The problem of belief is considered to be very complicated and doubtful. Considering such works of the masters of philosophical ideas as William James’ “The Will to Believe” and William K. Clifford’s essay “The Ethics of Belief”, it is difficult to come to conclusion whether it is necessary to believe without arguments or not. Having read these two essays, I came to conclusion that there are cases when people have to believe without evidence. One of the main examples of such belief is religion. People do not need any evidence when they speak about religion as this is the notion which presupposes unreasoned powerful motivation. Religion is one of the best examples in debate about the necessity of argumentation in belief. When people speak about religion, they do not need any arguments, they are not required any proved and events which can firmly prove the existence of God. In most cases people just believe, without any argumentation. Otherwise, they would have to stop believing but it is impossible. No matter how people reject the existence of God, they still make the possibility that there is something out there. Belief does not require any argumentation as in this case it is going to be supported with arguments idea. If people do not believe, the presence of argumentation is not going to convince them, they will require more and more evidence. Religion and particularly belief in God is higher than any argumentation. A person should trust the words of those who have studied religion and its history, the words of those who know the most important facts about religion and can interpret these facts for the benefit of those who use this religion. Speaking of the necessity of evidence for making a person to believe, it should be said that in this case, a person will be presented with the reasoned personal idea. Each time a person provides arguments, he/she expresses personal opinion. In this case, one believes his/her opinion. And this is not argumentation, it is still a belief without evidence of the point of view presented by another person. Thus, it turns out that no matter whether a person is presented arguments or not he/she does not get any argumentation. The facts in our life are not numerous, each time a person considers any fact, he/she adds particular idea to it, support it with some characteristics and additional arguments which have already been considered from personal perspective. Each argument is personal treatment of the fact Thus, when a person is presented with the arguments, he/she is presented with the specific points of view which are also to be checked. It is impossible to present straight argumentation without additional color. Therefore, it may be concluded that belief is an abstract notion which cannot be supported with the arguments. People are to believe without reasons and even if people demand for justification, they are going to be provided with strong and emotional personal opinion. Arguments are going to be colored from the point of view of a person who presents them, as a result, a person anyway trusts without argumentation. So, if there are no strong facts without personal opinion, why do people need them? People got used to doubt otherwise, they would trust