clifford belief without evidenceclifford belief without evidence

William K. Clifford was an English mathematician and philosopher in the late 1800s. Often, just asking this question alone can help us see that a belief does not serve us, and we can work on letting it go. The maximum of liveness in a hypothesis means willingness to act irrevocably", Option "the decision between two hypotheses", Living and dead option "a living option is one in which both hypotheses are live ones", Forced and avoidable option an option for which there is "no possibility of not choosing", Momentous and trivial option an "option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later proves unwise", Genuine option "we may call an option a genuine option when it is of the forced, living, and momentous kind", Belief "A chemist finds a hypothesis live enough to spend a year in its verification: he believes in it to that extent. He may be critical of many of his desires and fears, but this fear he slavishly obeys. Very often, peoples convictions and opinions lead to the discovery of data that can eventually establish the truth or falsity of these convictions. WebClifford could respond affirming that, even if there are beneficial consequences following beliefs upon insufficient evidence, that proves neither that we are fulfilling our epistemic duties nor that the belief in question is rational, given that to justify them James brings to light only the passionate nature of that who believes. The Ethics of Belief. Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, CA. In The Ethics of Belief (1877), Clifford gives three arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to believe responsibly, that is, to believe only what we have sufficient evidence for, and what we have diligently investigated. Therefore, the main task is to find a proof showing that a theorem or conjecture is true in every possible case. I would say rather that if Clifford is right in his overall argument, then that would suggest it would be (morally) wrong to believe in God which is a different thing. Of concern for the means, rather than the ends, of their actionsI want to see him. They were telling me to ignore my own sense of reasoning, logic, and to just take their word for it. To a great extent, this critique relies on the ideas of William James who discusses the nature of faith in his lecture The Will to Believe. Clifford argues that it is morally wrong to act or believe without sufficient evidence. WebAccording to Clifford, blind faithi.e., belief without the support of adequate evidenceis immoral. Michael Polanyi argues that personal knowledge is very different from detached and indifferent ways of knowing. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever. The Jamesian argument seems an overt bait-and-switch; he seems to have defended religious belief by distorting it into something else. merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe. When we feel we are right about something, it feels good and we feel confident. Something is not truly a belief if it has no influence upon the believers actions b. He wrote a well thought out essay called The Ethics of Belief, in which he discusses how it is immoral to believe something without evidence, even if you end up being correct in your belief. One pressing question is how practicable the two views really are. In his very brief section IV, James introduces the main thesis of the work: Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say under such circumstances, "Do not decide, but leave the question open," is itself a passional decisionjust like deciding yes or notand is attended with the same risk of losing truth. I am, therefore, myself a complete empiricist so far as my theory of human knowledge goes. Should I first ask for the article and then pay you because of a lack of trust? James defends its value in decisions that are live, unavoidable, and momentous. Where did I learn this? First, it should be noted William Clifford formulates his argument in a very concise way; in particular, he says, it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence (Clifford unpaged). Overall, the nature of belief continues to attract the attention of many philosophers, scientists, and epistemologists who want to. You might be interested in my own articles on the subject. Moreover, they may deliberately disregard the evidence that contradicts their hypothesis. It contains thousands of paper examples on a wide variety of topics, all donated by helpful students. IvyPanda. While this principle has existed for centuries, it only became prominent in the minds of the common people after the ethics of belief debate in the 19th century[1] between W.K. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/belief-without-prior-evidence-2/. James concludes this section by asking us to agree "that wherever there is no forced option, the dispassionately judicial intellect with no pet hypothesis, saving us, as it does from dupery at any rate, ought to be our ideal.". Clifford himself was aware of this concern, as he worries that his view flirts with an untenable skepticism. We have a duty to be well-informed by the evidence not only to ourselves and our own character (Clifford thinks that if you believe based on your passions and wishful thinking, it will infect your character, an interesting anticipation of what later would become virtue epistemology). Clifford and James are iconically opposed. Secondly, some decisions are forced or avoidable, and thirdly some are momentous or trivial. (2022, November 30). Today I want to talk about why believing something without sufficient evidence is wrong, and that idea that how we come to a belief or a conclusion is more important than whether the belief or conclusion is correct. Need a custom essay sample written from scratch by You are just as wrong as the first case because you made an accusation with insufficient evidence. WebJames Vs Clifford. From examples like these, James concludes: "There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming. All Rights Reserved. So, William Cliffords approach to beliefs may not be applicable to daily lives of many people whose decisions are based on intuition, rather than empirical data. Religious belief is a forced and momentous option for James because it is like getting married: to delay it indefinitely because one could not be perfectly sure that it would not lead to a divorce, would forfeit the good of the marriage. There was no proof, but because they have been around so long, were just assumed to be true. "Belief without Prior Evidence." There are plenty of beliefs that we adopt because our brains try to make sense of the world around us. Why is it so important that we dont hold on to beliefs that are incorrect or based on insufficient evidence? Objection (2) seems to presuppose the ability to will a belief. Well reinterpret or spin things in a way that shows our position in a more favorable light. [6] Here I am putting James into my own words. (William James, "The Sentiment of Rationality"), The doctrine James developed in his "The Will to Believe" lecture was later extended by his protg F.C.S. Schiller in his lengthy essay "Axioms as Postulates". In other words, the actions and decisions of these people are based on preliminary and unsupported beliefs. Clifford makes a categorical mistake when he uses belief in the second sense to undermine human responsibility. If god just wanted me to just be obedient, why did he give me a mind that wanted to find answers, to question things that seemed illogical, and try to make sense of the world? When we come into this world, we are given a world view, a belief system from our parents, our religion, and our culture. To Jamess argument I would also add that there is a philosophical sense and a religious sense of belief, which are very different. Because if you come to a belief based upon faulty evidence, then you cant be sure that next time you use the same thinking that youll get to the correct outcome. The previous faith on my part in your liking's existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. In a world where we are so certain to incur them in spite of all our caution, a certain lightness of heart seems healthier than this excessive nervousness on their behalf. Without them researchers may not be able to achieve any progress in their work. The Will to Believe. He argues that he is no skeptic, yet this protest seems flimsy; in any case, James certainly takes Clifford to be a skeptic. In this way, to acquire evidence for religious belief, we must first have believers who adopt such belief without sufficient evidence. Often we want to hold on to a belief because it helps us. IvyPanda, 30 Nov. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/belief-without-prior-evidence-2/. We dont suffer from a lack of information in this world. Some specific objections to James' doctrine include: James addresses objection (1) in a footnote of his "The Will to Believe" essay where he argues that for a chemist to devote years of his life to verifying a hypothesis, the chemist must also believe his hypothesis. In order to explain this viewpoint, Clifford describes a situation when a person can convince oneself that something is true without even trying to obtain any evidence (Clifford unpaged). Charles Sanders Peirce ends his 1908 paper "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" complaining generally about what other philosophers had done with pragmatism, and ends with a criticism specifically of James' will to believe: It seems to me a pity they [pragmatists like James, Schiller] should allow a philosophy so instinct with life to become infected with seeds of death in such notions as that of the unreality of all ideas of infinity and that of the mutability of truth, and in such confusions of thought as that of active willing (willing to control thought, to doubt, and to weigh reasons) with willing not to exert the will (willing to believe). Epicycle upon epicycle of subsidiary hypothesis will have to be invoked to give to the discrepant terms a temporary appearance of squaring with each other; but at last even this resource will fail. [] The Ethics of Belief: William Clifford versus WilliamJames [], [] live as if I knewfor there really is no other option when it comes to some things (what William James had to say about that). It seems that this idea should be kept in mind by every person who has to take important decisions. CLIFFORDS ARGUMENTS. Secondly, peoples relations with one another are often based on beliefs without sufficient evidence. It is not enough that we have the correct answer. "[2] This principle can also be found in a slight variation, often called Clifford's Other Principle: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to ignore evidence that is relevant to his beliefs, or to dismiss relevant evidence in a facile way."[3]. Say, for example, you have a friend who is in the same math class youre in. November 30, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/belief-without-prior-evidence-2/. Clifford makes an analogy between stealing something and believing something without evidence, making both equally evil. They believe so completely in an anti-Christian order of the universe that there is no living option: Christianity is a dead hypothesis from the start. Belief affects other beliefs I always found the idea of blind faith troubling, because it makes abuse of power very easy, and we have seen this happen time after time. If one starts without the assumption that God exists (or that Providence or the ultimate is a significant reality, or a significant part of reality) then the ship owner is guilty of over-belief, of believing something on insufficient evidence. We can be humble and think of ourselves as seekers of knowledge, not as the fountain of truth. In module two reading, he stated that it is always wrong to make a claim without sufficient evidence. At any rate, it seems the fittest thing for the empiricist philosopher. Really the owner of the ship, which sank, was misusing trust in order not to be trust-worthy. There can be no evidence for certain beliefs because they are not grounded in observable phenomena. Here James considers and largely agrees with the criticism of Pascal's Wager that we either should not or are unable to believe or disbelieve at will. William James (1842-1910), on the other hand, a philosopher and psychologist, took a Theyll attribute their success to something else, such as their own brilliance or the superiority of their product, and are unwilling to attribute it to the luck of circumstance that broke in their favor. I, therefore, for one, cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth-seeking, or wilfully agree to keep my willing nature out of the game. For example, researchers often try to substantiate a certain theory or conjecture, but their efforts are guided by the assumption that this conjecture can be true. 30 November. Believe nothing, he tells us, keep your mind in suspense forever, rather than by closing it on insufficient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies. James' doctrine has taken a lot of criticism. What if the emigrants got to their destination safely? The analogy is of course, for the good that religious belief brings the believer. WebClifford on the Immorality of Religious Belief Without Evidence. In The Will to Believe, William James argues that we have a right to believe in some cases, when supporting evidence may be inadequate. The original site was designed by S. Abbas Raza in 2004 but soon completely redesigned by Mikko Hyppnen and deployed by Henrik Rydberg. That is no way to trust in God. One is for the credulity of a proposition or the evidence for a hypothesis making a theory scientifically acceptable. You might be interested in my own articles on the subject. Arguably, Jamesian reconstructed religious belief is not religious belief at all. 2008. Here I am putting James into my own words. In other words, their studies can become biased, and the validity of their discoveries can be easily undermined. 5. My gas gauge is on empty, and I keep on driving passing gas stations because I trust in God that I will not run out of gas. A New Ethics for the Total Person (Unconscious and Shadow Side as Well); not just the Ego over the RationalSelf . Bertrand Russell in "Free Thought and Official Propaganda" argued that one must always adhere to fallibilism, recognizing of all human knowledge that "None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error", and that the only means of progressing ever-closer to the truth is to never assume certainty, but always examine all sides and try to reach a conclusion objectively. Thanks. First that the best things are the more eternal things, overlapping things, the things in the universe that throw the last stone, so to speak[5] and that we are better off even now with the affirmation of religion.[6]. There is no way to prove Premise 1 from our sensory experiencesand self-evident truths. WebClifford believes that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence, including belief in God (Feinberg 139). Such a This feeling, forced on us we know not whence, that by obstinately believing that there are gods (although not to do so would be so easy both for our logic and our life) we are doing the universe the deepest service we can, seems part of the living essence of the religious hypothesis. THE DUTY OF INQUIRY A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. The question for traditional religious believers, of course, is whether James is really an ally at all. So how to do we get better at challenging our beliefs? Belief in this arena refers to trusting and committing oneself completely to the One who requires our ultimate concern, to use Tillichs phrase. W. K. Clifford (1845-1879) was a British philosopher and mathematician. Both agree that the evidence for God is weak, and certainly not sufficient to justify religious belief. EVIDENTIALISM- Claims that it is irrational to believe anything without evidence; the only good reason to believe anything is sufficient evidence. Believe truth! Explains the idea of belief and moral righteousness by coming up with the conclusion that it is morally incorrect to believe in a claim with insufficient evidence or to create a claim without sufficient evidence. There have been plenty of beliefs, ideas, and theories taught in schools or treated as common sense that were taken as fact. Of course, whether or not one takes an umbrella along in the morning is not a forced option: one could stay home; it is more trivial than momentous. Michael Polanyi argues that personal knowledge is very different from detached and indifferent ways of knowing. Any belief can always have affects on action and thereby hurt other people (and yourself) a. Such beliefs bring the realities their assertions refer to into existence. 1. When the Cliffords tell us how sinful it is to be Christians on such "insufficient evidence", insufficiency is really the last thing they have in mind. For example, in mathematics, a statement cannot be called true, even when it is supported by thousands of observations or empirical tests. [1] The example that Clifford gives of the immorality of belief without evidence is that of a ship owner, who forgoes an overhaul of his ship, overcoming his Philosophically, belief is relegated to opinion and only reasoning has a claim to reliable knowledge. However, since his essay is quite obviously a polemic against religious belief, it seems fairly clear that Clifford did not believe that religious beliefs could be supported by sufficient evidence. One can ask whether it is wise to have confidence in beliefs when there is no evidence to support them. In particular, he could have pointed out that many researchers can easily twist facts so that they could fit their theories. This is dangerous because once you have been correct, you are less likely to question yourself the next time because you guessed correctly this time. James criticizes Clifford from the point of view of decision-making. It was just by chance that you ended up on the right side. ", the necessity of positing a hypothesis without personally adopting it as a belief, the epistemological problems of belief voluntarism, success in the world verifies a belief, rather than restricting verification to predictive success, the separation of belief adoption from truth and epistemic justification, This page was last edited on 12 April 2023, at 21:09. Web. Word of mouth is the best way to help this podcast grow. In his work, the author demonstrates that in some cases, a persons conviction can imperil the lives of many people; therefore, one has to ensure his/her decisions are based on facts or reliable observations, rather than wishful thinking (Clifford unpaged). Any question is full of meaning to which, as here, contrary answers lead to contrary behavior. I just read your fine summary of Cliffords argument. Wisdom is not just the acquisition of information, but the skill of properly applying the knowledge that we gain to make better choices and actions. WebClifford could respond affirming that, even if there are beneficial consequences following beliefs upon insufficient evidence, that proves neither that we are fulfilling our epistemic In this case special attention should be paid to the concept of trust or reliance on someone elses good intentions, expertise, friendship, or loyalty. [1] From Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, editors, Philosophy of Religion, Third Edition, (Oxford University Press, 2007), page 109.