Clifford’s Evidentialist Argument in Contrast to Bergmann’s Non Evidentialist Idea

Name

Instructor

Course

Date

Clifford’s evidentialist argument in contrast to Bergmann’s non evidentialist idea,

Introduction,

        William Kingdon Clifford a philosopher and a mathematician at Cambridge University, Although in his line of work Clifford majored with philosophy and did little in mathematics still his is remembered as one of the great mathematician through his discoveries. Clifford published a journal titled “Ethics of belief”. In his journal he pointed out various ethics of beliefs towards religion. Clifford ideas can be related to skepticism, since he explained that for one to belief in something he or she should have sufficient evidence.

        Michael Bergmann is an American analytic and a Christian philosopher teaching philosophy at Purdue University. He attained both BA and MA degree in philosophy from University of waterloo, he got is ph D from university of Notre Dame. In his line of work he is majorly interested with epistemology and philosophy of religion. He has written a book “Justification without awareness” where he argues that epistemic externalism about epistemic justification is theoretically preferable to any non externalism. Though Bergmann ideas toward beliefs are challenged by many critics of atheism like Clifford his work was really good and appreciated by majority.

Clifford’s evidentialist arguments,

In his principles Clifford insisted that it was useless and immoral for one to belief n something yet he or she has no sufficient evidence. He also questioned the existences of some guidelines that explained how religion can be held, followed and also be defended. This made no sense at all to Clifford. He further explains his principles through the story of an owner of a faulty ship. The ship owner was too economical and lazy to inspect his ship for the trip; he did not consider the safety of his passengers and the cargo. He convinced himself that the ship was good to go and incase of any repairs he will take care of them after the trip. He did not want to waste time on repairs since it would delay departure and cost him a fortune. The ship did not make it to the destination instead it went down to the sea and the crew drowns. The ship owner had no right to base his opinion on anything else but through investigation. Clifford shows how immoral the ship owner was instead of relying on full evidence that the ship will or will not make it to its destination on time and safely but he choose to go by his faith which later proves to him that he was wrong. {Clifford, p, 15}

Clifford further suggested that for evidence to be considered real and enough and safe for people to follow it should be equal and of the same nature to faith. If these criteria are followed strictly it will be healthy in the formation of beliefs compared to when people have little evidence or no evidence at all. Little evidence which can be questioned or challenged in a debate is almost compared to no evidence at all. Clifford explain sufficient evidences to faith as one which holds anywhere for anyone at all time and also it cannot be questioned when subjected to investigation. This nature of strictness to obtain evidence is mostly used for liberating people from various dogmatic beliefs and to erase any disbelief in them. Evidentialism encourages people that before they belief in something they should look for reasons and sufficient evidence that will make their belief to be strong. Clifford furthers says that these kind of beliefs should be approached with a lot of caution and also people should find the need to look for reason to follow and sufficient evidence. {Clifford, p, 25}