Clifford Descartes to a Large

Clifford Descartes

To a large extent, Clifford's and Descartes' points-of-view regarding evidence and belief could not create a more stark contrast. Whereas Descartes relied upon rationalism to its furthest extents to indicate what propositions were likely to be true and which were likely to be false, Clifford expressed an extreme form of empiricism, with regard to metaphysical truth. According to Clifford, it is morally wrong in every instance to believe any proposition for which there is insufficient empirical evidence. However, he does not provide a clearly workable formula or method by which to determine at what point evidence becomes sufficient to ascribe one's belief to a given proposition. Descartes, from his rationalistic point-of-view, explicitly suggests a manner by which claims can be said to be false -- if there is sufficient cause to doubt them. According to him, something can be said to be false, in the metaphysical sense, if it can be doubted through abstract reasoning. Overall, these two points-of-view are utterly incongruous in the real world, and even within the realm of philosophy. If we start with Clifford's empirical stance and then apply Descartes method of doubt, then it becomes clear that there is no claim that we can accept without at least some small level of doubt. So, taken together, we, as reasoning human beings, have no justification for believing anything about the physical world.

Clifford, in his "The Ethics of Belief," writes straightforwardly, "It is wrong always, anywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence," (Clifford 71). With this assertion, Clifford deliberately makes the leap from claims about the metaphysical world to claims about human moral behavior. Obviously, in the realm of ethics, human beings are charged with the task o making choices about what is right and wrong based solely upon the evidence that they are presented with, which comes to them through their senses. However, sensory input is not the only means by which humans are capable of deciding between right and wrong actions; we also possess the tool of reasoning. Yet, this requires something of a leap in logic -- taking the limited amount of information we are privy to through our finite number of senses, and using that to make absolute determinations about truth, falsehood, right and wrong. For Descartes, this is no problem, since he believes that abstract, rational lines of reasoning are the only means by which to determine truth. But if we are working from Clifford's empirical perspective, arriving at truths that lack any level of doubt becomes an impossibility; this is because empirical reasoning can never be used, unlike rationalism, to prove something deductively. Empiricism is the tool of induction and, accordingly, is always and unavoidable associated with some level of uncertainty.

Descartes' methodology is almost antithetical to Clifford's notion of proof. To Descartes, truth of a claim is essentially verified once the claim has been shown to withstand all feasible argumentative attacks. So, anything that can be stated -- after being arrived at through deduction -- must be true if we have no justifiable cause to doubt it: "Once the foundations of a building are undermined, anything built upon them collapses of its own accord; so I will go straight for the basic principles on which all my former beliefs rested," (Descartes 163). From this standpoint, philosophical reasoning is dependent upon the original claims from which deductive reasoning first sprung forth. Accordingly, if there is a clear line of deduction stemming from the knowledge that atoms exist to the notion that the universe is filled with ether, if it is subsequently found that the universe is not filled with ether, then it must be determined that our knowledge of atoms was in error. To Descartes, although the senses can be source of certain bits of information, they are constantly in error, and lead to somewhat arbitrary distinctions between different features of the external world. Ultimately, this is why, according to him, we should embrace rationalism over empiricism; we should believe things about the external world that possess no clear logical flaws, and not rely entirely upon what our senses tell us.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes explicitly raises the possibility that there is no physical world at all, but rather, that God has organized everything such that it appears as if there is. This concept is implausible if there is a just and loving God, but if some evil genius had created the world instead -- along with human understanding of God -- then every single belief could be brought into doubt. Essentially, Descartes takes the null hypothesis regarding mental interpretations of the external world. Still, this construction of absolute doubt is merely a portion of Descartes' argument, because he intends to find some undeniable truth -- a principle beyond doubt -- which can destroy the premise that nothing can be known. In his Meditations he words this as "I am, I exist." This statement -- at other times worded as 'I think, therefore I am' -- is accepted by Descartes because even a maniacal construction of the world could not disprove his own existence, since he believes himself to exist. Obviously, this argument depends upon some distinction between the subjective and the objective. Put differently, Descartes utilizes internal reflection to solidify some universal existence.

The clear consequence of Descartes rejection of the null hypothesis of existence is that the human being, to him, is intrinsically a thinking entity: its function is to think. Therefore, even though his reasoning suggests existence, this existence is immaterial; the defining aspect of the human being is the mind -- which is Descartes' modern formulation of the Christian conception of the soul. So the mind is necessarily distinct form the vegetative requirements of the body -- food, water, ect. -- as a result of the "truth" Descartes uses to break universal skepticism. Additionally, all aspects of human perception must then be relegated into one of these two tiers of the individual: higher thought, or animalistic impressions. Basically, Descartes uses his mental identity as the launching pad for Cartesian Dualism and as the bedrock for the knowledge of universals.

This, according to Clifford, is absolutely unacceptable. From Clifford's first example, if the shipowner possesses reasons to believe in an all-powerful, wholly good God, he also possesses no rationalistic reason to believe that such a God would ever allow his ship to sink, and kill so many innocent and good people. After all, if we are inclined to accept Descartes' notion of existence, then this existence is an intrinsic moral good; therefore, whoever or whatever created life, did so as an act of goodness. This is precisely the line of reasoning that Clifford uses to arrive at the conclusion that it is always wrong to accept claims based upon faith. Descartes, on the other hand, would contend that it is not faith that allows an individual to arrive at the conclusion that a morally just and all-powerful God exists -- reasoning tells us this.