Rene Descartes On Belief Without Evidence

Paper #2

Belief is something that everyone has, whether it is regarding religion, opinions, or judgements. People believe in something. The main question is why do people believe? There has been constant debates on beliefs and if they should have sufficient evidence before they start believing in them. Many people, like Philosopher Blaise Pascal, who believe that beliefs do not need evidence. Pascal reasons that people should blinding believe, even if they do not have the evidence to prove it. However, there are people like William K. Clifford who propose the opposite. Clifford states that there are certain beliefs that require adequate evidence. Evidence is extremely important and definitely required for beliefs to be accepted. Adequate evidence

is necessary for beliefs to be accepted, which is shown through the ideals of Clifford, Descartes, and Pascal.
In The Ethics of Belief, Clifford uses at least two analogies that demonstrate his reasoning for sufficient evidence. The entire reading consist of the same type of analogies which presume the idea that it is wrong to believe in insufficient evidence (Clifford 10). The first analogy he uses is a shipowner who is going to send a ship across sea. The shipowner conflicts about sending the ship away because of how it is built and what it looks like. However, he calms his doubts by saying that “[the ship] had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms.” Therefore, it would mean the ship will come back safe once again. According to Clifford, “he had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts” (Clifford 1). Instead of having actual evidence to prove the ship was ready to set sail, he calmed his doubts by the past evidence of the ship's journey. He knew it was not in sail condition but let it sail anyways. This caused many people to die do this belief without any solid, current evidential proof. Following are more analogies with the exact same meaning. All the analogies state “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (Clifford 5).
Another philosopher who believes that evidence is important is Rene Descartes.

Descartes is a philosopher who usually follows skepticism. He believes his knowledge in terms of doubt. According to descartes, the knowledge of objects comes from the mind, not from senses. Descartes believes that “our senses give us impressions that can be misleading but our minds associate sets of impressions (even misleading ones) with objects” (Philosophy Demystified 81). In other words, how we know things is because of past impressions that stick to us. However, he also says that because of this past impression, they can sometimes lead us to the wrong thing or be portrayed in the wrong way. This idea is similar to the shipowner who was unsure of the safe passage in Clifford’s analogy. The shipowner believes that the ship is good to sail from “past impressions” which was a misleading impression. He concluded that since the ship has made many safe journeys that it will survive another safe journey. This conclusion was wrong since it that had caused many deaths of the people who traveled on the ship. Continuing onto Descartes statement about doubt, the shipowner first doubted the safety of the ship but used past impressions to calm his doubts. Descartes claims that doubt is needed in order to obtain the truth and knowledge. In order for beliefs to be accepted, one should doubt it and question the reasoning behind it before believing it. The shipowner did the opposite, he had doubts and used past impressions to justify his

actions.
Belief extends from the safety of a ship passage. The main argument about belief usually focuses towards religion and the existence of God. This is is what is used in Blaise Pascal’s argument called the Wager Argument. The Wager Argument is a “prudential argument for God’s existence” (Philosophy Demystified 198). Throughout the argument, Pascal states that you do not need evidence in order to believe. He claims that if you believe in God and you are wrong then nothing will happen. However, if you believe in God and you are right, you will “gain infinite happiness in heaven.” Relating this broadly, Pascal believes that you do into need evidence of anything to belief in something.From what he is saying, you can believe that a fish can fly because it is not actually hurting anyone. Back to the shipowner, he believed his ship would make it but it had caused the life of many. In some cases, it seems okay to belief in something blindy. However, in other cases evidence is required.
To people like Descartes and Clifford, evidence is extremely important before going into a believe. To people like Pascal, evidence is not necessary in order to believe in something. Two completely opposite idea. Adequate evidence is needed, according to Clifford, before people start following a belief. According to dictionary.com. adequate is defined as good as necessary for some requirement or purpose. In basic terms, adequate means something that is almost passable. So how would people know what qualifies as adequate evidence. Although Descartes believes that evidence is necessary for beliefs, he contradicts himself with his own reasoning for his belief in God. According to Descartes’ ontological argument, God exist because God is our idea of a perfect being and that it is more perfect to exist then not to. In conclusion, God must exist. This defies his argument earlier on doubt and evidence. Descartes argues that God exist because of the idea of God To Descartes, this reasoning is by definition adequate evidence. If the reason is good enough for Descartes that must been his evidence is adequate.
Could we say the same about the shipowner? His adequate evidence was that the ship always comes back safely. He believes that was enough evidence to let the ship sail. Although it is adequate evidence to the shipowner, it was not adequate evidence to the jury or the people who found him guilty. Physical evidence is what was needed in order for the ship to sail, not some belief of past impressions. Clifford is correct that evidence is necessary in beliefs, but to an extend. There can only be certain evidence that can be used to justify or condemn a belief. Focusing outside of religion and back to the shipowner example, the shipowner had his own belief that it was ready to set sail but not enough proof that it was. He knew he should have gotten it checked but did not, he questioned the safety of the ship but did not do anything when his doubts came to mind. He relied on past information which would have affected nothing on the current situation. However, focusing on religion, using Descartes reasoning is an example of adequate evidence. Descartes believes that God exist because of the existence of him comes through an idea. Descartes is one of the philosophers who truly believe in God’s existence and does not seem to question it even though it goes against his other beliefs. If it affects only oneself, such as religion or opinion, then adequate evidence is harmless. If it is rational to the person and makes sense to the person, then it should pass as adequate evidence for a person to believe what they do. However, if it affects many people, proper evidence should be taken into account or else the blame will fall on the person accountable for just following their “belief.”
All beliefs require adequate evidence. Not having any evidence or proof will not have a sound background and will not carry out in life through generations. Evidence is necessary in order to obtain the truth and true understanding of subjects and of objects. Clifford clarifies in The Ethics of Belief that you should not trust every information you receive and should do the proper research and work in order to obtain the truth. Without evidence, everyone would just be right about everything and anything. There will be no truth on science or why the world is round. Evidence is what gives answers to further the question of true knowledge and of life. According to Clifford, “we may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not know is like what we know.” This is closed-minded thinking, similar to someone hitting someone because they are told. Clifford is saying that we should work harder to obtain the correct evidence before we may risk others or ourselves from false facts.
In conclusion, through the many different beliefs of philosophers, evidence is needed in order for beliefs to be truly accepted. Having no evidence is like answering a math problem on a test with no work. We do not know how they got to that conclusion or if it is even there's. We do not know if they have the correct information. Although adequate evidence differs on each person, all beliefs should at least have one adequate evidence before being accepted. Clifford states that it is wrong to belief without the proper knowledge and proof of the matter because if doubted, then it is worse than the first presumption you beleived in the first place.