The main idea behind the theses proposed by William Clifford is that no one person can blindly believe in anything. The aspect of faith is in principle questionable for the philosopher and he treats it with rational skepticism and even extreme condemnation. According to Clifford, not in the name of substantial, irreversible evidence of truth, it is simply impossible for a person to believe in anything. Clifford does not stop there, giving a vivid example of how faith without proof can be simply dangerous. The philosopher tells a hypothetical story of a man sending a ship on a voyage, knowing the design flaws but believing in a good outcome of the voyage. Regardless of the outcome of the voyage, the person turns out to be guilty, as he exposes the crew of sailors to mortal risk. Blind faith, regardless of whether it leads to a good or bad result, is initially harmful because it is irrational and unproven.
William James, arguing with Clifford, offers a less rational but deeper and more individualized point of view. James says that every belief is subjective and, accordingly, based on a person’s individuality, the background that shapes ideas, and the way of thinking. Having stipulated this point, he proceeds to analyze the concept of choice in itself, dividing choice into three categories. The choice can be living or dead, that is, depending on the cultural or other relevance of the choice. Options can also be forced or avoidable, depending on the ability to evade the choice. The third binary here is the question of instantaneousness or triviality.
According to James, a true option, that is, a real choice, occurs when a person’s choice is nontrivial, alive, that is, connected with themselves, and at the same time inevitable. A choice in this way always has a certain context for a person. It is authentic if a person is simultaneously forced to make it and can accept it based on their experience. At the same time, the real choice should be sudden, not rationalized by time, because otherwise, it turns out to be just a trivial logical sequence. Introducing the concept of “irrational rule” about Clifford, James argues that belief, like decision-making, is based on human background and upbringing, where the principle of the rational does not necessarily dominate. The initial unsubstantiated acceptance of one’s own beliefs as truth makes them rational in their way. A person may need faith to be able to act in principle, to function – it can be the primary basis of action.
In my opinion, James’s argument seems to be more complex and nuanced, and therefore deserves more attention. Clifford’s position expresses excessive skepticism that can lead to a nihilistic perception of truth as constant uncertainty. James’ position gives a person motivation, justifying the choice with a cultural and situational position, but at the same time giving the person the right to it. Faith is rational because it can be necessary for a person to do what he would not have done without faith. This can apply to both great feats and the banalest manifestations of life. This is why Clifford’s rule is indeed irrational. In practice, no one can have clear confidence in the truth of thinking and actions, since they are all guided by subjective thinking.