Evidentialism or Non-evidentialism - Coursework Example

Essay, Philosophy Topic: Evidentialism or Non-evidentialism Introduction Every mind-level argument leaves the scope of counter-arguments about it and the vicious circle goes on without possibility of satisfactory conclusion to the issue. The contending positions of William Clifford in the articles “The Ethics of Belief” and William James in “The Will to Believe” fall under the same category. Clifford argues that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”(p.289) A decision which is right for a particular issue in a particular situation may not hold well in another situation as such William Clifford’s argument for evidence-based approach has limitations and their implementation in real-life situations is impossibility whereas William James’ faith-based arguments holds well. Clifford supports his assertion with the example of a ship-owner which he states that it is a case of immorality of belief without evidence. He skips the procedure of overhauling of his ship, sidetracking his doubts and trusting that his ship is seaworthy rather than incurring the expenditure on its checking and servicing and do the needful repairs. His belief is unscientific and guided by self-interest. Though he had doubts, he ignores and his self-interest scores precedence over his professional obligations. The unfortunate event takes place and each one in the unseaworthy ship dies at sea and the ship-owner dutifully collects the insurance. On the strength of the narrative, Clifford articulates that all issues related to belief where evidence is inadequate are not acceptable. He argues “It is never lawful to stifle a doubt.”(p.289) When someone responds, “But I am a busy man; I have no time for a long course of study which would make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even be able to understand the nature of the arguments.”(p.289) Clifford retorts, “Then he should have no time to believe.”(p.289) It is easy to make the argument that it is not lawful to terminate a doubt. But it is also impossible to make decisions taking into consideration all the alternatives. An individual is sure to miss some details somewhere and mistakes do happen. A decision which is right for a particular issue in a particular situation may not hold well in another situation. Now let us discuss one of the most important philosophical arguments in the light of the above observation by Clifford. From time immemorial till the present times, no one is able to tender scientific evidence for the existence of God. Yet millions of people repose their faith in God. Are all these people wrong? Are all these people irrational in pursuing their belief systems? Agreement is impossibility between these two contending and opposing stances. One cannot term all such individuals as irrational who believe in God without evidence. Such beliefs may be due to personal reasons and such reasons may vary from individual to individual. Clifford argues that believing things without sufficient evidence would make us “...credulous...and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring about them..."(p.289) This is at best a general observation and stands in poor taste as for the belief in God and the supernatural. Demanding the evidence is fine, but the nature of evidence is also important. The below mentioned example will throw light on the contentions of Clifford and describe their inadequacy. As for those who are on the side of existence of God there are two categories of individuals. The first category is those who have faith in him, but they cannot prove it for others. But there are a few, who are known as Perfect Masters or Realized Souls, who have the direct experience of God and also can prove it for others if they follow the prescribed divine procedure. The experience is possible when one transcends the mind-barrier. Once, a Perfect Master was giving the spiritual discourse on the subject of God. Amongst the audience, there was an intellectual and surgeon by profession. The moment he heard that the body is the abode of God, and an inner world exists within every human being, he was unable to digest that statement and was agitated much. He expressed his doubts about what was told in the spiritual discourse. Putting forth the arguments he questioned the Perfect Master, “How that is possible? How can I agree on this issue? I perform 3-4 surgeries in a day. I have operated upon and dissected each and every part of the human body. In my professional career I must have performed thousands of operations and I have not been able to see in any corner of the body your God and his Kingdom!” The Perfect Master chose the other option instead of trying to convince the surgeon through verbal explanations. He told one of his assistants to get a matchbox. He took out a matchstick and began to cut it into several small pieces. Looking at this activity, the surgeon remained observant for a while and finally asked, “What divine activity is this Master? What you are attempting to do? “The Master put a counter question, “From the matchstick, fire originates. Is that right?” When the surgeon nodded in affirmation, the Perfect Master said that he was making pieces of the matchstick to locate fire in it. The Surgeon told the Perfect Master “This effort is futile. By making pieces of the matchstick, how fire can generate? There is a procedure for it. We need to strike the stem of the matchstick on the friction strip to generate fire.” The Perfect Master concluded his revelations thus: “I wish to ask you the same question. By dissecting the body and by cutting it in to pieces, how can you see God? You are right. We need to adopt a procedure to create friction or to strike the stem of the matchstick on the friction strips is the correct procedure to generate fire. Is it not so? By putting the procedure into practice, the latent fire within the matchstick, shows its presence. Otherwise not...Similarly, within our body also God and his extraordinary world exist. But He will not be seen or experienced by cutting the parts of the body. You need to adopt a unique divine procedure to reach out to Him.” Clifford’s craving for evidence needs to be understood in the context of the above example. It is perfect if we believe in the words of those had the practical vision of God and that is as good as our evidence. In the light of the examples given above, the argument of William James in the article “The Will to Believe” is more acceptable as he states that we have a right to believe in some cases when supporting evidence may be inadequate. Mostly moral decisions fall in this category. Moral decision is a highly personal decision. For example, if there are ten members in a family, their moral decisions may not go in tandem with the other. In a class if there are forty students, their moral decisions also may vary from each other. Moral decision of the same individual is also not a fixed entity. It may vary as per the demands of the situation. . Clifford’s scientific and cynical suspension of belief is not helpful in such cases. The gulf between the arguments of Clifford and James is wide and unbridgeable. The foundations of their belief systems are different as such the superstructure based on such beliefs has also got to be different. While Clifford globalizes his directive for shunning error, James shows that life’s decisions are far more nuanced than Clifford comprehends. First of all, some issues are significant or insignificant for a person, just like live and dead wires for an electrician. Secondly, not all decisions are spontaneous or willingly made, they are done under compulsion and could have been avoided, and some decisions are done at the spur of the moment or may be inconsequential. Now when Clifford negates all beliefs without evidence in order to avoid error, he does not recognize that some decisions are involuntary and done spontaneously without applying reason. Not to make a decision is also the de facto decision. Not to choose the option for doing the right thing at the right time is to negate the truth or good that might have fallen to the lot of an individual. For example one can go on postponing making a decision to proceed on a holiday tour with the family, until it is too late to go. Not demanding evidence is, however, is not to ignore the importance of evidence. We make a number of decisions in a day, and to demand evidence to each and every decision is impossibility and in many cases it will not serve any purpose. For example when an individual switches on the light it is foolhardy to demand the evidence of light and the reason for operating the switch. The scientist who invented electricity and gave the bulb for our use has done all the experiments and it is prudent and convenient for us to believe his procedures than demand evidence for our action of switching on the bulb. James articulates that human beings have the passion to live life as per their choices, and they are not willing to abide the rules and regulations that govern the life of those human beings about whom Clifford speaks. They want evidence for their all actions, which is an impractical proposition in day to day dispositions. James quotes Pascal: “The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing about.” (James, 1896) Religion propounds fundamentally two things, according to James. “First that the best things are the more eternal things, overlapping things, the things in the universe that throw the last stone, so to speak” (James, 1896) and that we are better off even now with the affirmation of religion. Believing does not mean to give a free license to the mind to entertain and follow any system. Even our ardent beliefs should not feel shy to be tested, evaluated and questioned. The process of inquiry must go on without intermission. Otherwise all beliefs will turn sham and the essential dignity of human life will be lost in the dreary desert of sand that will not be able to produce any greenery. Conclusion The wise saying goes, desperate situations need desperate remedies. Clifford’s “Ethics of Belief” was first published in 1877, and he was an activist of the front that was working to liberate people from the spirit of superstition. He was a liberal thinker and the Church in that era harbored the priestly organization that indulged in many malpractices under the umbrella of religious beliefs. Morality in the real sense of the term was absent from the societal standards and the churchgoers clung to the belief of eternal damnation. Clifford’s reaction was against the malpractices of religion. Clifford concluded that it is "sinful" to hold a belief not supported by the evidence. Much of the subsequent debate focuses on the grounds for this, what is termed "evidentialism". Subtly understood, faith and evidence are alternative beats of the same heart as at the root of faith, some form of evidence is there which the individual reposing faith may not be able to explain in proper form. Another issue is the time factor. Arguments tendered and issues argued more than one thousand years ago, will not stand the test of the present times. As such the arguments of William Clifford and William James are subject to time-constraints. Works Cited Clifford, Professor, The Ethics of Belief. Contemporary Review, 29 (1876:Dec.-1877: May) p.289 James, Williams. The Will to Believe. An Address to the Philosophical Clubs of Yale and Brown Universities. Published in the New World, June, 1896 Read More