Among the very odd factors of a human’s nature is the search of rationality behind everything. Human mind is a complex thing which does not grasp until proper reasoning is provided for something and this quest for reason especially takes its position when sensitive issues such as religious beliefs are to be given credence. Ethicists further support this quest by presenting different ethical issues related to the formation of beliefs. These issues address the concerns of violating of norms if proper considerations have not been made.
Ethics of belief are the standards which need to be kept in mind before the development of faith in something. This concept was presented for the first time in the 19th century by William Kingdon Clifford. However, the teachings of this concept were being followed by the previous ethicists as well.
The concept put forward basically focuses on the availability of evidence before any formation of belief. Clifford along with some other ethicists is the proponent of theory of Evidentialism. In his famous essay ‘locus Classicus’ (1879), Clifford put forward his principle ‘It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence’. He strongly pursued his idea that no matter the consequences (whether good or bad) brought about a belief, it is not right to base your belief in the first place on inadequate evidence. (p2)
According to Locke, another proponent of Evidentialism, it is to ‘transgress against (one’s) own light’ to believe on something without finding the logic of it. He says that it is one’s own duty to avoid the inaccuracies, to search for the evidence that supports a belief so much so one can accept it. (p3)
The ethical issues which arise when this theory is not followed are mainly categorized into three norms; epistemic, moral and pragmatic.
Epistemic norms are about having proper knowledge and evidence before one believes in something. For instance, if you are taking a group of friends to a restaurant which you believe to be hygienic without prior investigation then you are violating epistemic norm. In addition to this, you are also violating moral norm which requires you to be considerate about your own and your friends’ health.
Pragmatic norm is related to having some evidence about one thing and yet believing something else which is more practical and feasible. For instance, if you know that your maid has stolen meager amount of money which she disagrees and yet you know how much you need that maid for the household chores, the pragmatic norm asks you to believe her for not stealing the money.
These three categories have certain relationships with each other. The positive relationship is when one norm automatically leads to the following of the second them. For instance, in the above example of taking your friends to a restaurant, you have to follow epistemic norm and the moral norm almost becomes obligatory.
However, one is presented with a dilemma when the negative relationship among these norms takes its place. The person may get confused when one norm is leading to the violation of other. For instance, in the above example of decision about keeping the maid, if you keep her, pragmatic norm is being followed but then you violate the epistemic ethical norm. (p4)
Besides the supporters of this theory of Evidentialism, there are few people who have their stances against it. These anti-evidentialists believe that evidence is not really required for formation of any belief. William James (1897), one of the followers of this principle deems everyone to have a right to believe. He presents his idea that in certain situations, beliefs should be made without proper evidence. He extends that it is not possible to gain evidence for everything. (p2)
If all these ethicists’ theories are thoroughly studied, it can be seen that all of these are actually related to the beliefs of religion and most importantly ‘Belief in God’ because this is the belief which has always arisen many doubts in people’s minds. The main argument swirls around the circle with centre ‘Believing in the Unseen’. William Blackstone (1963) argued on the clarity of content on which the belief is formed. He believes in the complete knowledge and not just superfluous one. (p9)
The philosophy of religion has always been a debatable discipline. Different philosophers present their answers through different theories to the questions about religious beliefs. This religious epistemology tries to find the rationality behind faith in God. It is not only about belief in Him but also is concerned with knowledge of Him; knowledge of His entity, His powers, His creations, His reasons.
The doctrine of believing in God is metaphysical but the evidentialists demand evidence to form this belief as well. However, anti-evidentialists like William James consider it laudable to believe in the existence of God even without enough evidence. He proposes that in such cases, one cannot wait till the end of the time. He gives way to the instincts and thinks that instincts are better to depend on rather than intellect, sense and evidence in such cases. (p3)
Some of the experts have given another concept among these theories. They have introduced the idea of voluntary and involuntary beliefs. Voluntary beliefs are the ones on which we can have control over and vice versa goes for the involuntary beliefs. The point behind this concept is whether evidence is required in both of these cases or is the involuntary beliefs exempted? (p5)
If your parents, for instance, believe in God then by growing up around them, you may involuntarily start believing in God as well. Then the question that arises is whether you have violated any of norms of ethics of belief. You may not be willing to search for evidence for a belief which has becomes chronic in your mind and has been there from the time you were too young to rationalize things.
To address the problem of involuntary religious beliefs, Blaise Pascal presented an indirect approach which is about repetition of religious activities that will eliminate the need of evidence. When you do a task repeatedly, your belief in it strengthens and the bug of rationality subsides. However, evidentialists may oppose Pascal’s point of view with the argument that it is simply reinforcement of one’s already set belief. (p6)
However, there are few questions which proponents of Evidentialism need to answer. They focus on one’s obligation of looking for the evidence but they need to define the specifications for this evidence i.e. what they deem to be an evidence for something and what is the level of sufficient evidence.
The next question is related to the importance of evidence i.e. why it is required to have evidence and what is wrong with formation of belief without it? This is basically about the significance of interconnection between belief and evidence. Therefore, if evidentialists pursue searching for the evidence, they need to clearly ascertain the reasons behind their theories. (p8)
The ethics of belief and the norms were put forward mainly in the 19th century. The focus shifted on another aspect with the coming of 20th century. The experts in the early 20th century presented their ideas of looking for the meaning behind what is to be believed. This was mainly called the theory of Positivism.
Some of the advocates of Positivism argued that if something cannot be analyzed and cannot be supported through empirical evidence, then its meaning is certainly doubtful. As for the belief in God, this theory believes that proper analysis of the meaning behind this acceptance is not possible. However, the defenders think that this specific belief may be formed as it has certain moral values behind it. (p6)
Another expert, A.J. Ayer, deduce that the religious beliefs and language can be followed without evidence. It may be against the cognitive view but by following these, one does fulfill the pragmatic and the moral norms. (p7)
Although these two theories have been presented in different time periods but mostly there is a relationship between the two theories of Evidentialism and Positivism. The theory of Positivism implicitly brings along with it certain norms which if not fulfilled, can rule out the proposition under consideration. However, this relationship may not prove to be both way round. Behind the principles presented by ethics of belief, there may not be a theory of meaning behind them. (p7)
These positivists remained prominent till the mid of the century but then came the New Essays which gave some other point of views. However, these ideas were not completely new rather brought certain modifications in the previous theories. In fact, some of them were kind of extensions of 19th and early 20th century theories.
Even with these changes, the philosophy still had concerns on the religious beliefs. Antony flew strengthened the focus on evidence requirement of these beliefs. R.M. hare gave his ideas on the issues already addressed above which are about the specifications of the required evidence. (p7 and p8)
Religion and faith in God are the concepts that are not completely comprehendible to man. Therefore, seeking evidence for something which would not be completely understandable even if one follows all the evidence (which may not be there) seems unreasonable. For instance, death is a phenomenon long studied but yet no proper evidence is present to support the formation of belief of it. What happens after death is still a mystery and will ever remain so. Therefore, one cannot just wait for the evidence to believe in such natural phenomenon.
When William James opposed Clifford, he presented these same logics behind believing in the Unseen and the beliefs of religion. Then in the New Essays, Thomas Macpherson, also pointed out the same thing and called religion as ‘inexpressible’. (p8)
There is another set of philosophers which are important to mention and are often called ‘linguistic analysts’. They are not just concerned about the meaning of statements like Positivists rather they go into logic of it. Their studies are about the language of religion and they analyze try to find out the justifications.
This preoccupation with religious language continued for some time. The major reason was the influence of Wittgenstein and Oxford school. Therapeutic positivism was a movement by many of the Wittgensteinians that mainly followed Positivists.
However, experts at Oxford School did a detailed analysis of religious language. They believed that this analysis would clear the meaning which is being sought out. And when this meaning would become clear, the belief formation would be solid grounds.
This long duration of analysis of religious language actually made it an important topic of study under the philosophy of religions. It was even included in the syllabus for philosophy discipline as this was considered a significant issue. (p9)
With the passage of time, other aspects of philosophy of religion substituted this linguistic analysis. This was when some of the experts who previously advocated this view shifted their focus. Even William Blackstone changed his point of view and came in agreement with Positivists and wrote “There are also sentences, we have seen, which purport to refer to something outside human experience-something in principle unverifiable’.(p10)
However, this shifting of the focus does not detriment the value of the works in the field of religious language. This is due to the fact that there are certain propositions for which acceptable level of evidence is present.
Any concluding remarks cannot really be made about the topic of ‘Ethics of belief’. First of all, this is because it is on-going discussion. Theories would continue to be made and criticized. Shifting of importance, modifications and additions in the existing ones will carry on.
Secondly, you cannot really abide by a philosophical principle while ignoring the other one completely because you take the best out of all which are acceptable to your mind and follow it. It seems that religious philosophy would continue to strive for reaching an end to at least get some satisfactory solutions to the unanswered questions.
Works Cited
Dole,Chignell. God and the Ethics of Belief:New Essays in Philosophy of Religion. USA (excerpt pg: 1-11): Cambridge University Press, 2005.