Upon Insufficient EvidenceAtheists and others prone to scientism often endorse an ethics of belief that is roughly the view articulated by W.K. Clifford in his famous essay, The Ethics of Belief:
…it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
Clifford clearly seems to be making a normative claim. Do you agree or disagree? How about the converse of Clifford’s statement? Would you say it is right always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon sufficient evidence? Why or why not?