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

[John Dule]

(For a moment, please ignore the fact that I'm the person who's making this thread. Believe it or not, this question wasn't inspired by anything to do with organized religion, but rather by the thread about paranormal beliefs.)

My question is: Do you believe it's wrong for someone to believe in something that is not supported by sufficient evidence? In answering this question, please feel free to define "beliefs with insufficient evidence" in whatever way best suits your own worldview. Cyclical arguments, semantic debates, and snide remarks that reject the premise of the question are all welcome.

[Kingpoleon]

It is a categorical imperative to pursue truth, and to accept evidence regardless of if you like it. Is there a similarly negated imperative? I believe so. To accept claims without evidence or to reject claims with evidence are morally equivalent acts, and I do not recognize an overly distinguished distinction between bad thoughts and bad actions that some consequentialists do.

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, I would think so.

I would be interested in what comments you get about whether a priori knowledge is evidence of anything and what role intuition plays in belief.

I would also be interested in a discussion on the differences and similarities between instinct and intuition.

I know that there is a big difference in believing something because you want to and believing something because there is strong evidence for something. I wonder how big a role the "wishful thinking" fallacy influences world views.

There is also the issue of whether something should be believed on hearsay evidence alone.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[PSOL]

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.

I would say moral beliefs and values are mainly shaped by our interpretation of the real world situations we find ourselves in. Therefore it is impossible to not acknowledge that most of ones views are based around empirical facts.

[The Puppeteer]

No as sometimes it's better to make decisions on whatever information is available to us and not to take chances where the risks may be quite high. However, it's always good to remain flexible just in case new information comes along as no matter how right we may think we are, we may still be wrong.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

I would say moral beliefs and values are mainly shaped by our interpretation of the real world situations we find ourselves in. Therefore it is impossible to not acknowledge that most of ones views are based around empirical facts.

Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean our own reactions to the situations in which we find ourselves constitute "evidence" that those situations are morally right or wrong. After all, Dule said semantic points were fair game.

[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."

[7,052,770]

I don't think I would go that far in rhetoric, but generally speaking I think it's better to base your beliefs on evidence instead of feelings, traditions, or what someone else told you.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[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.

[Big Abraham]

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.

Not wanting to derail what will no doubt be an interesting intellectual exercise between Nathan and yourself, but not all values are subjective, not in the least goodness, truth, beauty, justice, virtue, etc. In order for something to meet the criteria of objectivity, it must lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon his perception or belief. I am sure we can agree on that much. Many philosophers (especially popular today) theorize that all values are relative to some individual or group, that "goodness" are ideals are essentially agreed upon by culture, etc., or upon the individual's perception (that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as you make with your Man of Steel reference).

Men are limited in time and space, our perception and intellect subject to error, our apprehension limited by material constraints, etc., and yet, even though it is beyond our understanding, we can form conceptions of the infinite, whole, eternal and true universe, and many of the ideals contained therein. There are thus attributes of relative reality that reflect attributes of objective reality. Compare the body to the mind or spirit, the appearance to the truth, the opinion to the knowledge, etc. The human condition is characterized by the relative reality, but we have the capacity to seek and understand the whole. Relativism is thus a confusion of our own limitations for the objective universal truths.

Opinions, as you describe them, are, you and I agree, part of the ever-shifting realm of sensibilities; but not all value counts as opinion, because that would be to ignore the ontological status of value of how they actually are versus how we (or one) understands them. For instance, there is a great deal of epistemological evidence to suggest that such ideals are innate, including such "forms" as goodness, knowledge, etc. (and yes I understand I sound a bit Platonic here but bear with me). You and I are in agreement that knowledge is objective and opinion subjective, but true knowledge includes the knowledge of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity - such are objective values.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It would seem to be that believing in something without evidence is inherently unreasonable. As a matter of principle, I would argue that a lack of reason is inherently bad because without empirical evidence, ideas which help people and society cannot be effectively separated from those which are useless or actively harmful.

Applied to real-world situations, I think there are unreasonable beliefs that are insignificant enough to be harmless--and I don't buy the slippery slope argument here--but I still can't think of a particularly good person why someone might adopt them. What's the point?

[AGA]

What do you mean by "wrong"?

[Alben Barkley]

It's not MORALLY wrong.

It's not even necessarily logically wrong; there are some things for which we have no solid evidence so well-reasoned hypotheses are the next-best thing.

But it is wrong (logically at least, not necessarily morally) to believe something in DEFIANCE of evidence which clearly contradicts it.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Snide remark that rejects the premise of the question: what is "evidence"? is believing evidence not rather an act of faith itself?

[afleitch]

Snide remark that rejects the premise of the question: what is "evidence"? is believing evidence not rather an act of faith itself?

I don't think that's particularly helpful. You might have 'faith' that contraption x will hit the ground because of gravity or 'faith' that it will get off the ground in spite of it, but believing in the evidence of gravity clearly isn't an act of faith.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Snide remark that rejects the premise of the question: what is "evidence"? is believing evidence not rather an act of faith itself?

I don't think that's particularly helpful. You might have 'faith' that contraption x will hit the ground because of gravity or 'faith' that it will get off the ground in spite of it, but believing in the evidence of gravity clearly isn't an act of faith.

Well, gravity specifically is probably the single physical thing we experience most closely and often, so doubting that really enters Cartesian/Humean/late 90's films mental circlejerk territory, but I meant that for most things in the world we don't have any direct experience/evidence about them and we believe in them because of the trust/authority ('faith') we repose in our sources.
Of course this is me acting as a radical-skeptic devil's advocate and I expect to be thoroughly debunked - I just thought this would be an interesting exercise.

[Alcibiades]

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?

[Torie]

When asking a question, it is helpful to clearly define your terms. If "belief' means something as to which you don't think there is a material level of doubt, say a 98% level of certainty, the two standard deviations from the mean spot that the law refers to as "beyond a reasonable doubt," than that takes a lot off the table that you think are probably true, but not almost certainly true. Matters of taste are not right or wrong. We all hear and see things differently, sometimes literally, say if we are color blind.

And then there is the matter as to what is evidence. Evidence as defined by the scientific method? That reminds me of yet another story. Back when I was in the 4th grade long, long ago, I exclaimed in class that I thought that North America and South America must at one time been hooked up to Europe and Africa. I said the shape of the lines were just too perfectly matched to fit in with each other without much in the way of cracks, like breaking an egg with only a few small chips falling on the floor, so the two pieces of the shell fit together quite well.

The  teacher said no, there is no evidence for that. I should have said at that point, "be patient, there will be." Is that a belief in something with no evidence? Fast forward 10 years later, and as a new student at the University of Chicago, where part of our orientation was listening to lectures by professors in various disciplines to better ascertain what we might be interested in, a geologist spoke about yes, you guessed it, plate tectonics. I felt like telling him I already knew about all of that. What I don't have a handle on at all, is the theory of relativity. That seems like voodoo science to me, but heck the cognoscenti all say it is true. I prefer not to defer to authority when I can avoid it, but I guess on this one resistance is futile.

Finally, does wrong mean foolish or evil, or just green variety ignorant?

As to issues where nobody knows the answer, it's fun to speculate anyway. If that is "wrong," where frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Oh, just what do I believe as to which there is no evidence?

1. That I am a good person?  

2. I am kind of stuck after that given my definition. I sure there are many such things, but hey, my English literature teacher in High School, said that awareness of ignorance is the first step to knowledge. I count on all of you to assist me to become better aware of my ignorance. I need help! Heck, I used to think I had a pretty good handle on economic theory, but that is just so yesterday now.  Sad!

[Kingpoleon]

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.

[John Dule]

To those asking me to clarify some terms: I left this question deliberately open-ended; please interpret the language however you see fit.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm amused by the idea of someone voting for #1 without really thinking it through and continuing to go about their day  without contemplating the inherent contradiction.

I have, to my knowledge, never met someone whose ideas are entirely consistent. Indeed, I generally value morality over consistency, contra Dule.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

I should point out here two things: the theological flow which comes from Kierkegaard is significant. Tillich, Barth, the Niebuhr brothers, and Bonhoeffer are fascinating theologians, and indeed Niebuhr is influential in modern Jewish theology. The second is the philosophical flow, specifically Wittgenstein, who was a surprisingly devout Christian.