James Vs Clifford

W. K. Clifford (1845-1879) was a British philosopher and mathematician. He made a compelling argument regarding ethics of belief. In module two reading, he stated that it is always wrong to make a claim without sufficient evidence. William James (1842-1910), on the other hand, a philosopher and psychologist, took a different approach, in which he shared a different view concerning religious belief. Notably, both evidentialism and nonevidentialism approach have some merit and validity. I will assess both methods and choose a position which I believe align with my point of view. While both Clifford and James are terrific and reputable scholars who have extensively researched the subject of religious belief; however, they have a different point
Recall that Pascal’s view is that although that God is unknown, but believing is a good bet and that it might bring infinite reward to belief. As previously noted, Clifford shares a different view in which he made the case that believing from insufficient evidence has always been wrong, for everyone no matter how trivial the matter. William James, on the flip side, take another route by saying that believing despite weak evidence is permissible, even obligatory in many cases. As noted, Clifford’s position is that since moral judgment applies to our lives and actions; as a result, this fundamental principle affects others as we have moral obligations to others. He also added by making the case that when we act, we influence the welfare of others. Another observation is that what one believes, in particular, the idea insides our heads could be problematic to others as one belief likely to consequential on
I believe it is important to note that I disagree with Clifford’s position regarding a person belief. I also want to acknowledge that in the case of the ship owner who made a decision based on his knowledge, and in this particular circumstances, it was clearly irresponsible of the ship owner to jeopardize so many lives just base on his opinion, which turns out catastrophic. In that aspect, Clifford’s is right to make the case about the irresponsibility of the ship owner to have such belief. While this observation applies in the event of the ship owner when it comes to religious belief, Clifford’s philosophy does not add up. But, the question one must ask, Clifford’s position itself is flawed as his position is only based on his personal beliefs. In this particular instance, Clifford’s view is not aligning with