A Critical Examination of Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief
by To take to heart Clifford’s summary, “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence,” provides a healthy dose of skepticism. And just as importantly it eventually helps to illustrate the limits of knowledge. The danger is not only in having incorrect beliefs or opinions but also in the certainty in which these ideas are entertained.
I agree very heartily with Clifford’s argument that founding a belief on insufficient evidence is unethical. I furthermore think that the claim does not require modification because it is not only irrational to choose to be irrational but also unethically irresponsible to choose to be so.
The ethical import of credulity does not primarily lie at the scale of the individual. The practical ethical implications of the beliefs of one individual marooned on a deserted island are few and in the human realm extend no further than that individual. However, in general as a social species we live in communities and as such our beliefs and their resultant actions directly influence those around as. Clifford illustrates this in a key passage below:
“And no one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handled on to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its proper handiwork. Into this, for good or ill, is woven every belief of every man who has speech of his fellows. A [sic] awful privilege, and an awful responsibility, that we should help to create the world in which posterity will live.”
It is our duty to our community and to posterity to combat credulity. A credulous society more easily has the wool pulled over its eyes to everyone’s detriment. I recall reading of a study that correlated the act of reading with the ability to think critically; it was in the context of an article pointing out that readership has been on decline in this country. There are too many people whose only source of news is television (I see mainstream media consolidation as a serious public harm). Immediately after the 2004 election someone did a study that showed a correlation between being factually incorrect on a number of issues and being a Bush voter (issues like whether there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq etc.). In an academic community it can be easy to be unaware of how credulous so much of America has become. I am amused/saddened that people can recall the Watergate scandal in which the scope of crimes committed—crimes that led to the resignation of the President—pale in comparison to the crimes of the Bush administration and yet Bush remained in office (not to mention the illegal wars of aggression).
There are literally countless instances in which humanity has suffered because people “knew” they were right without a doubt and without the requirement of evidence. Every holy war serves as an example of the results of belief on insufficient evidence because the only way to resolve disputes when evidence and reason are considered suspect is with force. It is absolutely not a coincidence that the dark ages were so markedly religious.
It is tragic that so many people have so little conception of the harm that credulity has caused and continued to cause, and so little understanding of the benefits the world has reaped from science and the technology it spawns. Within the past one hundred years the average lifespan in the U.S. has increased by 50%. Even further under the radar for most people are the positive social changes that have been wrought because of an improved understanding of the human species as religion continues to lose its grip on most of the western world. Just hearing about the Stanley Milgram obedience to authority experiment makes people more likely to challenge what they are told.
To take to heart Clifford’s summary, “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence,” provides a healthy dose of skepticism. And just as importantly it eventually helps to illustrate the limits of knowledge. The danger is not only in having incorrect beliefs/opinions but also in the certainty in which these ideas are entertained. I imagine suicide bombers must feel pretty certain in their beliefs.
Had Clifford lived to do it, I am sure he would have amply defended himself from William James’ criticism. First, Clifford does not preclude us from entertaining hypotheses. It is a false dichotomy to say that the choice is between believing nothing or entertaining possible falsehoods. Be that as it may, William James argues in section VII that rather than believe nothing he would rather be duped repeatedly in the hope each time that he’s been blessed with knowledge. I would argue that each time William James or anyone holds an incorrect belief, in doing so they make it less likely that they will be able to recognize a different hypothesis or theory that better aligns itself with the evidence. In fact, contrary to the implication that beliefs often cycle, this tendency is so strong that there is a saying that science progresses one death at a time. As the rate of technological development increases it becomes more salient and the ability to change our society to fit the world more important. To reiterate then one of the primary benefits of Clifford at James’ expense, it is not solely the content of belief that matters, but the rigidity with which it is held. The survival of the human race might some day hinge on the extent of flexibility society allows.
Liked it
