Clifford Insufficient Evidence Essay

Clifford states that it is always wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence. This quotation helps to demonstrate the view that justifies belief depending upon having good reasons or evidence. His firm belief in evidentialism, which means without certainty and a solid basis of evidence and knowledge of a situation you, should never put fully believe it. Meanwhile reformed epistemology states that you can rationalize the belief of god based upon given evidence. Reformed epistemology use of both faith and minimal evidence to justify their beliefs is not reasonable. Thus I lean more towards believing in Clifford’s rationalization that we should never fully believe something until we have sufficient evidence. The idea of Epistemology is that in order for one to believe God to be rational, there needs to be an appropriate relationship between belief and evidence. As evidentialism is a thesis about epistemic justification, it is a thesis about the evidence and knowledge it takes for one to believe justifiably or reasonably given different subjects. This knowledge gained by new evidence allows evidentialism the freedom to exchange and reform its beliefs to correspond to the new information. Allowing in open mind of other possibilities and alternate routes of understanding instead of blindly following the faith you have towards a single idea. Evidentialism is a epistemic justification based upon evidence gained through analysis. Evidence can be defined as any information or facts relevant that indicate the truth to be valid or false. Not just any evidence whatsoever is relevant to determining whether one’s belief is justified; it is only the evidence that one has that is so relevant. For example, things such as DNA, first person testimony and location of an event that took place all count as forms of evidence. Another type of evidence would be not only our present experiences and those beliefs presently but also our stored and standing beliefs, even if one is not presently able to recall or consciously consider them. Thus our memories and firsthand experience of certain situations and ideas can be concluded as evidence towards a belief. Conversely evidentialism rejects the notion of using facts about mind-independent reality deeming it more as rationalization than evidence. Clifford used the analogy of the ship owner who went to sea with a ship that didn’t meet standards. Although this ship owner had doubts about the quality of his ship he based the quality of the ship based solely upon his past experience and conviction. So instead of examining the ship and finding sufficient evidence to prove his theory of the ships structure being up to par. The ship owner took the ship to sea where his entire crew and ship would sink to the bottom of the ocean. This depiction of justifying a belief based upon your own rationalization instead of …show more content…
While reformed epistemology is essentially your personal evidence to justify your belief. Evidentialism makes more sense in a scientific approach choosing to only believe in things that can be proven to be true through the use of appropriate evidence. Such as Clifford’s analogy of the ship owner and his crew which die due to his blind faith, instead of finding evidence to prove his ship is truly sea worthy. Reformed epistemology uses minimal evidence and faith to rationalize beliefs, leads to situations such as the great pumpkin. Where given very little evidence but extreme faith that the pumpkin king does exist is the same rationale they would use to justify their belief in god. The Evidentialism point of view appeals more to my sense of beliefs because I find it necessary to have substantial evidence in order to believe something. Furthermore I agree to the point that ones private belief can indeed harm someone in situations like the ship owners people own beliefs lead to the harm of others. Reformed Epistemology has an unwavering confidence in their beliefs that even when provided evidence that they are wrong they still chose to believe. Plantiga pointed out evidentialism inconsistency but that is due the restructuring of their beliefs based upon the new evidence gained. Evidentialism beliefs are malleable and flexible and change based upon the evidence given it disproves or reassure what they already know. Therefore showing how evidentialism depicts a working system that is open to new ideas based upon