While reading Clifford’s essay “The Ethics of Belief”, I found it very hard to be persuaded by his rigid understanding of what man is “allowed” to believe in. The three points that he sticks to are that man can believe in things that go beyond experience on the inference that what is unknown is like what is already known as fact, man can believe the beliefs of a sufficiently credible, and that, above all, it is always wrong to believe something on insufficient evidence. This set of requirements that Clifford provides in the essay do make sense in a scientific understanding. There are scientific beliefs that our collective society consider as facts, for example that the Earth is round or that gravity is a force acting upon us, pulling us downward toward Earth’s center. While these beliefs are cemented as fact within our current society, these were not always believed as fact (remember Galileo), proving that what is considered a “true” belief can change. Scientific facts also differ greatly from beliefs about social matters where the “right” answer is unclear or nonexistent.
My biggest problem with this essay is that by design of the strict rules laid out for everyone to follow, Clifford thinks that everyone should believe in the same things. I disagree that everyone should have the same belief system, and I would go even farther to say that no two people on the entire planet have exactly the same belief system. Personal experiences shape an individual’s perceptions and beliefs, and every person has unique experiences that become a unique system of beliefs.
Of course groups tend to form around a central belief shared among many people, the biggest example of this being religion. This again breaks Clifford’s rules, since according to him no belief should be held without evidence, but how can religious beliefs be proven true? Lack of hard evidence doesn’t invalidate the faith that religious people have, nor does it mean that everyone who doesn’t believe in a god is wrong. Clifford’s principles seem to be based on the principle that there is a singular truth that rules above all, providing a clear right and wrong, but (in my opinion) not everyone believes in or has found the same truth.
Another fault that Clifford makes in this essay is assuming that anyone has the power to control the beliefs of another person. In my opinion, beliefs are formed innately within a person, without a conscious decision being made, and once they are formed it is hard for an outside force to extinguish them. The idea of Clifford and others during this time period going around and policing people’s beliefs seems almost ridiculous.
In summary, Clifford’s requirements to validate a belief don’t really work, although it does seem like a nice ideal whilst reading through the comment section on Facebook, where millions of beliefs are constantly being shouted with no one to hear. But in reality, if all beliefs had to be run through the evidence checker before being “allowed” our society would be nothing more than a science textbook, with only facts and figures.
I strongly agree with your understanding in this post. Clifford wasn’t persuasive for the given fact that not everything can provide evidence and not everyone has the same belief. Clifford seemed to believe one way, and that that way was the only possible way to believe. He wanted evidence to be provide with every belief and while that may be possible for some predicaments, it isn’t possible for all. Along with agreeing with you, I also like how you stated “in my opinion” because it shows that there are other ways that things can be seen. For example, not everyone will agree with your opinion. However, it is your own thought and belief. I feel like Clifford should’ve had that same perspective. He should’ve been open minded to the fact that not everyone has the same belief system and some things aren’t tangible enough to have concrete evidence. If he were to take in everyone else’s perspective and beliefs, he would’ve had a different idea towards belief systems.
I find your analysis of clifford’s argument very pragmatic and thoughtful but also very critical. I think your points are very pertinent, especially the one about religious beliefs that I think is the strongest evidence against Clifford’s argument. It is indeed a great example of a system of beliefs widely spread that has no evidentiary support yet that we can in no way discredit for that reason. In that sense, clifford’s argument really lacks solidity. Still, wouldn’t you agree that although his perception of beliefs being rooted in evidence is very extremist, his point is valid in the sense that some ideas really should not be allowed to be spread without the support of thorough investigation? Especially if they involve other people. For instance today, someone can be persecuted for defamation which is, to put simply, telling stories about people without proof. I also think your idea that if we were to fact check every belief our society has, we would end up in a society ruled by textbook and science plus, there would be no creativity or spirituality which are important.