William Kingdon Clifford: Ethics of Belief

“Thomas, one of the Twelve, said to the [disciples], ‘Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put a hand into his side, I will not believe.’ Now a week later … Jesus came, and said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” — John 20:24–27.

William Clifford is like St Thomas, the Apostle, an evidentialist.
It is worth to present W. K. Clifford’s doctrine of moral evidentialism in his Ethics of Belief.

Clifford started his essay on his popular shipowner story and analogy. The shipowner knew that his ship was old, not over-well built at first and need repairs. He doubted that the ship would not make another trip and that it needed thorough overhauling and refitting. Builders and contractors were also suspicious of the ship. However, he succeeded in overcoming those doubts and suspicions. He said to himself that the ship, in his experiences, had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms and he also put his trust in the Providence. With these in mind, he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that the ship was safe and seaworthy. The ship sunk in mid-ocean and all aboard died.

Clifford says, “he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible.”

The ship owner is always wrong, even though the story will be altered to that it journeyed safely and all were happy. Why? Because according to Clifford,  “the question of right and wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him … not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether [he] entertained it in wrong grounds … it is not the belief which is judged to be wrong, but the action following upon it.”

The origin or the genesis of how beliefs are formed is first and foremost seen where the blame resides and not really on the consequences that it produces. Clifford is suggesting that the man has an epistemic obligation when he said, that “the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty.” However, in the latter part of his essay, he said that not performing our epistemic obligations well will have moral impact not only to the individual but also to the society, that is, it is a sin to mankind. He said, “no one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes.” He believes that a former generation shapes the next generation. Whatever is taught to the following generation will be implanted to them. If ever an evil thing is being passed on to the later generation, then an evil thing will be lived on by the subsequent generation. He said this for the reason that if, however, false beliefs which results to wrong actions have been done many times and being accepted widely and made permanent, for instance stealing money, then society will not only lose its property but it will turn into “a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be a society.”

Belief, according to Clifford, “is that sacred faculty which prompts decisions of the will, and knits into harmonious working all compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves, but for the humanity.” A self-deceptive or credulous person, that is, a person who believes on something without fair investigation, believes in insufficient evidence and easily persuaded, is defiant to the duty of mankind, and sinful to self and to the humanity.

He then sums up his inquiry: It is wrong always, everywhere, and anyone, to believe upon insufficient evidence.

As I was reading William Kingdon Clifford’s Ethics of Believe it did bothered me. It is because I am thinking that he is convincing me to believe only to what has sufficient evidence. He seems to be telling me not to believe only by faith. His arguments are for me plausible.
It is because I understood Clifford’s concept into my own context. I gave biased on him very early. I find him as an opponent against my faith. It is funny. I jumped into the conclusion that he is attacking my religious belief. One thing is that, if we could not find any evidence to prove the existence of God, I should not believe in the God I believed in. However, I would like to tell Clifford in this area of inquiry that if we can't find proof or evidence on the existence of God with the things around us, he is then not yet the god I believe in.

Going back to St Thomas, who was later called the “Doubting Thomas”, I cannot say that he is bad or wrong to state those words. (Please see above). It doesn’t mean that he really did not believe in what the other disciples told him. What he was after were the evidences that prove that Jesus was really alive. His time dictated him that it is really impossible for a dead man to come to life again. I could not blame or I would not blame St Thomas for being skeptical. He was just performing his epistemic obligation. I am actually proud of St Thomas (compared to many Catholics who have negative impression of him) on his interest of investigating and knowing the truth. St. Thomas wanted the disciples’ statements to be justified and reasonable. Here, I am now a friend of Clifford.

Being evidentialist is not really bad. It actually leads us to our search for truth. It is true that we could not live forever. However, we are not to spend our whole lives to be skeptical. Though Clifford did not clarify and is not clear on what sufficient evidence mean, I am assuming or presupposing that sufficient evidence might be being logically reasonable. It does not mean then that logical reasoning is not a sufficient evidence for us to believe certain truths reasonably. Principles like the non-contradiction. We could not deny the fact that non-being could not be “evidentialize”, because our reasoning will tell us that it is nothing. How could we create something which comes from nothing? Humans or anyone other than humans who have the capacity to reason and to think can create only something from something. In other words, they can only recreate, not to create. There is only one being who can create something from nothing, and that is God, to whom I believe in.

If Clifford’s principle is to be applied in acquiring knowledge, theory of knowledge in general, then it is really acceptable as a model. Being skeptical, in a sense of the suspension of judgment and giving a fair investigation and to believe in the sufficient evidence are really helpful in acquiring true knowledge. Truth and search for truth are Clifford’s concern.
Nevertheless, Clifford’s principle has a limit. It is true that we could not live forever, as I stated above. There are times that we have to decide at the moment, instantly. There are times that we need not to spend more time to discern more in order to have certain true decisions. Most of the time we are faced with events or conditions that need urgent and important decisions. So it would be impractical to apply Clifford’s doctrine of moral evidentialism.