Is it inherently wrong to believe something for which there is no evidence?

[Associate Justice PiT]

How common among Christians today is Kierkegaard’s position that you are a better Christian if you still have faith in spite of a lack of evidence for your belief?

Not overly accepted in light of historical textual criticism, which broadly suggests the Gospels are accurate. Most Christians today believe that the current evidence we have for the Resurrection is precisely what we would expect  if it happened. This is a philosophical position, not precisely a historical one. I am aware of very few mainstream scholars who reject the empty tomb, although Ehrman has said different things about it at different times.

Now if the difference between what evidence we had and what we would expect was different, this leap of faith may be necessitated.

     While I agree that it is not accurate to say that Christianity lacks for evidence, I do think there is something to the ultimate idea that one is a better Christian if one believes while not needing evidence for it. As Jesus told His apostle Thomas, "because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

[Kingpoleon]

     While I agree that it is not accurate to say that Christianity lacks for evidence, I do think there is something to the ultimate idea that one is a better Christian if one believes while not needing evidence for it. As Jesus told His apostle Thomas, "because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I concur. On this, I side with Kierkegaard over William Lane Craig. I think there is a gap between the God of the theologian and the God of the philosopher, primarily that of existence.

[Torie]

Bad and good are used too often for my taste. Believe something without evidence may be bad or good, or neither, depending on the subject, and the circumstances. For example, believing that there is a higher power (as to which I personally believe that there is no persuasive evidence), to propel one out of self destructive substance abuse, is a good thing, not a bad thing. We are all wired differently, and have different life experiences, and I urge all to give that consideration when when judging people. There is way too much hubris out there. Always has been, and that is "bad."

[satsuma]

Once in my many voyages, I discovered a lush island, whose inhabitants had a strange philosophy. "Vomit cometh for every man," said the chief. "Even I and my daughters. At night, just like the commoners, we all vomit into the sea." Against my better judgment, I stayed for supper. About 20 kinds of mushroom were mixed and mashed together. This mash was eaten without hesitation. None had thought to give a different mushroom to every person, just for one night, to see if some would be spared their fate.

[John Dule]

Not unless you want to make a very hard distinction between beliefs and values, since values, i.e. moral beliefs, ultimately reduce to axioms rather than empirical facts.

Lol, I was curious to see who would be the first person in this thread to say "Actually, the value judgements you're using to criticize unfounded beliefs are themselves unfounded beliefs."

If you do want to make a hard beliefs/values distinction to refute this argument, go ahead.

I would argue that a belief is a definitive statement about the nature of reality, while a value/opinion leaves room open for subjectivity. For instance, it's my opinion that Man of Steel is a terrible movie. That is an opinion, which I formed based on the specific things that I "value" in cinema. I understand that any claim on Man of Steel's quality is by nature subjective, and I understand that other people will disagree-- I'm not making a claim about a quality that is inherent to the film, I'm just describing my personal feelings about it. However, if I were to claim that Zack Snyder is demon spawn who was spewed from the depths of Hell by Beelzebub himself, that would be a "belief," because I'd be making a concrete statement about reality itself. In short, beliefs are true/false claims, whereas values and opinions are consciously subjective claims.

I think Big Abraham might have addressed this in his response (which I'm too tired to read in full right now; long day!), but would you concede that if somebody feels that their moral views correspond to objective realities (i.e. to "moral facts"), that would constitute a belief? Conversely, I'm happy to concede that you're right that moral values as held by someone who doesn't believe that they're objective are not beliefs in the sense that you're asking about.

I would expect you, if you do concede this, to argue that it's wrong to believe that one's moral preferences are non-subjective, but I would disagree with you on that and thus my answer to the poll question would remain the second option.

Somehow I missed this post. Yes, I'd argue that a person who subscribes to the notion of an "objective morality" would be a believer in morality, whereas a person who subscribes to "subjective morality" treats morality as a matter of opinion. I think it all has to do with whether a person believes morality is something fundamental that exists external to humans, or if it is something that humans themselves created artificially.