(July 22, 2015 at 5:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I agree with everything said here I think. But I would also like to add the other side of the equation, that when presented with clear proofs or you are reminded about knowledge you know deep inside, but that decide to deny and reject it, this disbelief is unjust and unethical too.
Depending on the weight of what you are denying and it's purpose, it can be an extreme injustice. When you oppose a truth simply because you dislike it, despite being present clear proofs, and prefer blindness over sight, it's an injustice too.
Following what you have no knowledge of is to be condemned, and attributing to God for example what you don't know is a great injustice, while also disbelieving in clear proofs or denying knowledge you know when reminded, is unethical too.
Two things. First, things that people "know deep inside" often really are just strong feelings that a person has, that fits with their pre-existing beliefs. For example, many Christians strongly feel deep inside themselves that Jesus is the son of God. The thing is, there are Muslims who strongly feel deep inside themselves that Jesus isn't the son of God, but that Mohammed is the prophet of God. Strong internal feelings are not proper evidence. If such things were proper evidence, then it would not lead to contradictory conclusions.
Second, you bring up a worthwhile point, that the other side of the coin, so to speak, is that one ought to believe what the evidence supports. I suspect that Clifford (and James) do not emphasize that, as most people do not have much of a problem with that, but have the problem of their beliefs running ahead of the evidence. But you are right, that people ought to believe what is supported by evidence, to the extent that the belief is supported by evidence.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
