This topic has been discussed somewhat in other postings so let's just address it directly. The philosopher William Clifford addressed this matter fairly well. Some of his views are as follows:
There was once an island in which some of the inhabitants professed a religion teaching neither the doctrine of original sin nor that of eternal punishment. A suspicion got abroad that the professors of this religion had made use of unfair means to get their doctrines taught to children. They were accused of wresting the laws of their country in such a way as to remove children from the care of their natural and legal guardians; and even of stealing them away and keeping them concealed from their friends and relations. A certain number of men formed themselves into a society for the purpose of agitating the public about this matter. They published grave accusations against against individual citizens of the highest position and character, and did all in their power to injure these citizens in their exercise of their professions. So great was the noise they made, that a Commission was appointed to investigate the facts; but after the Commission had carefully inquired into all the evidence that could be got, it appeared that the accused were innocent. Not only had they been accused of insufficient evidence, but the evidence of their innocence was such as the agitators might easily have obtained, if they had attempted a fair inquiry. After these disclosures the inhabitants of that country looked upon the members of the agitating society, not only as persons whose judgment was to be distrusted, but also as no longer to be counted honorable men. For although they had sincerely and conscientiously believed in the charges they had made, yet they had no right to believe on such evidence as was before them. Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.
Let us vary this case also, and suppose, other things remaining as before, that a still more accurate investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty. Would this make any difference in the guilt of the accusers? Clearly not; the question is not whether their belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds. They would no doubt say, "Now you see that we were right after all; next time perhaps you will believe us." And they might be believed, but they would not thereby become honorable men. They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out. Every one of them, if he chose to examine himself in foro conscientiae, would know that he had acquired and nourished a belief, when he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him; and therein he would know that he had done a wrong thing.
Is it okay to hold a belief without any sort of evidence?
Most people confuse evidence as something concrete, but it does not have to be. Gravity, for instance, is not 100% true. If I threw a ball up in the air can I be certain it will come down? The answer is that by using information I have learned, I know it has a very high probability of coming back down, but I can never know this with any certainty.
At the end of his essay Clifford notes:
If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This doesn't only pertain to religious beliefs. I realize maybe I should have used one of his other examples. I intended this to be about the reasons people hold any beliefs. That is in part why I mentioned gravity. I can say I believe the ball will come down because I have observed gravity at work many times in the past. Therefore I believe the probability is extremely high that the ball will come down. This belief is founded on sound logic.
A religious belief can work in the same manner. The person that has examined the beauty and complexity of nature and life has reason to hold that belief. But what if that person only held the belief because a man a the street told him it was so. He does not know if the man is an expert in the area or if this is someone who's word should be trusted. This type of belief can be seen all the time.
For instance, a friend tells you that he heard your neighbor is gay. He has never talked to the neighbor, he has never seen the neighbor in a light that would infer homosexuality yet he passed on his "knowledge" to you even though he lacked any evidence. Is it alright to believe your friend?
Holding beliefs can be compared to riding a raft down a river. Turns and bends can hide any amount of unexpected debris and unforseen obstacles. There is even the chance that the raft might hit a rock and sink. Even after years of traveling down the same river, weather patterns etc. can change known territory into unknown.
So what's a raft rider to do? Sit down on the shore and refuse to get on the raft? Tie the raft to a dock so it floats, but can't move?
In order to learn anything about the river, or about truth , a body needs to shove away from shore and take a chance. Will the river ever be totally known? No, but that doesn't subtract from the adventure of traveling along it.
If a belief can withstand arguments, tests, and opposition, it serves a purpose, if it can't, it should sink.
Trying to ride rafts on land is silly, and so is holding a belief, but not allowing it to be challenged.
Post a Comment