- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 3,010
- Reaction
- 1,293
- Points
- 1,014
Is it okay to hold beliefs without any evidence?
Is it okay to share these beliefs?
If the belief is kept personal, it should not harm anybody, then is it okay?
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. says it is not okay:
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. acknowledges that we can not just believe in anything, but, offers a counterargument, because he himself believes in God. So, he narrowed down beliefs that would be acceptable.
Here are the options that adds to the weight of the morality of [unproved] beliefs:
To James, as long as the belief checks all conditions on the left, then it should be moral.
Belief in God is:
●live - it is appealing to the believer
●forced - believer was thought since childhood
●momentous - the belief affects the life of the believer.
But following his rule inevitably makes believing against vaccine, conspiracy theories, [and probably even fake news from politicians] all acceptable and moral beliefs.
Is it okay to share these beliefs?
If the belief is kept personal, it should not harm anybody, then is it okay?
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. says it is not okay:
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. acknowledges that we can not just believe in anything, but, offers a counterargument, because he himself believes in God. So, he narrowed down beliefs that would be acceptable.
"When you adopt a belief, you have OPTIONS. And the nature of those options can basically determine the moral defensability of the beliefs you end up holding."
Here are the options that adds to the weight of the morality of [unproved] beliefs:
|
|
| Live (appealing to the chooser) | Dead (Unappealing to the chooser) |
| Forced (The chooser was compelled to choose) | Unforced (The chooser was not compelled) |
| Momentous (The choice is impactful to the life of the chooser) | Trivial (The choice has no percievable impact) |
To James, as long as the belief checks all conditions on the left, then it should be moral.
Belief in God is:
●live - it is appealing to the believer
●forced - believer was thought since childhood
●momentous - the belief affects the life of the believer.
But following his rule inevitably makes believing against vaccine, conspiracy theories, [and probably even fake news from politicians] all acceptable and moral beliefs.
"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind."
~W.K. Clifford, Ethics of Belief (1879)
~W.K. Clifford, Ethics of Belief (1879)
Last edited: