The core of any human endeavor is belief. Beliefs shape our thoughts, actions, and the structural organization of all society. Unsurprisingly, it has also been the subject of many philosophical debates. Fundamental works in the sphere are William Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” and William James’ famous riposte “The Will to Believe”. The philosophers offer two different approaches to the moral justification for belief, and the essays have become a landmark for future discussions (Chignell, 2018). The conflict between Clifford and James is irreconcilable when it comes to religion, but a modern system incorporating elements of both is possible and even necessary.
William Clifford states that individual belief is not a private matter. The beliefs of every individual are woven into the collective legacy of humanity, and thus we have the responsibility of ensuring our beliefs are based on irrefutable evidence. Every seemingly insignificant belief should be thoroughly investigated since it “lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts”, and prepares us to “receive more of its like” (Clifford, 2018, p. 108). If a person upholds false beliefs, he is in danger of becoming “credulous” and liable to believe any deception (Clifford, 2018, p.112). Eventually, society slips into the habit of carelessly accepting things at face value and “sinks back into savagery” (Clifford, 2018, p. 113). Regardless of circumstance, it is our personal duty to prevent this regression by questioning our ideologies. It may be bitter to realize the foundation of your faith was false, but there is nothing more intoxicating than the power of fairly-earned knowledge.
Clifford’s essay is remembered for “a story and a principle” (Chignell, 2018). He describes a shipowner who was worried about his ship’s soundness. Instead of investigating or overhauling it, he simply hoped in Providence and sent it off to sea. When the ship drowned in mid-ocean, he faultlessly gathered his insurance money. According to Clifford, the shipowner is responsible for those sailors’ deaths because his faith in the ship was dishonestly earned. Even if the ship had made its voyage safely, the shipowner would still be guilty, just “not found out” (Clifford, 2018, p. 103). The morality of belief depends on its origins, regardless of whether it measures up to reality. It is sinful for anyone, everywhere, to believe without sufficient evidence.
Fundamentally, Clifford argues against the religious idea of blind faith. Faith without evidence is extolled as a virtue in Christianity, but Clifford believes it is a corrupting force for humankind. Beliefs should be based on fair, unbiased inquiry and empirical evidence – i.e., the scientific method. If a man has no time to educate himself on the nature of the question and pursue inquiry, Clifford famously states that “he should have no time to believe” (Clifford, 2018, p. 115). However, Clifford offers no evidence to prove that blind faith is inherently inferior to empirical beliefs. In general, his conception of belief is quite narrow and unrealistic on a practical level. There can be no evidence for certain beliefs because they are not grounded in observable phenomena.
William James, on the other hand, is the founder of radical empiricism. He believed philosophical systems should not limit themselves to purely intellectual propositions. In certain situations, our beliefs depend not only on logic and physical evidence but also on our “passional tendencies and volitions” (James, 1912, p.41). James argues that Clifford is letting himself be ruled by fear of being duped rather than by the search for truth. He foregoes the possibility of truth to avoid the danger of it being a lie. However, the risk of making errors is minuscule, even if inevitable, compared to the “blessings of real knowledge” (James, 1912, p.53). The scientific method is incapable of answering moral questions because it can only state what things are but not which is better. The scientific method itself depends on the presumption that the pursuit of truth is the goal of humankind, even though no evidence supports that hypothesis. Our hearts and our will answer questions that fall outside the domain of objective reality.
Furthermore, James argues that faith can sometimes create fact. Our society depends on the unproven mutual belief that everyone will do their duty. This preliminary assumption is what binds together and enables the work of governments, armies, ships, and athletic teams. The result of cooperation “is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another”, and without it nothing would even be attempted (James, 1912, p.63). According to James, a small group of highwaymen can rob a whole train of passengers because individual passengers fear that no one will support them if they resist. If they believed “a whole car-full would rise at once”, train-robbing would cease to exist. Far from being a corrupting force, blind faith is a prerequisite for human coexistence.
On the question of religious belief, the conflict between Clifford and James seems irreconcilable. Based on Clifford’s ethics, there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God, and therefore God does not exist. Clifford includes quotes by Milton and Coleridge stating that blind faith in a pastor’s words and loving Christianity better than truth is heresy (Clifford, 2018). In contrast, James argues that religious faith is an example of the faith-creating-fact mechanism that enables the smooth function of our society. The existence of God cannot be perceived without preliminary faith. Just as a trusting man is more likely to reap social rewards compared to a man who first demands proof of goodwill, demanding evidence of God without believing in Him “cut[s] off forever [the] only opportunity of making [his] acquaintance” (James, 1912, p.68). Belief in God is a momentous decision, and the benefits of yielding to religious faith outweigh the potential risks of error. James maintains that certain situations require precursive belief before evidence can be presented, but Clifford dismisses religious faith as unproven and therefore immoral.
In 2021, it is much easier to build a belief system that incorporates elements of both Clifford and James’ philosophy. Religion has shrunk to a matter of personal preference rather than the dominant ideology that it was in the 19th century. As per James’ views, not all beliefs can be intellectually proven. Moral priorities are constructed by heart and will, not science. In the 21st century, we believe in equality, freedom, justice, and relieving human suffering. There is no evidence that these values are superior to imperialist ideals of power and conquest. However, our faith in them creates their reality. As per Clifford’s views, it is our moral responsibility to investigate all beliefs that can be proven or disproven by empirical data. In the age of medical misinformation, sensationalism, and “alternative facts”, every individual must maintain scientific standards and demand evidence before coming to a conclusion. This is part of our collective human responsibility to prevent the gradual erosion of truth and critical thinking. James’ views on faith-based morality can act as a supplement to Clifford’s skepticism.
In conclusion, Clifford and James both advocate for evidence-based belief systems. Clifford states it is immoral to hold any kind of belief without sufficient evidence. The most insignificant unproven belief can lead to a disinformation crisis for all humanity. James allows certain situations when preliminary faith is necessary to attain results. Their conflict is irresolvable as it pertains to the existence of God, but a system incorporating both positions is possible and even necessary in modern society.
References
Chignell, A. (2018) “The Ethics of Belief” in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University (Spring 2018 Ed.)
Clifford, W. K. The scientific basis of morals, and other essays. Project Gutenberg, 1884.
James, W. The will to believe, and other essays in popular philosophy. Project Gutenberg, 1912.