1 If you believe in something that can impact many people you must support it with sufficient evidence.
2 All beliefs are always able to influence actions in someway.
3 Actions done by believing in something with insufficient evidence will lead to negative impact to others and on society.
C So it’s always wrong to believe in something that does not have sufficient evidence.
Looking at the argument, it is logically valid. If we believe these premises to be true then the conclusion must be true. It is not a sound argument, since these premises and conclusion could be argued to be false. However the argument he makes is not perfect, I can agree with the fact that it is wise to have evidence when believing something, and when it’s something that has impact on many people it’s safe to have the evidence to back up those beliefs. I feel that he goes a bit far when it comes to personal beliefs no matter how small having impact on society as a whole.
The third premise in Clifford’s argument where he argues that believing in something with insufficient evidence negatively impact others and society. That’s not true when it comes to love. There are instances where parents believe the best of their children. When parents believe that their child is a good kid that child sees that positive reinforcement and could either, become a good child and improve. Romantic partners try their best to believe the best of their partners to keep the relationship healthy. Now there is a thing as too much praise and it’s not a good idea to turn a blind eye to everything a romantic partner does, but if limited, these small justifications don’t really do harm, but help in these situations. The second premise is the weakest part of his argument. Clifford is basically saying that any belief people have can affect their actions which in turn affect others. He just says that every belief will affect actions, but there is no clear reason as to how or why he thinks this. He just says it to be true. If I believe I have five dollars in my wallet because I remembered I put that money in my wallet a couple days ago, there is no real impact on anything if I believe it. If I think I’m the sexiest man in the universe and keep it to myself, what makes it true that it would affect my actions. If it did did it could make me vain, but it could boost my self esteem. There shouldn’t be a focus on personal beliefs that are trivial.
Clifford’s argument has sense to it. I just feel he is a bit too harsh. Despite that, there is a practical significance of this thesis. It is trying to keep society safe from people who lead others with beliefs that don’t have evidence that support it, which could cause harm to people. In Clifford’s case it seems to be religion.
As for fallacies, he uses anecdotal evidence for his arguments with both stories he presents. If he is trying to convince people that insufficient evidence in a belief can harm people he must have data to prove it, not just stories that happen to fit the bill. That’s some insufficient evidence to his own belief there. False Dichotomy is prominent as well. Clifford give us two choices of either believe with sufficient evidence or your belief will cause people and even society some form of pain.
(587)
Monkeys are sick 