Clifford was a philosopher in the medieval ages of philosophy, that is, the seventeenth century. Clifford advocated that a person is rightfully justified in believing in an event or something if only they have sufficient evidence in believing in the occurrence of that event. Clifford was against beliefs people had in doing things without sufficient evidence before embarking on such events. In this accord, Clifford wrote a book to support his belief. However, many non-evidentialist philosophers saw his advocacy as an act of atheism and that he did not believe in God. Non-evidential philosophers believed in God and put their faith above all during their adventures and arguments. In this perspective, I support the non-evidentialist approach to our daily lives, as it advocates for the faith in God before doing anything. The non-evidentialist philosopher to contrast Clifford’s theory, in this case, is Blaise Pascal. Blaise Pascal was a philosopher in the seventeenth century, who had a non-evidentialist approach and intended to turn people into believers through the act of faith.
Clifford’s Evidentialist Argument.
Clifford believed in epistemic justification to events and described that enough evidence, rather than faith was needed to justify the certainty of events. Clifford also stressed that the occurrence of events totally depended on a person’s judgment, and judgment before faith could have a different outcome than blind beliefs. The evidentialist approach encourages individuals to gather enough evidence before performing any event or making a judgment (Timothy, 110). To justify his argument, Clifford used a case about a ship owner. The ship owner sent out his employees on a voyage on a ship that was not fit. The ship had mechanical damage. The ship owner used his beliefs on the various safe voyages he had made before. The ship needed urgent repairs, but the ship owner still sent it out. The ship later sank in its voyage, resulting in the demise of the sailors. According to Clifford, the owner had sufficient evidence to prevent him from sending his men to an eminent death, but still relied on his faith for a safe voyage. In this accord, Clifford portrays that evidentialist belief is rather a use of common sense to make judgments about events. Using the case of the ship, Clifford further describes that had the ship owner examined his conscience before the voyage, he would have prevented the deaths of his men, by first repairing the ship before sending his crew on a voyage (Clifford, 23)
Clifford depicts the case of the ship Voyager as a trust in dogmatic beliefs that cannot materialize. Clifford further supports his argument by saying that the ship’s owner was justified to follow his belief, but the lack of assessment of available evidence on the condition of the ship led to the tragic events. Non-evidentialist philosophers were however against his approach, arguing that true belief in something can influence the performance of an action. According to Clifford, embarking blindly on events in the name of faith is not credible.
Moreover, Clifford also describes wrong outcomes to tasks or events. As a result, overwhelming beliefs and inadequate evidence. Adequate evidence can lead to the postponement or withdrawal of decisions, and requires that person to gather enough evidence before jumping to conclusions. The gathering of evidence can be equated to the development of proper guidelines to the performance of tasks. In this accord; Clifford studied that evidence can hold measurable expectations rather than using mere beliefs.
Clifford’s Contrast to Non-Evidentialist
Clifford’s evidentialist beliefs can be best contrasted to Blaise Pascal’s non-evidentialist approach, who was also argued in the time of medieval philosophy. Medieval was a time in which the belief in God and theology was diminishing, and many people had lost their belief in God. Due to this, Pascal sought to draw people close to God and the belief of the uncertain. During this time, the criticism of religion was high. Pascal employed the principles of righteousness and faith in his quest to make people believe. Moreover, according to Pascal, the true outcome of events depends on faith. However, Clifford contrasted this statement by his adequate evidence rule. Clifford depicted that acts of faith can remain postponed in a person’s conscience, and later erupt causing a burst of actions that are true to evidence. However, Clifford’s use of evidence did not cover for uncertain norms such as death and accidents. The latter does not rely on evidence whatsoever, and their eventuality is defined by faith, among other religious attributes. My support for the non-evidential approach deepens with the description Pascal made on the reliance of faith in the face of these uncertain events.
Pascal used the ‘Pascal wager’ to counter Clifford’s evidentialist approach. The Pascal’s wager involved the argument of either to believe in God or otherwise and was aimed at bringing people closer to their Creator. Many people had turned into atheists and the belief in evidentialist approaches. Pascal was determined to instill the use of faith to make decisions. It is evident that one cannot have faith by force, but rather a choice to believe. At that time, evidentialist like Clifford argued that there was no evidence that God existed, and this was a major drawback to non-evidentialist like Pascal. However, Pascal argued in his defense that one did not need any evidence to justify the existence of God, and the evidence of Gods existence would be felt through the conscience of individuals once they believed.
The contrast between evidentialist and non-evidentialist can best be portrayed as a religious-atheist war, in the face of the judgment of events using evidence or faith (Timothy, 157) Non-evidentialist had a foothold in the use of Pascal’s wager, which he developed to instill the will to believe. It was evident that people who had the will to believe did not have to use evidence to make decisions, but rather trust their inner conscience. Moreover, it is not necessary to use evidence to form a belief. A belief is something that emanates from within a person, and evidence can not explain its occurrence. Relying on evidence can be risky as evidence cannot surpass the certainty of events occurring. Clifford, however, defends this and states that evidence is the surest way of establishing certainty, and is not influenced by cognitive factors such as beliefs. The evidentialist belief that people’s fates are sealed by the decisions they make. Wrong decisions are a doom while good and sound decisions are a success. In this accord, Clifford demonstrates that decisions contain evidence of outcomes, and both the good and bad decisions are shaped by the accuracy individuals have in analyzing evidence.
Also, to the contrast of the certainty decision statement by non-evidentialist was that events are not shaped by evidence that justifies them, but rather the actions of God in shaping the lives of His people. The bottom line of this context is, the act of believing is a live choice that people make, and nevertheless the outcome, the possibilities is what determines what events could have conspired. Drawing evidence on the other hand for the purpose of making decisions cannot deter the outcomes of events. Evidence according to Pascal can only reduce the possibilities of uncertainties from occurring, but cannot deter what is meant to happen by God.
In conclusion, Clifford’s evidentialist argument is justifiable in the cases where evidence surpasses belief. For instance, in a case of where it is evident that uncertainty is likely to occur, and judgment concludes its accuracy. Such uncertain events include the occurrence of storms and accidents.one cannot rely on the evidence of occurrence. However, the non-evidentialist argument prevails in both certain and uncertain cases of events, as it do not need analysis of evidence but the act of faith. Faith is an unfathomable trust in someone; it emanates with such an appeal that cannot be explained by physical evidence. Faith cannot be quantified in the form of hard evidence (Timothy, 67) .In this accord, the non-evidentialist argument best influences my judgment as my beliefs are dictated by acts of faith, and evidence cannot determine which decisions I make. Furthermore, the beliefs instilled in me surpass any need for evidence, and the likelihood of those beliefs bringing harm to me is relatively low. The choice to follow a belief or faith is rather personal, evidence about a belief cannot be analyzed as Clifford argues. Therefore, I strongly support the non-evidentialist argument as it advocated for everything we believe in God, and His ability to shield us from uncertainties.
Works cited
Clifford, William. The Scientific Basis of Morals and Other Essays, Viz.: Right and Wrong, the Ethics of Belief, the Ethics of Religion. New York: Fitzgerald, 1884, Print.
Dyck, Timothy L. Proper Basicality for Belief in God: Alvin Plantinga and the Evidentialist Objection to Theism. , 1995. Print.
