VINLO
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 187
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Can you have epistemically responsible religious beliefs?
I think we need a new criteria for epistemically responsible beliefs in religion. W.K. Clifford’s overly rigid criteria for responsible belief and William James’ overly permissive criteria for responsible belief leave us no middle ground.
Clifford’s version of epistemic responsibility (“it is wrong always, and, everywhere for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence”) is too unyielding an expectation for human beings in a world of uncertainty. While he was right that there is no such thing as a private belief, I do not find it realistic to demand all beliefs (religious or otherwise) be supported by “sufficient” evidence. Who decides what is sufficient and when? In the case of a forced option like religion where the supporting evidence for the spectrum of certainty-driven beliefs (atheism included) all end up being circumstantial at best, agnosticism is the only epistemically responsible option in Clifford’s world.
Unfortunately, we then lose out on the opportunity to access the many benefits that I think only religion can provide.
Meanwhile, James’ Live, Forced, & Momentous criteria allow too much room for personally and socially destructive nonsense like anti-vaxxers and suicide bombers, so that’s not particularly helpful either.
What are we left with?
I think we need a new criteria for epistemically responsible beliefs in religion. W.K. Clifford’s overly rigid criteria for responsible belief and William James’ overly permissive criteria for responsible belief leave us no middle ground.
Clifford’s version of epistemic responsibility (“it is wrong always, and, everywhere for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence”) is too unyielding an expectation for human beings in a world of uncertainty. While he was right that there is no such thing as a private belief, I do not find it realistic to demand all beliefs (religious or otherwise) be supported by “sufficient” evidence. Who decides what is sufficient and when? In the case of a forced option like religion where the supporting evidence for the spectrum of certainty-driven beliefs (atheism included) all end up being circumstantial at best, agnosticism is the only epistemically responsible option in Clifford’s world.
Unfortunately, we then lose out on the opportunity to access the many benefits that I think only religion can provide.
Meanwhile, James’ Live, Forced, & Momentous criteria allow too much room for personally and socially destructive nonsense like anti-vaxxers and suicide bombers, so that’s not particularly helpful either.
What are we left with?