is it justified to have faith

Is it ever justified for us to believe in anything on insufficient evidence? William Clifford and Joseph Long have different answers to this question. Clifford thinks that it is always morally wrong because we have a moral obligation to exam our beliefs epistemically. On the contrary, Long argues that there are prudent values to believe something without absolute justification, therefore, it is permissible to do so.

To illustrate Clifford’s and Long’s point of views, Luke Skywalker in Star Wars could be an example in deciding whether to believe the Force or not. Luke does not have any reliable evidence on the Force before choosing between it and the tracking computer to target the Death Star. Even we know the Force indeed exists in the movies, it is merely a faith for Luke at the moment. So is Luke morally justified to believe in the Force at this battle scene?

William Clifford would say no. Turning off the tracking computer is definitely wrong because we should be condemned to have any kind of faith. On “the Ethics of Belief,” Clifford claims: “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (43). We as rational beings are morally required to acquire knowledge, a.k.a. “justified true belief,” as much as possible. Therefore, we have obligation to justify our beliefs epistemically in order to achieve such goal and form our beliefs based on evidence. And since Luke fails to justify the existence on the Force with any proof, he is guilty to track the Death Star by using the Force.

Opposite to Clifford, Joseph Long points out that sometimes it is morally acceptable to form a belief even though we lack enough evidence. And Luke is exactly in one of those situations. First, it appears to h...

... middle of paper ...

... create fact. For example, it has been proven that optimism increases the life-span of patients with terminal disease. In fact, most patients force themselves to believe that they can be cured, even though they know it is impossible to happen, in order to achieve a more beneficial result, which they do. Plus, I don’t think anyone would find it hard to understand opinions that we disagree with. So until Long can establish that we cannot experience any of the pragmatic benefits he lists without having faith, his reasoning is not persuasive enough to oppose Clifford’s.

William Clifford and Joseph Long provide contradictory viewpoints on whether to have religious faith or not. Clifford blames Luke’s action on trusting the Force while Long supports it. Nevertheless, they both advocate us to always gather new evidence and remind open-minded to consider others’ evidence.