Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I love that expression about the spreading of religion as 'polluting the well of collective knowledge'.
brentan
Level 8
Nov 7, 2018
3
Yep.
‘it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence’
It's giving 'Justified, True, Belief' a moral slant. I don't think these epistemology terms work well as moral theory, which I think ought to be concerned with the will, rules/principals, intentions/motives and results/consequences.
cava
Level 7
Nov 7, 2018
1
I see what you mean, but I still think he was making an important observation.
"Morally wrong"? How about just plain stupid?
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Nov 7, 2018
4
@Donotbelieve . . . And the foundation of religion.
From the late great Carl Sagan.
"I don't want to believe, I want to know".
TristanNuvo
Level 8
Nov 7, 2018
5
This is what all churches call faith.
Marine
Level 8
Nov 9, 2018
2
Yes, but there are beliefs we all carry that have nothing to do with religion.
@tnorman1236 If they are based on faith ,hearsay and are lacking proof or investigation there of it isn't any different.
Unfortunately, this article does not clarify what would constitute sufficient evidence, or what would be a test for sufficient evidence for a belief. If I get to determine what is sufficient evidence, then everything I believe has sufficient evidence to convince me, and therefore everything I believe is always morally right.
Heraclitus
Level 8
Nov 13, 2018
2
True. I just thought it was a thought-provoking article.
@traceyanarchist But if that is all there is to it, then facts simply come down to subjective discernment independent of objective verification. Haven't you ever met someone who saw things differently than you or heard things differently than you. In their own minds they HAD verified things with their own senses, yet the subjectivity remained. Does that make it a fact? If so, then we are all entitled to our own facts according to our own perception.
I have no problem with people believing without evidence; it's when they insist they are right without evidence that causes a problem. There are a lot of situations in life that force us to choose without sufficient evidence to know what is the best choice. We very often have to move forward not knowing for sure if what we believe is correct really is. What makes the difference is whether we are open-minded or whether we are just damn sure we are right, no matter what.
UpsideDownAgain
Level 7
Feb 1, 2019
1
Good point.
The point about confirmation bias rings true to me. If you start by believing something without any real basis, it is a psychological fact that you will then seek confirmatory facts and reject contrary ones, thereby reducing the possibility of ever correcting yourself. The question then becomes: does it matter? I’m not sure how “morality” fits into the discussion, though. The article sort of skirts that claim, which is the purported thesis of the essay.
Rghurst
Level 5
Mar 26, 2019
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.