism, a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions. This is a direct result of the previous points I have made. If faith is a construct that is necessary to consider, and if faith can lead to different conclusions, then it is reasonable to say that in both Theism and Agnosticism, a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions.

Therefore, it must be the case that the same body of total evidence can justify both Theism and Agnosticism. This is the claim I make in *`C`*. If in both Theism and Agnosticism, a total body of evidence can lead to different conclusions, then the same body of total evidence can justify both Theism and Agnosticism.
