Reminder: Jason is presenting tomorrow.
Reading: Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief", pp. 99-103
Reading Guide
As I noted in class, Clifford's position on what it takes to believe responsibly is stronger than Aquinas'. Whereas Aquinas believed that individual believers are not required to understand the proofs for those religious truths that can be demonstrated, Clifford believed that each individual is responsible for believing only propositions for which they themselves have sufficient evidence: "No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe" (102).
Clifford begins with the story of a shipowner who believes on "insufficient evidence" that his ship is shipworthy. In the first version of the story, this has disastrous consequences for his passengers. In the 2nd version, all is well. Pay attention to Clifford's analysis of this example and the subsequent example of the islanders who made "grave accusations" against men who were perceived as heretics. Why does Clifford say in each case that the shipowner and the accusers had "no right to believe" the beliefs they acted upon?
Clifford then explains why the shipowner and the accusers can be faulted both for their actions and for their beliefs. He argues that this duty to believe nothing for which you have insufficient evidence applies to all persons. Moreover, we can still be blamed for believing what turns out to be true if we believed it on insufficient evidence.
These are strong claims. As you read, try to discern what would count for Clifford as sufficient evidence for belief.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Clifford's essay is a refreshing stand against Aquinas's argument. I did not feel that Aquinas articulated or defended his position very well, but Clifford's practical examples help to explain his main ideas. Should we be obligated to believe based only on faith and not evidence. I want to say no, but religion tends to rely on the supernatural, which we naturally contains much that is unexplained, and gets to play by somewhat different rules. However, I do agree that it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence. We have a duty to believe based on evidence as rational beings. The highest good we can do is to seek knowledge, and being too busy to do so is not acceptable.
I think there may be some merit to Clifford’s statements. This seems to be most in line with a just God, even if Clifford’s intent is to suggest no one should believe in God. If a just God rewarded those who arbitrarily accepted him, how are those that accept any different than those who arbitrarily reject him? Clifford concludes by stating that if you have no time to investigate, you have no time to believe. To take this a step further, a just God could conceivably hold those who do not believe accountable if their reason for not believing is due to not taking the time to investigate properly. Thus God could require us to apply our abilities to investigate religious questions and in doing so come to the correct conclusion. Perhaps there are problems with this view, but they seem to be more in line with a conception of a just God than does the view that the Christian who accepts Christianity without investigation merits reward.
Although Clifford's argument seems only rational at first, his claim is far to broad to support coherently. Clifford claims that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." The key phrase that weakens his proposition is "insufficient evidence." Clifford fails to address what exactly constitutes "sufficient evidence." Without a set quantifiable definition, there can be NO truly justified belief. Even scientific "fact" may not entail complete truth. Limited human understanding thus bars true belief in anything whatsoever. Clifford also claims that such false beliefs are also morally wrong in a social sense, but fails to address the possibility of complete human isolation. Would a man living completely alone on a desert island truly have any adverse effect on others with his false beliefs? The point of Clifford's argument is still fundamentally important to philosophical though. He is simply advising all rational beings to play devil's advocate by refusing to accept anything openly as true fact. It is important to keep such an open mindset when making broad philosophical assertions.
I ascribe to Aristotle's idea to the golden mean. In the case here of Clifford's essay, I think he strikes much closer to the golden mean of what to believe and what not to believe. If, on the one hand you have the Descartian skeptics who don't really believe in much of anything, the other hand would be Aquinas and his acceptance of just about everything. Where I really like what Clifford has to say is in his criticism of accepting or rather trusting what others have to say leading to a population becoming easily manipulated. What I find rather too skeptical to be quite at the golden mean though is his assertion that the only things we can believe in morally are those which we have good evidence for. This removes any kind of trust from human interaction. Sometimes, one will be called to action without the luxury of being able to gather good evidence. In those times, it is useful and I would say necessary to have people who you can trust to aid in your decision making.
Correction: *subscribe*
...whoops...
I like Clifford's argument that it is wrong to "believe anything upon insufficient evidence." But I don't quite agree with the "wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone" part. I think the world would be a much different place if people never tried new, unproven things. Taking chances is how society moves forward. I don't think Clifford should be as strict as he is with his criteria.
I believe Clifford makes a pretty solid point that if one does not question his beliefs then he has no reason to hold such beliefs. I wonder though how far this extends. Only to matters that are significant to man? If we were to question everything then absolutely nothing would ever be decided upon in our minds. I think it very applicable in matters of religious beliefs but can anyone ever know when they have questioned enough and come to truth? When has one reached a point where searching and questioning are no longer necessary?
While I do think that this is a pretty solid argument, and very logical, I do agree with Matt that he doesn't line up what "sufficient evidence" for belief might be, which is about the only bone I have to pick with the entire article. Maybe it's the humanist appeal, that we are doing our fellow man a disservice by believing things that aren't true, or believing things for the wrong reasons, but in any case, I do like it on a basic level.
To Dan: The reason that people try new and unproven things aren't because they believe they will happen, but because they have a desire to prove something. If they cannot prove it, then they will leave it alone or change it so that something else might be proven. Testing new things isn't an unfounded belief, it's a test to see if a belief can be soundly held.
I believe it is important to question your beliefs. Most people who are true christians and not just those who go to church here and there do that. Part of developing your faith is to wrestle with God and try to come to terms/ find an understanding of why things are the way they are. I think people in general are curious beings and we seek to understand things. Clifford points to something I think is important if your are are a believer or non believer. What about death though. We know it exists but everyone who has experienced it cannot tell us what it is like. Like if there is life after death or if death is the end of the line. Not to mention death is felt in many different ways. For instance a cancer patient, some killed in an auto accident, an elderly person that passes in their sleep. They all have the same end but they are on different paths to that end. Just a though.
I find this reading interesting. The first part sounds a lot like USAFA's intent policy in honor cases. It's not what happens that matters, it's your intent. Did you intend to cheat steal or not? That is where the real problem lies. Not within the outcome but the thoughts behind the action. I think all of Clifford's arguments make sense and are well argued. I enjoy his use of examples and find them extremely helpful. I think he makes more sense than Aquinas and his argument is easier to understand.
Post a Comment