But, it may be replied, the acceptance of Islam as a system is just that action which is prompted by belief in the mission of the Prophet, and which will serve for a test of its truth. Is it possible to believe that a system which has succeeded so well is really founded upon a delusion? Not only have individual saints found joy and peace in believing, and verified those spiritual experiences which are promised to the faithful, but nations also have been raised from savagery or barbarism to a higher social state. Surely we are at liberty to say that the belief has been acted upon, and that it has been
verified.
It requires, however, but little consideration to show that what has really been verified is not at all the supernal character of the Prophet's mission, or the trustworthiness of his authority in matters which we ourselves cannot test; but only his practical wisdom in certain very mundane things. The fact that believers have found joy and peace in believing gives us the right to say that the doctrine is a comfortable doctrine, and pleasant to the soul; but it does not give us the right to say that it is true. And the question which our conscience is always asking about that which we are tempted to believe is not "Is it comfortable and pleasant?" but "Is it true?" That the Prophet preached certain doctrines, and predicted that spiritual comfort would be found in them, proves only his sympathy with human nature and his knowledge of it; but it does not prove his superhuman knowledge of theology.
And if we admit for the sake of argument (for it seems that we cannot do more) that the progress made by Moslem nations in certain cases was really due to the system formed and sent forth into the world by Mohammed; we are not at liberty to conclude from this that he was inspired to declare the truth about things which we cannot verify. We are only at liberty to infer the excellence of his moral precepts, or of the means which he devised for so working upon men as to get them obeyed, or of the social and political machinery which he set up. And it would require a great amount of careful examination into the history of those nations to determine which of these things had the greater share in the result. So that here again it is the Prophet's knowledge of human nature, and his sympathy with it, that are verified; not his divine inspiration, or his knowledge of theology.
(W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief," The Contemporary Review 29 [January 1877]: 289-309, at 298)
Note from KBJ: The point to be extracted from these paragraphs is that the truth of a belief cannot be inferred from its good consequences (such as pleasantness or comfortableness). But notice: by parity of reasoning, the falsity of a belief cannot be inferred from its bad consequences (such as unpleasantness or uncomfortableness). False beliefs can have good consequences (including good consequences overall); true beliefs can have bad consequences (including bad consequences overall). The New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al.) would do well to take this basic logical point to heart.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 