Abstract

There is a serious conflict between reason and faith since the Age of Enlightenment until present era. In order to show the relation between reason and religion, British mathematician "William Clifford" proposed the theory of "Evidentialism". Based on this theory, religious beliefs cannot be accepted unless sufficient evidences and indications are established to support and confirm them; otherwise, they are rejected. The belief in anything is false if it is not based on sufficient evidences, arguments and indications. Evidentialism rejects the plausibility of religious beliefs and holds that they do not have sufficient rational evidences. There is a countertheory to Evidentialism called "Fideism". It emphasizes that religious doctrinal system is not subject to rational evaluation. So, every effort and attempt to prove religious beliefs by rational evidence, like proving the belief in the existence of God, would fail; because the field of religious beliefs is not a field for reason and reasoning. However, the domain of religious beliefs is not but love, emotions and feelings. In this study, we discuss both theories of Evidentialism and Fideism, following the analytical rational approach. we criticize and evaluate them, and then suggest moderate rationalism instead.