Notes on Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief”
1. Thesis: It’s immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation.
2. First Argument: Four Cases
2.1 1st Ship owner case: A ship-owner sincerely believes his ship is seaworthy without sufficient evidence – indeed, against the evidence -- and acts on that belief, and the belief turns out to be false.
2.1.1Verdict: blameworthy
2.1.2 He had no right to believe it, since his evidence didn’t support it
2.2 2nd Ship owner case: Same as before, except the belief turns out to be true:
2.2.1 Verdict: still blameworthy
2.2.2 The rightness or wrongness of holding a belief doesn’t depend on its truth or falsity, but on how one came to believe it.
2.2.3 But in this case, he came to believe it without good evidence, and that’s what makes his believing it immoral
2.3 1st Persecution case: A group of citizens come to sincerely believe, without sufficient evidence, (unsubstantiated rumors) that a religious group in their certain country illicitly indoctrinated children with certain unpopular religious beliefs (denial of original sin and eternal punishment). The citizens act on that belief and persecute the religious group, but the belief turns out to be false. A commission was formed to look into the allegations. The evidence discovered clearly showed that the religious group was innocent of the charge. The group of persecutors could’ve easily discovered this if they had looked into it, but they chose not to.
2.3.1.1 Verdict: Blameworthy
2.3.1.2 The rest of the citizens came to see the persecutors as unreasonable and untrustworthy
2.4 2nd Persecution case: Same as before, except that in this case the belief turns out to be true:
2.3.2.1 Verdict: Still blameworthy
2.5 The underlying point: It’s wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence.
3. Objection:
3.1 The illustrations don’t show that’s it’s wrong to believe without sufficient evidence.
3.2 Rather, what they show is that it’s wrong to act on a belief that has insufficient evidence.
4. Reply: it’s impossible to compartmentalize beliefs so that they don’t affect one’s actions – or at least so that they don’t affect others in some way or other
4.1 Once you believe something, your ability is diminished to fairly evaluate evidence that has the potential to undermine that belief.
4.2 Each new belief influences one’s total system of beliefs to some extent, and one’s actions are based on this system of beliefs
4.3 Beliefs are not private, but are public property, and serve as the basis of human action.
4.3.1 from the beginning of human history until now, human beings have collectively generated a huge network of beliefs about the world
4.3.2 these are constantly added to, either by careful investigation and testing, or by irresponsible acceptance
4.3.3 they are transmitted to others and handed down from generation to generation
4.3.4 the human community bases their actions and lives on this network of beliefs
4.3.5 thus, communicating an unjustified belief results in it being added it to the publicly held network of beliefs, in which case it can have potentially harmful effects on others if they act on it
5. Every belief must be based on sufficient evidence
5.1 No belief exists for the good of any particular individual alone, but for the sake of the public good
5.2 They all contribute to the common network of beliefs
5.3 Thus, they all contribute to binding humans together and directing their cooperative actions
5.4 But if so, then every belief, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can have an impact on the lives of others
6. Every person has this duty to believe only upon sufficient evidence
6.1 Every person has the power to either diminish or strengthen harmful superstitions in the home, among friends, or at work by what they say
6.2 But if so, then each person is morally responsible for the beliefs that form the basis of what they say to others
7. Second Argument: Unjustified Beliefs Can Harm Others Due To Their Content:
7. 1 Beliefs determine our ability to predict, control, and navigate our way in the world
7.1.1 When they are true, they enhance our ability to do these things
7.1.2 When they are false, they diminish our ability to do these things
7.2 Beliefs have two features that give them the power to potentially shape the behavior and character of the whole human race
7.2.1 Beliefs have the power to alter human behavior and character, individually and collectively
7.2.2 Once a belief resides in one person, it can be transmitted to others through communication and thereby affect their behavior and character
7.3 Thus, beliefs – the public network of beliefs – have a huge impact on the lives of human beings
7.4 Given this picture of the nature and power of beliefs, and thus their impact on human lives, it’s easy to appreciate why it’s important to form beliefs responsibly
8. Third Argument: Consistently Believing Things Without Sufficient Evidence Harms People By Making Them Gullible
8.1Your gullibility is harmful to others
8.1.1 you send the message to others that evidence doesn’t matter
8.1.2 Historically, this leads to a return to savagery
8.1.3 think of the Jim Jones case, the Heaven’s Gate case, The Salem Witch Trials, etc.
8.2 Your gullibility is harmful to yourself
8.2.1 if you don’t care about truth, then others will take advantage of this
8.2.2 think of the scams that tens of thousands of people get sucked into every year
9. Application: Morally Irresponsible Religious Belief
10. Objection: Most people don’t have time to inquire into the evidence regarding their religious beliefs.
11. Reply: “Then he should have no time to believe”.
Another Outstanding Article Surveying Cutting-Edge Responses to the Problem of Evil
And by the leading contemporary philosopher on the topic, to boot! You can access it here.
Philosophy Talk
This is an excellent, one-of-a-kind show. It's a radio show hosted by famous philosophers, and who discuss philosophical issues with other famous, guest philosophers. Here is a link to the archive of past shows.
A Very Helpful Audio Dialogue on Presuppositional Apologetics
Can be found here
There are several there, actually, and all of them are downloadable. James Lazarus presents a lucid critique of a kind of apologetical argument commonly espoused by Christians who are also Calvinists.
There are several there, actually, and all of them are downloadable. James Lazarus presents a lucid critique of a kind of apologetical argument commonly espoused by Christians who are also Calvinists.
On Caring About and Pursuing Truth
Aiming at having true beliefs is important for a number of reasons. Here’s a fairly obvious yet important one: truths accurately represent the way things really are; falsehoods do not. If so, then since our thoughts, feelings, and (ultimately) actions are largely governed by our beliefs, believing falsehoods can lead to thinking, feeling, and (ultimately) acting in ways that are not in the best interests of ourselves and others, since they’re not tailored to the way the world really is. And as we all know by experience, this can hurt us – sometimes badly. Think of those who buy automobiles and houses, and those who marry (let alone those who set foreign and domestic policy) on the basis of false information. Thus, at the very least, we should care about having true beliefs, if for no other reason than that it’s in our own best interests to do so.
If it’s important to aim at having true beliefs, how can we increase our chances of having such beliefs? Well, choosing what to believe on the basis of flipping a coin doesn’t seem to be an effective method. What, then, is effective? Speaking in the most general terms: sensitivity to evidence; that is, listening to (and reading) the best evidence and arguments we can get our hands on, and forming our beliefs in the light of it.
Now as we all know, the truth is often hard to find when it comes to matters that go beyond the ordinary events of common experience. Thus, there is a corresponding wide range of opinion on issues with respect to politics, economics, religion, etc. Unfortunately, the implications and consequences of such issues are often so momentous that we can’t afford to suspend judgment, and we are thus forced to come to conclusions on such matters. How, then, are we to proceed? Clearly, if our aim is truth, and this requires a sensitivity to evidence and arguments, then we must carefully and critically listen to the evidence and arguments from all the major "camps" with respect to a given issue. Just listening to the arguments of the camps that we’re antecedently attracted to radically diminishes the probability that we’ll have true beliefs (This of course includes the vice of forming one's opinions about opposing views merely on the basis of what is said about them from thinkers within one's favorite “camp”.). Thus, increasing our chances of having true beliefs requires sensitivity to evidence, as well as to all of the competing theories that attempt to explain the evidence.
But this isn’t the whole story. For one can listen to all the evidence and all of the competing theories, and yet fail to properly evaluate it. What sorts of things do we need to properly evaluate theories and evidence? Well, we need good critical thinking skills; so it’s a good idea to develop these to the best of our abilities. The core of any good set of good critical thinking skills includes the ability to distinguish reliable from unreliable sources of evidence, as well as the ability to distinguish reliable from unreliable inferences, or patterns of reasoning (i.e., good vs. bad inductive and deductive inferences). Logic and critical thinking courses are of course especially helpful in this regard.
But again, this can’t be the whole story. For we all know plenty of people who use logic purely for sport, e.g., to debate issues merely to seek “victory” in a contest of wits. Thus, one can listen to all the competing theories about a range of evidence and arguments without the attempt to discern truth. This naturally leads us to see the need for certain intellectual virtues. Here are some examples that I think are fairly uncontroversial:
Intellectual humility: realizing my finitude and fallibility, I acknowledge that I may be mistaken -- even about matters that are deeply important and fundamental. This leads to a willingness to genuinely listen to others, a lack of concern for “winning” a debate, and a keen interest in finding the truth. It also leads to a desire to find out where one is mistaken or otherwise unjustified in one’s beliefs, in order to correct them.
Intellectual honesty: Applying the same rigorous standards to one’s cherished views as one does to the views one finds unattractive. Acknowledging, to yourself and to those with whom you disagree, problems and objections to your views for which you lack a solid answer.
Intellectual charity: giving your interlocutor the best possible hearing. When reading arguments and positions different from your own, you aim at mastering and internalizing them. When these have weaknesses, you attempt to make them stronger.
Intellectual tentativeness: Permanently leaving your beliefs open to revision, should new evidence come to light that conflicts with them.
At this point, we have what looks to be a fairly reasonable and effective plan for increasing the likelihood of believing truths and avoiding falsehood. However, our chances can be increased yet further if we participate with others in the pursuit of truth: collective, evidence-sensitive inquiry. Thus, ideally, we would have a group of others (the more the merrier!) participating in the democratic exchange of ideas. This nicely provides for an extra level of rigor and scrutiny: the all-important factor of peer-review.
Thus, we have a complete and attractive vision for the pursuit of truth: applying the free, friendly, open, charitable, and frank exchange of ideas and arguments, where we see each other as friends and cooperators in a meaningful and exciting joint venture in the pursuit of truth (as opposed to seeing each other as adversaries and competitors in a battle for victory). In this way, we can substantially increase our chances of believing truths and avoiding falsehoods, and thereby increase our chances of flourishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)