FAITH IN THE LIGHT OF CLIFFORD, WILLIAM JAMES AND BLAISE PASCAL SO IS IT IMMORAL?
Belief is taking something to be likely to be true. You could be wrong but you
believe what the evidence tells you. Faith is trust and belief combined. Blind
faith is believing something no matter how good the evidence that it is wrong
is. You reason away the evidence or ignore it. Simple faith is hearing a story -
even a mad one - and believing it just because you hear of it.
Blind faith is trying to force yourself to believe in something. You cannot just
decide to make yourself believe in something for it will be doomed to failure
(page 14, What Do Existentialists Believe?).
It is not belief to take something as true without evidence or sufficient
evidence – that is assuming. Assuming is just a pretend belief.
Freud said that all belief is anti-intellectual. It must have been Catholicism
gave him that impression! Even if your belief is based on reasoning and
evidence, you could still be anti-thinking. For example, if you decide that the
evidence shows there is a God and you refuse to reconsider that evidence you are
being anti-intellectual. To use the intellect a bit does not make you
pro-intellectual. It is what you want to believe that matters to you not the
evidence that got you to believe. Belief even if not always anti-intellectual
and anti-truth risks being those things which is why evidence and careful
thought is necessary when forming beliefs. Faith is commitment to some set of
beliefs so it is more risky than mere belief. Commitment implies that you
resolve to make your mind hard to change.
Clifford
William Clifford was the philosopher who was famous for teaching that believing
anything without enough validated evidence was immoral.
Against that it has been asked where is the empirical proof or evidence for
saying you need to show something empirically before you get entitled to
believe.
But if there were a problem with verifying that, we still see there is force in
it. We just look and see that. It doesn't mean you give up in being open to
evidence for it. You keep trying to get as close to the empirical proof or
evidence as you can. If empirical proof is the ideal and you cannot get into it
then that is not your fault and you are honoring it by trying and being open and
wishing.
The answer to the objection is that if we at times do have to do without
evidence that does not mean that we don't need evidence. The absence of evidence
is not our fault.
Clifford said that it is always daft to believe anything without enough relevant
and good evidence.
When he said this, he gave the example of a ship-owner who has an unseaworthy
ship and doesn't bother with evidence but simply trusts that God will provide
and take care of the ship and off the ship goes and ends up at the bottom of the
ocean. The man is foolish for he is taking a risk with human life. He puts faith
and opinion before life.
Clifford is thought to be wrong that evidence is always needed for belief for
there are times you have to do without evidence (eg if you are told the hotel
you are in is about to blow up) but his example of the devout ship-owner shows
that it is always wrong to trust in religion and faith without evidence. It is
wrong to believe when the evidence is insufficient. But the ship-owner certainly
was going too far with the possibility that a god would protect the rotting ship
regardless of the leaks.
Though Clifford argued that it is dangerous to believe in supernatural stuff and
magic without evidence, Christians incredibly contradict him. They say we do
believe things without evidence and a lot of the time we get on fine. That is
true but it does not allow for us adopting supernatural beliefs. It might let us
accept natural things without evidence at times but that is the exception not
the rule. We are living by the fact that we cannot consider evidence all the
time. What if you have to make a big decision in a hurry? Believing then without
evidence is the exception not the rule. The rule is that we must be reasonable
people and try to make a good case for the verity of our beliefs.
We simply do not need to adopt supernatural beliefs without evidence and if we
do, we are saying that if X is told God will kill her husband unless she gives
money to a particular charity then she should believe and comply. Do you see how
dangerous that is in principle? - the principle asks for such nonsense. It asks
us to lie that evidence is not always important.
To sum up Clifford gave the example of a shipowner who let his ship sail though
it was unseaworthy for he trusted in God to keep it afloat. It sank with a
number of lives lost. His point was that the shipowner should have looked for
evidence - solid evidence that the ship could sail. He killed people over his
irrational faith and because he cared about what he wanted to believe not what
he should believe. He cared more that he believed he should believe than in
believing for sensible reasons.
Most people feel that blind faith is silly and is only immoral in certain cases
such as with the shipowner. Many of them are hypocrites for the Bible says Jesus
walked to crucifixion in the belief that God would restore him to a better life.
Christianity is immoral even if blind faith is not always or necessarily
immoral. It is immoral for it endorses mad risks in the name of faith.
It makes no sense to argue that blind faith is silly and dangerous when disaster
happens. That is condemning something for turning out badly. That is not the
point. It is only luck if other forms of blind faith do not lead to calamity. If
you are anti-danger you will be anti-blind faith full stop. If you are
pro-health you don't argue that taking medication unsupervised is only bad when
it leads to harm.
Double Standard?
According to Christian Randal Rauser, Clifford defined faith as believing
without evidence and that he treated reason as doubt without evidence. Rauser
then argues that Clifford held to a double standard. He was pretending to care
about evidence. So if you believe in doubt and that you should doubt without
evidence then that is a form of faith. Faith is being dismissed by Clifford and
brought back under another guise.
That is a pack of lies. Clifford did no such thing. Reason is not about doubt as
such but about scanning ideas and claims for credibility and self-consistency.
Anyway is "belief without evidence" as bad as "doubt without evidence"? It
depends. Living a good life and doubting God is better than living a good life
and committing to a God you are not sure of.
James
William James agreed with Clifford about blind faith being bad and reckless but
made a few exceptions. The exceptions are as follows.
The first exception is a forced option.
That is when you cannot stop behaving as if a belief was true when you are
trying to doubt or deny it. For example, if you cannot stop believing that your
dead father is alive you may as well believe it. The reasoning is that when it
affects your life you might as well believe in it. But you can stop behaving
that way eventually. Also why not keep trying to doubt or deny it and enjoy the
benefits of the rejected belief and the benefits of living as if it were true?
To believe in a forced option would be to believe something because habit and
the heart tell you to and you know you can’t listen to them so how could it be
belief? It is pretend belief. It is mad to suggest that a young man who cannot
stop believing that his neighbour is his real father should believe it. That
would not be belief but a sign of an emotional disorder.
It may be objected that unsupported faith is reasonable when I have to believe
that I will be shot tonight when a stranger warns me but gives me no reason to
hold that he speaks the truth. The reply is that I don’t have to believe but I
can still be careful and listen to him. I can do nothing about the fact that I
can’t believe without evidence and that is that.
The forced option supporters cherry-pick. They would usually tell you to face up
to your father's death though it is a forced option. But there are forced
options they will tell you to accept. For example, that you will live long which
encourages you to slave for the benefit of your family.
The second option is a lively option.
A lively option is when the evidence tells you to believe in X and when there is
an equal amount of evidence telling you to deny X leaving you free to pick
whatever one you feel like.
They seem to want you to settle with one but why not flip flop?
It is most reasonable to just admit that you don’t know which one is right. That
is all you can honestly do. You need to believe what evidence says but you don’t
need to believe either of these when your mind can’t tell you what is right. You
can go along with one but that is not the same as believing it.
The third option is a momentous option.
A momentous option is when something bad will happen if you don’t believe
something you should believe it without evidence. James uses this argument to
justify belief in religion for if we wait for evidence or more evidence or to
get our intellectual problems with religion sorted out we will miss out on the
good things it has to offer. He would say we should believe God will put us in
Hell if we don't obey him for we cannot wait to after death when it may be too
late and we might end up in Hell.
It is like a man refusing to marry a woman in case she will not be an angel if
he does marry her though he has no reason to be suspicious of her. He misses out
on the happiness he could have with her for the sake of being sure. James thinks
it is and to yield to the fear of making a mistake instead of yielding to the
hope that it is not a mistake. If he represses his desire and while wanting to
be sure he isn’t going to be happy anyway.
James' logic is terrible.
First of all if God is good then we will have the benefits and joys of religion
without believing in it as long as we are sincere.
Secondly, an atheistic system of right conduct that makes one feel good about
oneself and that takes away fear of death is what the momentous option would
justify and not religion. Anything else would be non-essential and therefore not
a momentous option. The atheist who feels that there is no God to look after
sick babies and who looks after them herself (I will be God to to you when there
is no God) at huge personal cost knows what the momentous option is not the
believer. The point is not all momentous options are really momentous options.
If I lie to you that God will kill you and punish you forever unless you give me
money? That is blackmail not a momentous option. A real momentous option makes
sense. James is wrong to argue that the threat of Hell makes belief in God a
momentous option.
Thirdly, nobody knows how much happiness or whatever will come unless it
actually happens. The man does not know if the woman is really what she seems to
be and will not know until he marries her so James is asking for him and the
person who wants to join a religion to take a risk. How James can say that
taking a risk means that one believes in what one is doing is a mystery. It
would not be a risk if one did. You only have an opinion that taking the risk is
worth it. A belief is not the same as an opinion. Any woman out of many can be
right for marriage. The chance is worth it. The same cannot however be said of
religion. There are thousands of religions. Many of them are abhorrent to the
others and poisonous. The type of religion that wants to believe that
non-members of the religion to rot in Hell forever is common. There are endless
possibilities for inventing new religions.
Fourthly, we do not believe that everybody should give up on hoping that things
are true and that they should just wait and look for evidence all the time. We
do believe that you can accept something as likely to be true with little
evidence. But only as long as you can’t get any more evidence. And as long as
you have tried to look at the evidence against your position and found it
unsatisfactory. And as long as you have to really think the evidence is good.
And as long as you are open to new evidences and understandings for close
mindedness is really opposition to faith and belief and evidence. The belief
will be very weak but you have to be true to what you think. In summary, you can
hope your weak belief is true and still look for evidence for it where it is
practical. There are lots of important beliefs and we cannot verify them all
more than we do. But if God is the most important thing then God is different.
The believer has a duty to make sure he exists and to carry out this duty to the
utmost.
Pascal
Blaise Pascal supported something like James’ momentous option.
He said that it does no harm to believe in God and we will go to Hell and lose
his blessing in this life if we don’t. So when we have nothing to lose and
everything to gain we should believe in God.
But it is Jesus Christ saying we will go to Hell and be cursed if we do not
believe. Why should we think he is right? And is it really a blessing to get on
the good side of a God who does not have the morals to love you unless you
believe? That is not a true blessing. Neither is believing because of the risk
of Hell. If you find joy in faith because you think it is for others to worry
about Hell for you are fine then your joy is revolting.
We can’t believe in God just because Christ wants us to curse us and wants us to
go to Hell for unceasing torments for disbelieving for we can’t accept every
religion or god just because it or its god makes threats. Anybody who reveres
the vice of blind faith who tells you that something terrible will happen to you
if you don’t believe what they believe is just admitting that they would like to
see the misfortune visiting you. They wouldn’t be making a dogma out of a guess
otherwise. And how could it be harmless to believe in and reverence a God who
has no understanding for people who don’t believe in him? Where is his mercy for
them? Anybody could manipulate you if you have to believe in whoever says God
will do X, Y, Z if you don’t do this or that. You can’t believe in every
religion that makes threats and it is sectarian and unfair to pick one religion
out of many when you believe that you should believe in a threatening religion
just in case.
Clifford detested belief in God and in atheism for he felt there was no evidence
for either of them. I would say he should not detest them equally for atheism
will not depend on God to keep a leaking ship afloat but belief in God can.
Belief in God is the most detestable.
James argues that belief in God can be justified without evidence but his
argument can justify atheism as well. The atheist can argue that atheism is a
momentous option because it frees you from the guilt and fear and extra rules
that comes from belief in God. God is claimed to be THE momentous option for he
is what everything is supposedly about 100% and is to get total commitment from
you. But if God is unworthy of such devotion or does not exist then atheism is
the momentous option!
The atheist can argue that atheism is a higher momentous option than theism for
a good God will save you if you are a sincere atheist making it immoral and
irrational to believe in God.
Belief in atheism is actually simpler than belief in God so Clifford was wrong.
God leaves us with too many extra questions to answer.
The power of motive
Blind faith that has evidence but is not really using it is still blind faith.
You never know if a person armed with evidence for something is really believing
because of the evidence. Blind faith is so rife that even when evidence is
presented you still can't take it for granted that the person is exercising
reasonable faith. The reasonable assumption is that they in fact are not. Faith
is fed and watered from your faith that others have faith. Belief in God for
example would not matter as much if you didn't think others had real faith.
Trust the truth that they in fact do not.
Last
Blind faith is faith that has evidence and does not really respect it or build
on it or which does not have evidence at all. It is really faith that does not
own the evidence. So in that sense it does not have it. It is there but it does
not give a toss.
We conclude that faith in God without any evidence is totally irrational and
inexcusable. Faith without reasonable evidence or enough is not far behind.