An Argument into Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief
I disagree with Clifford’s statement, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." I believe that this is a false statement because the world’s population relies on most of their decisions on faith and trust. It is basic human nature to allow trust and vast decision-making. Many religions and people make daily assumptions and decisions with insufficient evidence. People believe in politicians based on what they say without knowing any sufficient evidence. Clifford’s statement is baseless, for there are many instances where the general population makes a decision without a sufficient investigation.
Numerous religions rely on the trust of people to carry out their faith. Everyday, people pray to a certain figure, whether it is a god or someone in the past. There has been no physical proof of there being such a god, but many people still believe in their religious figures. If Clifford’s statement were true, then people would not have faith in religions unless there is physical proof that such a god exists. With that being said, Clifford’s statements are biased with no real thought put behind it.
People make decisions each day without the necessity of sufficient evidence. In cities, people cross the street with the trust that no motorist has malicious intent. People eat at restaurants with the trust that no person has poisoned or spat in their food. Clifford did not realize the need that people have to make a quick decision. Many people do not have time to stop and look at all the evidence without making a decision. A working person makes decisions on the fly, and they do not have the clear ability to launch an investigation with each basic decision based on sufficient evidence.
Many politicians make decisions without sufficient evidence. During election time, politicians create sham ads in order to decrease the likeability of the other candidate. Of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document