William Clifford and William James’ Conflict Views on Beliefs

The argument presented by William James in “The Will to Believe” covers theistic beliefs and also includes various philosophical issues as well as matters of practical life. James's primary concern is to argue that Clifford's Rule is irrational. According to Clifford's Rule, one should avoid error at all costs and ultimately risk the loss of certain truths. James claims that Clifford's Rule is just one intellectual strategy and then makes an argument to seek truth by any means available, even at the risk of error or being completely false. James is not arguing against conforming one's belief to the evidence. Nor is he arguing against the importance of evidence. His argument is against withholding beliefs whenever there is little evidence,

In Kelly James Clark’s Article “Without Evidence or Argument”, Clark argues that belief in God, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. Clark’s argument is against W.K. Clifford’s article “The Ethics of Belief”, in which Clifford claims that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence (139). Throughout Kelly Clark’s article he states many things that support his conclusion of belief without evidence or argument, however, my paper will only discuss what Clark says on p.139 starting with the paragraph “The first problem with Clifford’s…” and the following paragraph, ending with the words “...to see why.”

In the pages of the bible one can find an early answer to an ancient debate. Jesus appears before Thomas whom had doubted Jesus’s existence and says, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who do not see, and yet believed.”(John 20:29). Jesus reveres those who were able to accept his existence without proof, while scorning Thomas for his doubt. The struggle between belief and doubt is seen throughout the course of history. The novel A Prayer For Owen Meany by John Irving also attempts to address the battle between these seemingly mutually exclusive principles. The novel centers around a boy named Owen Meany, who believes his future is predetermined for him by God. The protagonist is a man named John Wheelwright, who

On top of all the negligence the ship owner was still only worried about his benefit and collected an insurance payment on the ship that sank. This strengthens the argument that he probably knew this ship would not make it. The ship owner’s greed cost the lives of the crew on board. Clifford in the essay says, “The unjustified beliefs affect many people, and that it is therefore clear that those beliefs were culpably wrong”(Clifford PAGE MUNBER). Clearly the situation of the ship owner is demonstrated here because the unjustified beliefs he had about the ship being ready to be sailed affected all the people on board the ship and their

In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is

In science, James declares that our options are for the best part but not momentous, As well as today’s technology, we should do all in our power to let proof guide our choice. Therefore, James does not actually differ with Clifford cases. However, James disagree merely on cases where the intelligence is quiet. James states that “faith in the fact can aid make the fact”. In which the fact in query is something to be wished for, in these case William James believes that faith is clearly sensible. For example, supposing that a person is involved in a significant party-political tussle just like the “civil rights movement” and she/he recognizes from tough experience that tussles of this kind thrive merely if persons have belief that they can and will prosper, no matter what the impartial proof says. In view of this case, James embraces that it is ethically allowable for a person to believe that the tussle will prosper, since this belief makes it more possible that a person will attain something which is greatly

According to Clifford (1879), there is an ethics to belief that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. Clifford (1879) begins his paper by providing an illustrative analogy – one where a ship-owner is preparing to send to sea a ship filled

William James explains his position on religious belief by relating his idea to that of Pascal’s. He does think that is reasonable to believe in God without evidence, but not based on Pascal’s wager which is to base your belief on cost-benefit analysis; James thinks this is wrong because it is not live. James does think it is permissible to believe without evidence when we have a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds. That is when our passional nature takes over and decides the matter. James states how when he is explaining passional nature he means “all factors of belief as ear and hope, prejudice and passion, imitation and partisanship, the circumpressure of our caste and set,” and then says that when we find ourselves believing we don’t know how or why. James begins his paper by explaining is stance on belief by writing that anything that may be proposed to our belief is a hypothesis. He goes on to explain that the decision of two hypotheses is an option. There are several options: living if both possibilities appeal as real possibilities for the agent, forced if it is unavoidable, and momentous if it is not trivial. He states that religion is a momentous option, and that “we are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose by our non-belief, a certain vital good.” He then goes on to say that religion is also a forced option; we cannot remain skeptical and wait for a greater evidence to believe. However, he does say that

In his lecture, “The Will to Believe,” William James addresses how one adopts a belief. There is a hypothesis and an option, where you choose between two live hypotheses. An option has the characteristics to be live or dead, forced or avoidable, and momentous or trivial. In his thesis, James argues how “our passional nature” must make our decisions about our beliefs when they cannot be certainly determined on “intellectual grounds,” however, this is not the case, we can always make the decision based on intellectual grounds. One can use Bayesian probability to gain some grasp of the situation and eventually to make a decision.

The Will to Believe is a lecture that was presented by William James in 1896, it specifically defends that one can choose to believe in a religion without prior evidence of its truth. William James was a well-distinguished philosopher as well as a psychologist and a physician. He with a few other philosophers like Charles sanders Pierce and John Dewey were fundamental in establishing modern philosophy in America and are thought to be the founding fathers of pragmatism.

Born in 1845, William Clifford was a mathematician and philosopher famed for his philosophy of science and quest for answering ethical questions through scientific evidence (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). Clifford recognized several difficulties in Emmanuel Kant’s argument related to philosophy, which inspired him to begin a search for answers related to innate belief, personal responsibility of guilt, and overall creation. In the Ethics of Belief, Clifford asserts that it is always wrong to believe based on insufficient evidence, a theme that would follow his opinion on every issue he chose to tackle.

In William K. Clifford’s, “The Ethics of Belief (III),” Clifford argues the point that our beliefs cannot come from just our experiences; rather our beliefs must come from experiences and assumptions. More specifically, assuming the uniformity of nature, Clifford begins by introducing an example with a burning child who dreads fire. Clifford argues that this fear the child as cannot only come from experience because that is now a thing of the past. The child must therefore dread fire because he is assuming that the fire will burn him as it did the other day which is an example of assuming the uniformity of nature. Clifford then draws another example concerning the fact that the sun contains hydrogen.

William James was an American philosopher and psychologist who specialized in Pragmatism and philosophy related to such. He led a philosophical revolution in the USA and would make the philosophy known as ¨Pragmatism" very well known. In his book ¨The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy", William explains different philosophical beliefs while also challenging them and supporting the right to believe in a religion or even life itself. William James' style of writing is more Expository mainly due to his explanation of different philosophies/religions but showing pros and cons of many different philosophies.

The boat sank and he collected the insurance money without ever telling anyone about his suspicions of the boat not being in the best of shapes. He thought he had gotten rid of any doubts by overhauling the vessel. 'He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts'; (Voices of Wisdom, 348). On the last quote, what Clifford means by 'his (the shipowner) belief'; is his thoughts of his ship being in good sailing condition. According to Clifford, even if the boat had made it all the way, the shipowner would still be guilty because when an action is once done, it is right or wrong forever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The fact that he got his relieved from his worries by covering the holes instead of searching for evidence that would tell him that the boat was in good sailing condition gives him the guilty status.

Bertrand Russell discussed certain problems he found with philosophy. Russell was concerned about how much did we really know. There is the stuff we know with our mind when we have a particular idea, and stuff we know through actually experiencing it which would justify it. But how do we know if it is real, or even there, for that matter? Russell says, “For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of object, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people’s bodies, and therefore still less of other peoples minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies” (Russell, 47). How can Farmer Brown be sure that the dairyman just didn’t have an idea