According to Clifford, we should only hold beliefs that we have found sufficient evidence for by conducting an honest and patient investigation. He explains that beliefs are not something private we only hold to ourselves, instead our beliefs influence other people. For example, Clifford tells the story of a ship owner whose ship is going to take immigrants to another country, but his ship is old, so he's worried if it's seaworthy. He thinks he should get it checked, but then he thinks about the repair costs and pushes the doubts aside. The ship owner convinces himself that the ship has made many trips without any troubles, so it's fit for the journey. Also, he assures himself that Divine providence wouldn't sink the ship with all these
…show more content…
Clifford argues that the ship owner is morally responsible for the death of the passengers because he failed to fulfill his duty. He didn't inquire into the matter or gather any evidence; instead he let his emotions and greed guide his belief. Furthermore, Clifford argues that even if the ship didn't sink, the ship owner would still be guilty, since it was morally wrong for him to hold the belief that the ship was safe. His belief was of great importance to the other people on the ship, but he failed to form it in the right way, which is immoral in itself regardless of the consequences of the belief. Moreover, Clifford explains that holding a belief for reasons other than sufficient evidence even in cases of trivial beliefs that don't influence other people is wrong, since it can corrupt or weaken a person's abilities of reasoning and self-control. It can corrupt the whole web of beliefs, and make us incredulous people that lose the methods of …show more content…
He argues that the analogy between the universe and human creations, such as machines is weak, since the universe is not really as obviously similar to a machine as the argument claims. The arrangement, composition, and workings of the universe are extremely different from a man-made machine. He explains that even a single and small difference between the effects of two things can reveal great differences between the causes. This refutation of the argument is plausible, since it shows that an argument from analogy only works effectively when the things we're comparing are extremely similar, but the universe is totally different from a machine or watch. Also, Hume argues that we have only limited exposure to a part of the universe, yet we're taking attributes based on imperfect observations of that small part, such as order, design, and intelligence and using them to make a claim about the whole universe. He explains that even the small part of the universe we’re aware of is so diverse with many different springs, principles, and systems. Hume's point reveals that the comparison itself is a hasty generalization because we don't know enough about the universe as a whole to compare it to a machine. Also, alternative analogies and explanations exist that could be more probable. Hume explains it’s possible that the material world of matter falls into order or arranges itself on its own like the mental world of ideas.
Clifford argues that the ship owner is morally responsible for the death of the passengers because he failed to fulfill his duty. He didn't inquire into the matter or gather any evidence; instead he let his emotions and greed guide his belief. Furthermore, Clifford argues that even if the ship didn't sink, the ship owner would still be guilty, since it was morally wrong for him to hold the belief that the ship was safe. His belief was of great importance to the other people on the ship, but he failed to form it in the right way, which is immoral in itself regardless of the consequences of the belief. Moreover, Clifford explains that holding a belief for reasons other than sufficient evidence even in cases of trivial beliefs that don't influence other people is wrong, since it can corrupt or weaken a person's abilities of reasoning and self-control. It can corrupt the whole web of beliefs, and make us incredulous people that lose the methods of …show more content…
He argues that the analogy between the universe and human creations, such as machines is weak, since the universe is not really as obviously similar to a machine as the argument claims. The arrangement, composition, and workings of the universe are extremely different from a man-made machine. He explains that even a single and small difference between the effects of two things can reveal great differences between the causes. This refutation of the argument is plausible, since it shows that an argument from analogy only works effectively when the things we're comparing are extremely similar, but the universe is totally different from a machine or watch. Also, Hume argues that we have only limited exposure to a part of the universe, yet we're taking attributes based on imperfect observations of that small part, such as order, design, and intelligence and using them to make a claim about the whole universe. He explains that even the small part of the universe we’re aware of is so diverse with many different springs, principles, and systems. Hume's point reveals that the comparison itself is a hasty generalization because we don't know enough about the universe as a whole to compare it to a machine. Also, alternative analogies and explanations exist that could be more probable. Hume explains it’s possible that the material world of matter falls into order or arranges itself on its own like the mental world of ideas.