course materials

1. Clifford’ s Evidentialist Argument in Contrast to Blaise Pascal’ s Non
Evidentialist Position
NameInstructorCourseDateClifford’ s Evidentialist Argument in Contrast to Blaise Pascal’ s
Non Evidentialist PositionIntroductionWilliam Kingdon Clifford was a philosopher as well
as a mathematician at Cambridge University, although he drifted more towards
philosophical works, doing little in terms of mathematics. He published a journal titled
“ Contemporary review” , in which he highlighted various ethics of belief. He questioned the
existence of some sort of criteria that describe how a belief can be held and defended.
According to Clifford, it was senseless to choose what to believe in without any form of
formulation or guide, leading to the belief. He concludes that it is morally wrong to hold,
defend, and believe in anything without sufficient evidence, thus coining the notion of
evidentialism (Clifford 13). In summary, what Clifford seeks to drive home is the idea that
there cannot be any belief without sufficient evidence. We can say that his principles are
closely related to skepticism.Blaise Pascal, on the other hand, describes that some truth
cannot just be explained by reason or evidence and, therefore, one has to rely on faith. He
defends religious knowledge and beliefs such as the existence of God, which, he
acknowledges, cannot be demonstrated. His notion can be defined as fideism or atheism,
which is reliance on faith and not reason or evidence in order to hold and defend a belief.
Evidentialism, as described above, refutes fideism principles and encourages people to
gather or seek sufficient evidence before holding a belief. The paper below seeks to
highlight the importance of reason and evidence, as opposed to holding a belief based on
faith without reason i.e. Clifford’ s principles are better suited compared to Pascal’ s
ones.Clifford’ s EvidentialismClifford held a belief that it was wrong and immoral for one to
believe in anything without sufficient evidence. To him and other critics of atheism, it made
no sense at all. In explaining the principles, Clifford uses an example of a man who had a
ship which was faulty. The man chose to completely ignore the fact that the ship was faulty
and was not safe for passengers on board and, instead, led himself to believe that it would
be fine for one trip, and then he would fix it later. His idea was to avoid wasting time on
fixing the faults at that time since it would delay departure and also cost him. The ship did
not make it to the destination. The owner of the ship acted on unethical belief instead of
relying on evidence. He should have checked for sufficient evidence on whether the ship
was safe as he assumed it would be. Clifford goes further to insist that an action is either
right or wrong, irrespective of the consequent outcome. Through this journal, Clifford

2. intends to raise the bar on ethics and morals. According to him, the ship owner was wrong
to act upon faith and no evidence even if the ship would have made it safely to its
destination. Blaise’ s argument on no need for evidence in most cases lacks a sense of
intellect and may seem irrational (Dole and Andrew 71).Clifford also explains that for
evidence to be considered sufficient, it must be proportional and of the same nature as the
belief. This kind of strictness is better suited to the formation of a belief, compared to
possession of moderate evidence, which holds ground, subject to various situations and
scenarios. Evidence that is moderate or one that has some exceptions on when and how it
counts is relatively similar to no evidence at all. Clifford describes strict evidence as one that
holds anywhere, for anyone, and at all time. This nature of strictness is mostly admired for
liberating people from various dogmatic beliefs and to erase credulity. Evidentialism
encourages people to seek for a reason and evidence before believing or conforming to
certain traditions. Various traditions may encourage certain wrongly justified beliefs, which
can be defined as degrading and dogmatic. These kinds of beliefs or institutions should be
approached with skepticism as well as a thirst to secure sufficient evidence and reason to
abide (Clifford 23).Science can be said to be Evidentialist because it insists on a pragmatic
approach to various beliefs. These beliefs can be practically demonstrated and evidenced,
hence making them difficult to refute as opposed to religious knowledge. Pascal, in his quest
to make people believe in God, insists that reason and evidence are not needed in proving
that God exists, but the very fact that there is no evidence to prove that He does not exist is
sufficient enough to warrant his belief of God’ s existence.Pascal’ s Non EvidentialismPascal
objects to the need for sufficient evidence and insists that some beliefs do not have to be
accompanied by evidence. He argues that they can be justified through religion and faith i.e.
religious epistemology. Pascal’ s principles seek to establish that statements such as “ God
exists” cannot be evidenced as a truth but cannot as well be evidenced as a false statement.
With this in mind, he concluded that some truth cannot be demonstrated and, therefore,
justified through faith only. Faith does not need to be accompanied by any reasonable
explanation and, consequently, the Evidentialist dismissed the non Evidentialist as
irresponsible and irrational. Pascalian ideas were mostly concerned with religious belief
formation and a general belief in God (Kreeft and Blaise 15).Pascal’ s objective to Clifford’ s
evidentialism lays in the distinction of insufficient evidence to hold a belief and non
evidentialism. Sufficient evidence has to proportional to the degree of belief. Moderate
evidentialism allows some situations where the evidence does not hold. Such evidence is
subject to various exemptions and, thus, is not so strict in ensuring a certain belief is
reasonable or true. In a case where the number of situations when the evidence does not
count is high, it can be said that the belief is similar to a non Evidentialist one. This makes it
difficult to draw a line that distinguishes moderate evidence and non-evidence, thereby
making it difficult to defend strict evidentialism.Another argument, drawn up by Pascal,
highlights and explains human condition. Pascal sought to encourage people to believe in
God because, according to his analysis of human nature, man is both noble and wretched.
Man is noble because he was created in the image of God, but he is also wretched because he
has strayed from the ways of God and does not acknowledge His existence. Pascal insists
that it is important for man to understand where he comes from and acknowledge the

3. redeemer who is capable of freeing him from his wretchedness (Kreeft and Blaise 34). This
condition helps man realize and acknowledge the existence of God and act as a starting
point towards religious epistemology.ResponseWith the above analysis of both Clifford’ s
and Pascal’ s ideas on evidentialism and non evidentialism respectively, we can say that
Clifford’ s evidentialism is better suited, especially with civilization in mind. Many critics
have argued that adopting non evidentialism is similar to non-sense. Intellectual knowledge
can prove that choosing faith over reason, especially in such a civilized world, is irrational
and irresponsible. A rational person’ s belief is directly proportional to the evidence
presented (Madigan 123). Atheism does not need a reason for belief, but instead, it insists
that the very lack of evidence of the contrary makes it true and sense full. This invites errors
in any belief, and it is reasonable to form a belief in important issues with sufficient
evidence.Atheism can be misleading in the current world, for instance, when a pastor
refuses to take his sick daughter to a hospital and believes that faith will heal her. Such
kinds of beliefs are perfect examples why both reason and rational should be involved in
formation of a belief. The above belief makes no sense and has no evidence as well and,
consequently, should be discouraged. However, religious knowledge can be retained to
explain the “ why” of various beliefs which cannot be evidenced or
demonstrated.ConclusionIn conclusion, as stated above in the thesis, it can be said that
evidentialism is more reasonable to adapt to, especially in the modern world. It is, however,
not rational to totally rule the reliance of faith at times to explain various beliefs that cannot
be demonstrated. Religious statements such as “ God exists” are an example of knowledge
of the heart, and refuting such statements is similar to being a skeptic.Works CitedClifford,
William. The Scientific Basis of Morals and Other Essays, Viz.: Right and Wrong, the Ethics of
Belief, the Ethics of Religion. New York: Fitzgerald, 1884, pp. 12-45. Print.Dole, Andrew and
Andrew Chignell. God and the Ethics of Belief: New Essays in Philosophy of Religion. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 67-89. Print.Kreeft, Peter and Blaise Pascal.
Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’ s Pense?es Edited, Outlined, and Explained. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993, pp. 13-36. Print.Madigan, Tim. W.K Clifford and ‘ the Ethics
of Belief’ . Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2008, pp. 117-143. Print.