In the W. K. Clifford essay, ‘The ethics of belief,’ he stated that creating a belief is the right way and subject of true ethical significance. Clifford provided an opinion in opposition to theism where his statements can be put in three points; there is inadequate evidence to believe that there is existence of God, it is incorrect forever, all over, and for anybody to support anything without providing any evidence, and generally it is a mistake to say that God exist.
He saw the matter as an ethical and moral example. It is ethically incorrect to believe something without providing any support to the claim. Clifford used some examples to express people who create their beliefs without providing any evidence. Clifford asserts that people should criticize these subjects, therefore supporting their beliefs. Believing in Gods’ existence without providing enough evidence is not correct as supported by Clifford in his essay.
James’s main idea is that if options exist, forced, and crucial and may not be solved through intellectual ways, somebody can and have to allow his or her non-rational nature to create the selection. Somebody believes what he expects to be correct or anything which makes somebody very happy, and here everybody appears to have a great difference with Clifford.
Clifford’s analysis seems to be the same in this situation. Somebody is ethically required to suspend conclusion, to pursue the way of not believing, because doing otherwise would be trusting on intellectually inadequate evidence.
Williams James stated that when the issue of morality appears, more common matters concerning what is most significant or most valuable entailed in life, people find themselves with options which exist, forced, and important and are not solve on intellectual basis. In contrary, Clifford’s claim is self-refuting where he maintains a moral perspective; it is incorrect forever, all over, and for anybody to support anything without providing evidence.
For the issue of Gods’ existence, Clifford argued that if somebody does not have adequate evidence to believe that God exist, therefore they should not have beliefs. James stated that supporting this, somebody would lose everything good which comes with religion. James said that somebody’s dedication to their beliefs in God, if right or wrong, possesses huge impact on the outcome.
The issue about power has taken omnipotence as constant and that the theory supports the existence of something powerful than an omnipotent. It is theoretically likely that omnipotent being may be able to create anything powerful; however the definition of every piece of argument and the capacity of Him should be made with great accuracy before handling it. It is simply not realistic but a logical mistake.
Omnipotence is really relatively unclear and handles power in several forms. Possibly a deity could be all-powerful simply since it can decide not to make anything more powerful. Or perhaps it is just irrational to make anything more powerful. Furthermore, classifying deities as part of all, something would create this issue invalid of any significance.
In conclusion, if somebody was to search for solution to scientific and testable issues, it would be wrong to depend on individual beliefs instead of evidence and facts. Alternatively, because God is not like any other being that can be proved through testing, if it is in my greatest significance to have belief in God, I should.