Reference no: EM133307562

Case: Clifford argues that believing anything without sufficient evidence is not only epistemologically wrong, but also morally harmful and leads to societal harm. And, he does have some validity. After all, when it comes to matters of fact or relation of ideas, we wouldn't believe without good evidence. We wouldn't believe your niece who tells you that your car needs an engine overhaul because you started your car without closing the door. We wouldn't believe someone who tells you that a square has five sides.

And, when it comes to morality, we would have to have valid evidence (premises). After all, if we do not, then how would we judge others who hold horrendous moral beliefs and acted on them? Think about slavery. There were slave owners who held that slaves deserved their fate. Think about Nazism. At least Hitler firmly believed that Jews (and others) are parasites, needed to be exterminated.

We make moral judgments against both. But, if we do not have evidence/support for our judgments, all we can say at the end is that both the slave owners and Hitler were justified in their beliefs (and practices). They simply believed differently than us. And, the logical consequence of this (as Clifford noted and discussed in the lecture), is the apathetic, lazy tolerance: you can believe whatever you want.... But, beliefs and actions are not separate as Clifford noted. After all, the slave owners owned slaves. Hitler caused Holocaust. Clifford thus held that any religious belief (either for or against) to be without evidence, and hence unethical. Please remember that he wasn't simply rejecting theism; he was also rejecting atheism as atheism also does not have sufficient evidence.

James offered a rational/philosophical argument against Clifford. He accepts that in certain areas of our lives, Clifford is correct (such as sciences, trivial areas, math, etc.). But, he argued that there are areas in our lives in which our believing first makes that belief come true (e.g. the highway men example). This is very true as James noted and the lecture note.d. And, he argued that religious beliefs are such that there cannot be evidence; but that is alright. But, not believing it could lead to the loss of something great; so, why take the chance?

My asking you to think about different understandings of God/Jesus/salvation/etc. in different forms of religion was to have you think about the logical consequences of James' argument. After all, if I held to the Trinity, wouldn't I have to reject all other religions' non-affirmation of it? And, on what basis could I do so, then?

These are philosophical questions, not religious/faith-based questions. And, in thinking through these, I hope you gained the growth in understanding, as that, I noted, is the purpose of philosophy.

At any rate, do you agree with Socrates in Critio arguing that one owes one's obedience to the government under which one lives even when what the government demands of you may be unjust? Why or why not?

Would a society become a complete mess as Hobbes argues without a strong, centralized government? And, what similarities do you see with Locke's social contract theory and the US Constitution?