In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is unnecessary in order to believe. Along with discussing Clifford I will detail the responses given by James who disagreed with Clifford and in response attacked his views within his own paper “The Will to Believe”. James believed instead that it is more important to achieve truth than to avoid error. Both men, in my opinion, offer strong and persuasive arguments however I do not believe that either stands without criticism, therefore throughout I will offer my own views on the foundations of their arguments, which I hope will establish, that although many of Clifford’s points are valid in particular and specific circumstances they do not offer, as proposed, a convincing view of religious faith.…