William K. Clifford’s “Ethics of Belief”
Clifford writes that action is a stored belief. If an individual does not realize their belief, it is kept deeply in themselves to be an influence in the future. Like every experience, influence builds and builds and builds. These influences shape our lives and our actions. This aggregation of influence is our thoughts and are represented through action. With that said, a man who thinks strongly about one side of a question could never investigate it without bias. Clifford believes that every action or firm side should be questioned and to gain all evidence is to come with a justified decision. Belief, however, may not be presently justified, and therefore, actions must be made on probabilities that may justify future belief.
Clifford forms the argument that what we do not know is similar to what we do know. He uses this for what goes beyond our experience and infer from our experiences themselves with no proof of the beyond. The example of believing a statement from another person is given. We may believe him/her when it is reasonable to suppose he knows the subject which he speaks and speaks it as truth as far as he knows it. Clifford says it is wrong to believe with insufficient evidence and essential to doubt and to investigate. Therefore, it is worse to presume to believe. Clifford believes that it is better to believe a falsehood with tremendous evidence for it over a truth on faith.
William James’s “The Will to Believe”
William James wrote his essay/lecture “The Will to Believe” in the defense of believing in religious matters. He uses the idea of hypotheses and options to convey the willingness of man to act. The degree of which you are willing to act is however, based on how appealing the option you choose between the two hypotheses. The option is not an option, but the hypothesis you decide to choose. James continues to denote these hypotheses as living and dead. The living hypothesis is seen, to the individual, as a possibility. The dead hypothesis means it is not a possibility to the individual. He also calls forced options as hypotheses where one has to be an option rather than an avoidable hypothesis where an option is not taken. Thirdly, momentous hypotheses are unique and trivial hypotheses are not unique, insignificant, or reversible. He uses these all to define a genuine option, which is living, forced, and momentous. Even though “The Will to Believe” is defending the belief of religion, he uses the same reasoning in everything between chemical reactions in a lab by a scientist and the belief of GOD by any individual.
James believes we must make decisions irrational based on our passions. Not every situation can be logically decided. My example of this is: do I eat waffles or pancakes in the morning. They are essentially the same, but what is the choice in the situation (definitely waffles). He then uses the forced argument of believing in GOD or not to believe in GOD. As GOD cannot be logically evident, we must believe in our passions alone. After all, this decision is to include or exclude you from heaven, so it would be nice to know for certain.
Where I Stand
Before I read the “The Ethics of Belief'' and “The Will to Believe” I thought I would wholeheartedly and logically side with William James. After reading both essays, I sway from one to the other. Both arguments are very compelling whether you believe in GOD or another religion or even no religion. I do believe that we should question authority and presume doubt with virtually every situation. However, I do not believe it is evil to hold religious beliefs because we can not logically prove and show irrefutable evidence of our faith(s). Now, I do side with James that goodness or badness can come from religious belief and that having religious beliefs is a momentous decision. The important part is that you decide to have faith and live your life accordingly.
References:
FilesTextsIntroClifford_Ethics_shorter.PDF (brandeis.edu)
JAMES Will to Believe.pdf | Powered by Box
"James believes we must make decisions irrational based on our passions" -- That's misleading. James writes: "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 the question open," is itself a passional decision,—just like deciding yes or no,—and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth."*
ReplyDeleteDeciding on the basis of our passional nature is not "irrational" when the intellectual grounds for decision are inconclusive. Belief in god is not the same as a preference for waffles, for those who consider religious belief forced and momentous.
"The important part is that you decide to have faith and live your life accordingly." OR, that you decide NOT to, and live accordingly... AND that you then evaluate the consequences of those choices, and decide whether subsequent experience vindicates or confutes them.
* https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm