Arguments over God’s existence have sparked massive controversy within the philosophical realm as the teleological, ontological, and cosmological frameworks are still heavily debated. However, W.K. Clifford innovatively refuted God with a pragmatic argument that posited theists as irresponsible for their beliefs. In his argument, Clifford paints a vivid analogy of a shipowner whose reckless decisions based on blind faith led to detrimental consequences. I chose the picture of the RMS Titanic because it shares uncanny similarities with Clifford’s analogy. By analyzing Clifford’s argument and its counterarguments, we will hopefully answer whether having faith in God without evidence is responsible and safe.
I find that the pragmatic arguments for God are the most relevant and influential. Masterfully crafted arguments that appeal to different areas of teleology, ontology, and cosmology are essential; however, they fail to answer the most prominent theistic tendency. Most people faithful to God collapse to the classic Kierkegaard notion of Fideism. To them, the fact that faith cannot be rationalized is what makes believing in God beautiful (Kierkegaard). Thus, pragmatic arguments seek to display religion with two approaches: either faith in God is responsible for its benefits for an individual and society, or it is irresponsible due to the opposite.
W.K. Clifford favored the latter approach in his book “The Ethics of Belief.” He argued that holding any faith without evidence was irresponsible, which he elucidated through his famous analogy of a shipowner. Clifford explains that a shipowner is faced with a dilemma when people request to use his ship for a transatlantic voyage. The shipowner knows that his vessel is not fit to make the voyage, creaking with old age and lacking structural integrity. However, after continued demands for a voyage, the shipowner eventually convinces himself that the ship is seaworthy. During the journey, the boat collapses under pressure and sinks with its passengers. While it is clear that the shipowner is responsible for the tragedy, Clifford postulates that the shipowner would be just as guilty even if the ship made it across the sea safely (Clifford). For Clifford, the shipowner’s fundamental problem is that he adopted an irresponsible belief (that the ship was seaworthy) without any evidence. This analogy bears a striking resemblance to the fate of the RMS Titanic. The captain of the ship, Edward John Smith, believed the Titanic was unsinkable without any evidence. As a result of this irrational belief, Smith ignored the numerous warnings of large ice sheets radioed in by other ships in the area and continued at full speed. The result was similarly tragic to the one in Clifford’s analogy as over 1,000 people died in the ship’s collision with an iceberg (The Sinking of RMS Titanic). With the detriments of blind faith established, Clifford finalized his argument by extending his conclusion to religious faith. Irrational faith in God is inevitably reflected in one’s actions, which Clifford warranted spread to the rest of society in “one long sin against mankind.”
This argument is quite compelling to me as it forces theists into an irreconcilable position. Rather than refuting arguments that attempt to prove God’s existence, Clifford deems the belief in God unsuitable due to its pragmatic danger. In short, I think this argument requires an adequate response by theists as it proves that faith in God is pernicious and epistemically irresponsible. However, Clifford’s reasoning is not infallible. Some theists believe their arguments are well substantiated with evidence through the classic arguments for God. This demographic is unlikely to be convinced by Clifford’s arguments as they base their faith in God on evidence. Nevertheless, since I do not think this is the dominating tendency among theists, I will not be engaging with the myriad arguments one could use to justify their belief in God. Instead, the focus of this analysis is on the merits and harms of blind faith in God. One could also argue that unsubstantiated beliefs are necessary for frictionless human interactions. For example, it is useful to think about how a person (whom I will refer to as Bobby) should interact with new friends. Bobby’s best chance for social success would be to assume that all his new friends liked him. This assumption allows Bobby and his friends to communicate smoothly rather than Bobby waiting for an explicit confirmation from his friends. However, Clifford would not have been satisfied with this argument, and neither am I. In social interactions, there are clear social cues that dictate how somebody feels about you. It is unnecessary to take a leap of faith in these situations because there is available evidence with people’s body postures, tones of voice, and lexicon choice. Moreover, the analogy seems illogical. Even if its claim is valid, why would it follow that a drastically different assumption (such as that God exists) would also be permissible? However, there are perhaps certain niche situations where one should make a certain leap of faith. William James outlines these situations in his book “The Will To Believe”.
William James held qualms with Clifford’s argument. James recognized that while one should always make a decision using the available evidence, some situations lack the intellectual grounds to form a decision. James believed that as long as a choice met specific guidelines, it did not require evidence. He had three criteria. First, there must be two live options. These are possibilities that one can tangibly consider to pursue. For example, my choice between eating oatmeal or not in the morning involves two live options as I can seriously envision myself doing either. Similarly, James thought God’s existence included two live options as people can fathom either believing in him or rejecting him. Second, the choice must be forced, which means it is binary. I may venture outside this afternoon or not venture outside; I have no other options. James concluded belief in God is also forced as you either do believe in him or do not. While agnostics have suspended beliefs about God, they are nonetheless refusing to believe in God. Third, the decision must be momentous, which is to say it must be significant, irreversible, and unique. For James, belief in God is momentous due to the possibility of eternal heaven or hell. One’s religious choice could have endless benefits or harms. Since faith in God meets these criteria, James moves smoothly to his conclusion. In these circumstances, one should adopt beliefs without evidence as it enables for the possibility of achieving a truth. This realization is quite significant for James’s holistic argument as he concludes that the best things are the more eternal things (James). Faith in God offers the potential of eternal heaven and possible psychological benefits. Since faith in God meets James’s criteria, it would be illogical to miss out on the benefits of God existing.
James’s argument is exceptionally intriguing to me, and I can find some truth in it. I think his criteria offer reasonable grounds where an irrational decision is justified. For example, the choice of marriage is live, forced, and momentous. Because the premises are satisfied, I do not believe one should deny their feelings of love even if they cannot find real evidence to support it. It may be irrational, but a couple can nonetheless be happy. However, I do not believe that faith in God meets the entirety of James’s criteria, which is problematic since all must be met in order for it to be justified.
For the first criterion, James argues that God’s existence is a live question as one can fathom believing in God and lacking a belief in God. However, some atheists and theists do not see these as live options. For dogmatic theists, they cannot envision God not being real, making this a dead option for them. Similarly, dogmatic atheists cannot fathom God being real. Thus, the choice of religion is hardly a live one. For the second criterion, James posits faith in God as a forced decision due to its binary nature. Again, I take issue with this claim because there can be degrees of belief. For example, in Bayesian epistemology, one uses probability laws to decide a degree of confidence for a belief (Talbott). Some atheists believe there is a 99 percent chance God is real and a one percent chance that he is not. The same logic applies to theists as well. Therefore, the question of God’s existence cannot be forced if there are multiple degrees to which one can believe in God. Finally, James’s third criterion claims that faith in God is momentous as it is significant, irreversible, and unique. This assertion seems untrue. James asserts that belief in God is significant as it can elicit eternal heaven or hell. However, this prioritization of an outcome’s magnitude over its probability can be extrapolated to plenty of silly possibilities. For example, I can place my faith in a cookie monster God, who demands that I eat cookies for breakfast every morning. If I do not, I earn his infinite wrath in hell. If I do eat my cookies, he will look upon me favorably and grant me heaven. While this cookie monster God sounds epic, eating cookies would become a technically significant responsibility because, despite the low probability, there are infinite rewards and risks at stake. There could be deities promising eternal rewards for anything, but we still disregard them as insignificant as they most likely do not exist. Furthermore, belief in God is also clearly reversible. There are numerous anecdotes of people who had life-changing experiences that transformed their religious beliefs. Finally, belief in God is not unique at all to me. There are countless different Gods one can believe from Odin to the cookie monster God. While an offer to go to the moon by NASA is unique, it loses much of its uniqueness if space programs from Russia, China, and France push the same offer.
While James argues there are benefits to believing in God, he also posits that the risk of a false belief in God does not pose excessive risks. This assertion merits exploration, and Bertrand exemplifies the possible perils of faith with his teapot analogy. Suppose I assert there is a Chinese Teapot drifting between Mars and Earth. While there will be doubters to my claim, some may honestly believe this teapot exists. Rationally, Russell concludes that the burden of proof must fall upon the person proposing an idea (Russell). If not, one could make leaps of faith about anything from Chinese teapots to magical wizards. The implications of this often go unnoticed. If one is allowed to have blind faith in God, what prevents that person from leaping to a conclusion about what God desires in society? During the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler used Christianity to make an abominable leap of faith. He claimed that Jewish people were “the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil” (Hitler and Manheim). This assumption turned out to be a pragmatic disaster, with 6 million innocent Jews murdered behind the curtains of faith. Thus, I think blind faith in God has detrimental consequences for society, verifying Clifford’s initial assessment.
Ultimately, it appears religion is pragmatically irresponsible and not something people should pursue without evidence. Clifford’s principle is not perfect, and specific criteria should be considered before rejecting a blind belief. However, it happens to be useful in refuting a blind faith in God. If faith in God lacks evidence and does not meet James’s criteria, there is an epistemic and pragmatic responsibility to reject God. A Kierkegaard leap of faith, although popular, should thus be considered dangerous. The holocaust is an empirical testament to this risk. Hopefully, this discourse has been meaningful. Rather than leaping for God, one should seek evidence or look elsewhere for answers in life.
Bibliography
Clifford, William Kingdon., and Tim Madigan. The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays. Prometheus Books, 2009.
James, William. The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. Dover Publ., 1960.
Kierkegaard, Soren. Fear and Trembling. Start Publishing LLC, 2018.
Russell, Bertrand. “Is There a God?” The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom, www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html. “The Sinking of RMS Titanic.” Historic UK, www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/RMS-Titanic-the-unsinkable-ship/.
Talbott, William. “Bayesian Epistemology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 26 Mar. 2008, plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/.
