The Danger in Believing In … Well, Anything

Tonight, I was forced to contend with a contradicting set of ideas. I have a deep-rooted belief in humanity’s right to think, act, and believe freely. This has been evident in my behavior and actions going back to when I was a kid. Only more recently, have my words caught up to my actions.

There was something embedded in my subconscious that sent me scurrying through old papers and notebook folders in search of something that would challenge this particular idea. I had an idea what it was, but no idea where it was. I finally found it. It was William K. Clifford’s, The Ethics of Belief (I will post a link to Clifford’s critique below.).

What are Clifford's Ethics of Belief

Clifford contends that all individuals have an ethical responsibility to develop, sustain, and disseminate reasonable beliefs, while those that are apathetic towards this responsibility must be viewed as immoral and sinful. Clifford presents his argument by explaining the relationship between the beliefs of men, and the consequences that those beliefs have for the rest of society. The basis for his view is that there are no “insignificant” beliefs. He contends that since our actions are tied to our beliefs, then our beliefs could potentially lead us to do some harm to another or many through our actions.
He concludes that ultimately, our actions and decisions will affect other members of society. He offers this as proof of the immorality and sinful nature of disingenuous and unfounded beliefs.

This isn’t the best part, yet!

He does not, however, limit his condemnation to those reason-less beliefs that affect others negatively. Instead, he speaks to the dangerous and unlimited bounds of all unworthy beliefs, regardless of their outcomes!!!

Why does he believe this?

This, he reasons, is because, although negative outcomes will certainly have an impact on the lives of others, it will be modestly felt compared to the spreading of untruths that comes with the habitual development of possessing and adhering to unfounded beliefs, which shall permeate through society faster and with more vigor than any sole negative action. Furthering his argument, Clifford states that men are unable to relinquish unfounded beliefs because many of us fear the unknown. There is much to fear by way of the unknown, but nothing like admitting to yourself that all that you had believed to be true, may be false. This is a form of sacrificing power, which we possess in only small portions, and we tend to cling to what little we possess.

He uses the example of a ship-owner who has an inclination that the ship he is renting out to go to sea, is in need of repair. The ship-owner, in rue of paying for the repairs and missing out on the potential earnings, rents the ship out anyway. The ship sinks mid-ocean and all those traveling on it perish! So, this is where it gets good. Clifford blames the owner of the ship for not “investigating’ thoroughly enough before renting it to these people to go out to die at sea. That is somewhat reasonable, I suppose. I mean we have people in our society suing people over much less than this present day. However, Clifford condemns the man as immoral, not because his ship sank and killed a ship –load full of people, but because he sent his ship out in the first place! So the results of our actions are irrelevant; Clifford’s ethics of belief concern themselves with our responsibility to investigate thoroughly before we believe what our feelings and our instinct to follow others influence us to do.

Is he a nut job?

Clifford’s assertion that evidence is needed in order to believe in something, is a very scientific approach, but reduces greatly the impact or importance of making “gut,” or “human” decisions. These are necessary at times, such as when the difference in evidence is seen as negligible, or when we do not have enough evidence to base a conclusion on. Some people view life as being too short, and the mindset to gather evidence would prohibit people from living, and would make us collectors instead. There are also some things that are not necessarily tangible, or quantifiable, and therefore can not be backed by evidence because there may not be facts to look to. In conclusion, Clifford makes a good argument concerning the immorality of unsupportable beliefs, in that they impact others, but his theory would stifle mankind and suppress our universal desire to think beyond evidence, and analyze and live our existence in terms of ourselves.

Finally, it seems that Clifford’s logic contradicts freedom to believe, and I don’t know if I’d be comfortable with it. Who am I to tell someone that they have not thought things out sufficiently enough? I think there is risk in a society adhering to freedom, and that’s fine. I rather have a society based on freedom with some risk, then one where we suffer from paralysis-by-analysis and are constantly telling each other to investigate their beliefs more. If I had to choose, I would choose the risk that is associated with freedom.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

I thought this was interesting and thanks for reading!

What do you guys think about this? Do we believe in things too easily?

As usual, all comments welcome.

Feel free to upvote and follow.