"Believing without evidence is always morally wrong" — Francisco Mejia Uribe

From https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-with...-morally-wrong

Believing without evidence is always morally wrong

You have probably never heard of William Kingdon Clifford. He is not in the pantheon of great philosophers – perhaps because his life was cut short at the age of 33 – but I cannot think of anyone whose ideas are more relevant for our interconnected, AI-driven, digital age. This might seem strange given that we are talking about a Victorian Briton whose most famous philosophical work is an essay nearly 150 years ago. However, reality has caught up with Clifford. His once seemingly exaggerated claim that ‘it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence’ is no longer hyperbole but a technical reality.

In ‘The Ethics of Belief’ (1877), Clifford gives three arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to believe responsibly, that is, to believe only what we have sufficient evidence for, and what we have diligently investigated. His first argument starts with the simple observation that our beliefs influence our actions. Everyone would agree that our behaviour is shaped by what we take to be true about the world – which is to say, by what we believe. If I believe that it is raining outside, I’ll bring an umbrella. If I believe taxis don’t take credit cards, I make sure I have some cash before jumping into one. And if I believe that stealing is wrong, then I will pay for my goods before leaving the store.

What we believe is then of tremendous practical importance. False beliefs about physical or social facts lead us into poor habits of action that in the most extreme cases could threaten our survival. If the singer R Kelly genuinely believed the words of his song ‘I Believe I Can Fly’ (1996), I can guarantee you he would not be around by now.

But it is not only our own self-preservation that is at stake here. As social animals, our agency impacts on those around us, and improper believing puts our fellow humans at risk. As Clifford warns: ‘We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to …’ In short, sloppy practices of belief-formation are ethically wrong because – as social beings – when we believe something, the stakes are very high.

The most natural objection to this first argument is that while it might be true that some of our beliefs do lead to actions that can be devastating for others, in reality most of what we believe is probably inconsequential for our fellow humans. As such, claiming as Clifford did that it is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence seems like a stretch. I think critics had a point – had – but that is no longer so. In a world in which just about everyone’s beliefs are instantly shareable, at minimal cost, to a global audience, every single belief has the capacity to be truly consequential in the way Clifford imagined. If you still believe this is an exaggeration, think about how beliefs fashioned in a cave in Afghanistan lead to acts that ended lives in New York, Paris and London. Or consider how influential the ramblings pouring through your social media feeds have become in your very own daily behaviour. In the digital global village that we now inhabit, false beliefs cast a wider social net, hence Clifford’s argument might have been hyperbole when he first made it, but is no longer so today.

The second argument Clifford provides to back his claim that it is always wrong to believe on insufficient evidence is that poor practices of belief-formation turn us into careless, credulous believers. Clifford puts it nicely: ‘No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character.’ Translating Clifford’s warning to our interconnected times, what he tells us is that careless believing turns us into easy prey for fake-news pedlars, conspiracy theorists and charlatans. And letting ourselves become hosts to these false beliefs is morally wrong because, as we have seen, the error cost for society can be devastating. Epistemic alertness is a much more precious virtue today than it ever was, since the need to sift through conflicting information has exponentially increased, and the risk of becoming a vessel of credulity is just a few taps of a smartphone away.

Clifford’s third and final argument as to why believing without evidence is morally wrong is that, in our capacity as communicators of belief, we have the moral responsibility not to pollute the well of collective knowledge. In Clifford’s time, the way in which our beliefs were woven into the ‘precious deposit’ of common knowledge was primarily through speech and writing. Because of this capacity to communicate, ‘our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought’ become ‘common property’. Subverting this ‘heirloom’, as he called it, by adding false beliefs is immoral because everyone’s lives ultimately rely on this vital, shared resource.

While Clifford’s final argument rings true, it again seems exaggerated to claim that every little false belief we harbour is a moral affront to common knowledge. Yet reality, once more, is aligning with Clifford, and his words seem prophetic. Today, we truly have a global reservoir of belief into which all of our commitments are being painstakingly added: it’s called Big Data. You don’t even need to be an active netizen posting on Twitter or ranting on Facebook: more and more of what we do in the real world is being recorded and digitised, and from there algorithms can easily infer what we believe before we even express a view. In turn, this enormous pool of stored belief is used by algorithms to make decisions for and about us. And it’s the same reservoir that search engines tap into when we seek answers to our questions and acquire new beliefs. Add the wrong ingredients into the Big Data recipe, and what you’ll get is a potentially toxic output. If there was ever a time when critical thinking was a moral imperative, and credulity a calamitous sin, it is now.

Everybody, (who isn’t a completely lost lunatic), has evidence for what they believe. People just differ on what constitutes as “evidence”. I see many people and post on this forum that hold bias and either overlook or just can’t see things which I see as “evidence”.

A lot of the overly left brain types (logical) are incapable of seeing many subtle or personal observations that warrent valid evidence. And of course the right brain types (emotional) can usually see what the left brainers see without issue, the problem is they see more but can’t express it well. Or they’re confused by the input and just say something (possibly nonsensical) to vent.

Obvioulsy a balance brain (percpetion) is best.

I am constantly shaking my head at how people piece together long threads here with their partial (chosen) fragmented facts and conclusions. It’s VERY difficult and time consuming to get into dialouge with the left brainers (especially the fanatical or full timers), so I usually avoid it. Not because they are rigt but because they won’t or just can’t see some things.

Similarly, although not as much on this forum due to it’s design and controllers, I shake my head at the new age type of mumbo jumbo, well meaning as it may be.

My general position is that if you plan on divulging ANYTHING social (involving two or more strangers) that you have verifiable facts to present in support of your experience(s). This is socially “moral” because it treats others like you would want to be treated. But we must be careful with this.

Sometimes people are people and just do what they feel is right regardless of any socially verifiable proof. Maybe they have to vent or just reacted emotionally without thinking. Maybe they started their social journey with good intentions following the advice of “wise insiders, aliens, spirits, or inner voices, etc” and only years later discovered that it was not wise to do what someone/thing else recommended when they (or others) didn’t have equal comprehension/experience. This goes on and on...


In general, maybe this link would be good to study http://trufax.org/general/beliefsystems.html

How do you define what is a "belief", and what is a point of view? Some people have the belief that hiking in the mountains where you, Bill, hike, is scary and dangerous. You on the other hand, know what you are doing and therefore hike with confidence.

Belief or point of view? What is true for me, may not be true for you. Who is right or wrong?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the whole point here. I just "believe" that each person experiences life in our own unique way. And that from a higher self perspective, it's all simply a point of view. My view on life is my belief. I don't see how it can be anything but that. And if the "always morally wrong" statement is true, then I would literally go insane trying to figure out whether everything I do or say is moral or not.

My "truth" is mine, and mine alone. Just as my perception is.

Quote:

---

Posted by Orph

Some people have the belief that hiking in the mountains where you, Bill, hike, is scary and dangerous. You on the other hand, know what you are doing and therefore hike with confidence.

---

Yes, exactly. I posted the article because I thought it might spark an interesting discussion... not because I believed his premise. :)

But he has a point: the rider, of course, is 'GOOD evidence'. Believing that Blue Avians are real isn't the same as believing I'll burn my fingers if I accidentally touch the hot stove.

Flat Earthers consider they have evidence, and base their beliefs on it, but the evidence is fatally flawed. One might say the same about many other (but not all!) 'fringe' beliefs.

Another thing to note is that the article is actually a little dangerous — as the direction that argument might be headed is the penalization and censoring of 'fake news' in all forms of media.

I have been working with beliefs systems for what seems forever. All the training I wrote and used for years had to do with, or had embedded within it, working with beliefs and values, using NLP and other approaches. My aim was to help people, sometimes very softly almost unconsciously, to make their beliefs systems more flexible, more open, so that change could happen within themselves.

Well, after all those years, and after my mom's passing away, which transformed my way of thinking about life, I had two Awe Awe moments.

the first one was about guilt, you know the guilt brought up by the church that we are born sinfull, the called "original sin" - which is sometimes described as the separation from God? Well, my crisis was wanting to get rid of this fundamental deeply engrained for whichever reason GUILT.

While going through it, I went to something like Jesus crisis on the cross "Why have you abandoned me?" with the full fledge pain going with the question.

To realise that all this are beliefs, guilt is an embedded beliefs web, dating from aons ago for all humanity.

Then the second Awe Awe moment

A new belief :o - all beliefs are wrong, all of them, absolutely all of them.

The truth lay beyond all beliefs systems, beyond all beliefs, beliefs have to be entirely abandoned.

All that remains is evidence, and yet, those evidence may not have anything to do with 3D evidence, they may be entirely spiritual. Evidence in 3D are most probably beliefs anyhow into something that is not.

So, believe it or not (pun intended), I have many problems to train people thereafter, on whatever I had written, because I do not believe in it anymore.

Living a life without beliefs is kind of raw. And I still do not know how to create intention and on what to focus my attention without falling back on the beliefs trap.

Beliefs ARE morally wrong.

It didn’t surprise me to learn that Clifford was a mathematician. I have had some of the most invigorating, maddening, and memorable philosophical discussions with math people because their brains are wired so differently than mine.

I think belief by its very nature is subjective and incomplete.

For some reason, I keep thinking of John Ralston Saul’s book Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. He argued that the worship of “reason” has created in us a need for certainty—a hunger for answers—that can only be provided by “experts.”

See: https://www.enotes.com/topics/voltaires-bastards

Although my math friends would roll their eyes at this, I will always follow the evidence of my own heart.

For a start, I usually find it very comfortable to not chain myself to something that I can neither prove nor disprove. It reduces the risk of accidentally believing something that is nonsensical and it also reduces the number of arguments I could get into defending this or that belief.

To dig deeper, it's important to look at what constitutes evidence. The dictionary defines it as "an outward sign," something that is there for everybody to see, hear or touch, as opposed to things that are only in someone's mind. If we accept this definition of evidence, there is a case to be made that believing without evidence can sometimes be very auspicious.

I give an example. When I was 15, a girl my age told me that she could see auras. Of course, she didn't have any evidence, just a lot of anecdotes, none of them would qualify as scientific evidence. Nevertheless I believed her, because what she said corresponded with what I felt and because I trusted her. The idea that one could not only feel but also see the aura had never occurred to me until she told me though. I also hadn't fully believed or understood what I felt until that point, I thought the sensations I had felt may have been a result of my internal body chemistry and nothing else.

Without any outward proof to assert me that I could succeed, I began practicing to see the aura. It took me weeks until I noticed a faint shimmer around people. Not how she described it. But I continued. More weeks passed until I began noticing colors. Eventually I came to the point where I would test my perceptions by asking her something specific, and in each case she would confirm what I saw before I told her what I saw.

William Ralph Inge said, "faith begins as an experiment and ends as an experience." This happened in my case. Of course, there is also a danger in making such experiments. It's possible to fall victim to the confirmation bias and zoom in on perceived evidence for whatever it is that you believe as an experiment, oblivious of evidence to the contrary.

In the books of Carlos Castaneda, the act of believing something to try out what happens when you believe it is called "controlled folly." You know it's somehow foolish, but you also know that it can sometimes be beneficial to allow yourself to be a fool.

Take many scientific discoveries that occurred first as intuitions in the mind of the scientist, who then set out to prove the validity of the intuition to the outside world. Most probably, many of these scientists really believed what they intuited before they could prove it, and that belief also gave them the strength and inspiration to overcome all obstacles to find, formulate and present the proof for their belief.

Belief without evidence holds power. If you believe you can do something, you will be more likely to achieve it. There are countless studies that show this is true. In the beginning, when you start believing you can do it, there is obviously never any proof that it's really true that you can do it. Yet believing that you can evidentially increases the chances that you will succeed in whatever it is that you believe in. Maybe not flying, but healing after a serious injury, for example.

Very often, two opposing statements can both be true. There is truth and power in the essence of the article in the OP, just as there is in the opposite statement. Whether or not it's appropriate to believe something without outward proof is a question of personal discernment.

In the end, the highest authority for each person is their own mind, their own intuition, which at least in our current scientific paradigm never qualifies as evidence.

Sometimes, we might not even remember why we believe such and such a thing! It's always a good idea to do a little review from time to time, I think so :)

I don't know about the immorality of it all though. If my friend tells me she was raped, I believe her without question. I don't need any evidence, her telling me out of her mouth is evidence enough for me. I realize this is a very simplistic example though, and doesn't really affect anyone else.

What about something huge, like the earth being round and not flat. Are the flat-earthers being "immoral"? I don't really think that they are - not if they legitimately believe the earth is flat. And besides - we can CHOOSE not to listen to it :)

I'm able to believe in alien abductions without ever having witnessed one single shred of what most people would consider "evidence", and I think that's a step forward and not backward. I *could* have just kept on ignoring people and thinking they were making things up, but I decided not to.

If there is enough evidence then you have certainty. Everything else falls into the category of belief.

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

Believing that Blue Avians are real isn't the same as believing I'll burn my fingers if I accidentally touch the hot stove.

---

"Blue Avians" is exactly the kind of thing that came to mind when I read that "Believing without evidence is always morally wrong."

In fact, I can't think of a single person who has ever been interviewed by Project Camelot, either, that I took for granted, at face value, simply because they're just people telling stories and usually have no evidence that would stand up in any court of law.

In my opinion it's best not to form hard conclusions about anything at all, and always leave the door open for arguments that are contrary to our current beliefs. To allow oneself to be intellectually "vulnerable" in this way (at least from the perspective of the ego) is actually a strength, which allows great mental flexibility.


"The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental." -- Robert Anton Wilson.

Quote:

---

Posted by Ernie Nemeth

If there is enough evidence then you have certainty. Everything else falls into the category of belief.

---

That sounds nice, but I have no confidence that most people today even understand the concepts of "evidence" or "proof" in the classical sense.

For too many people today, Snopes and Wikipedia articles are "proof."

Quote:

---

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains

In my opinion it's best not to form hard conclusions about anything at all, and always leave the door open for arguments that are contrary to our current beliefs. To allow oneself to be intellectually "vulnerable" in this way (at least from the perspective of the ego) is actually a strength, which allows great mental flexibility.


"The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental." -- Robert Anton Wilson.

Quote:

---

Posted by Ernie Nemeth

If there is enough evidence then you have certainty. Everything else falls into the category of belief.

---

---

I agree with both yours and Ernies quotes wholeheartedly. :thumbsup:

Richard Bandler (the NLP guy) used the phrase "Are you certain enough to be uncertain?", which I find to be an uncomfortable degree of certainty that strikes the right balance between confidence with what you know, while remaining open to new avenues of the unknown. 'The mindset of the Master' is another phrase they used to use, the mindset of the master is really the mindset of the student, a mindset of perpetual learning.

============

Is it immoral to believe without evidence? Belief without evidence is faith imo, which isn't inherently immoral in itself, but faith creates a ton of cognitive biases, and biases cause people to deviate from the Buddhas 8 fold path:

https://i3.wp.com/www.dharmathai.com...tfold-path.gif

Right in these instances, means to be in accordance with dharma i.e. the cosmic laws of nature.

EVIL is to LIVE backwards (against the will of the divine) and to live backwards without a sense of proportion, is to live in a lie v. (the letter 'V' representing the pythagorean triangle, which was used in that tradition to construct the 5 pointed star of Hygeia (hygiene), which meant not only cleanliness but also proportion (features in proportion to the whole, pulchritudo). To LIVE without proportion, without knowing the order and sequence of things, is VILE (which may sound a bit harsh, but they did choose those words for a reason).

In order to recognise the features in proportion to the whole, requires one to develop their discernment skills as a 'Tathagata' (as the Buddha described himself), a sanskrit word meaning 'He who sees reality as it really is'. To see reality as it really is requires 'reason', which means not just finding evidence but learning to evaluate evidence and rank it in relation to dharma (natural laws).

One of the best books to reflect on some of these concepts, which I've read for a while at least, is 'Marcus Aurelius - Meditations'. A quote from the introduction of that book, which is reflecting on why Socrates was considered the greatest sage to the stoics:

His unflinching commitment to the virtues subsumed under the word arete - courage, justice, prudent self-control, and practical intelligence (and an unusual kind of piety) - provided a stimulus to a rigorous reflection on human nature, the soul, impulses, passions, judgement and rationality, and the intelligible and thus the intelligent ordering of the world (kosmos) in which men lived. Zeno's sense of the indissoluble connection between the order of the human microcosm with a provident and controlling macrocosm led him to divide and unite the scope of philosophical inquiry into the concentric spheres of physics, ethics, and logic.

These divisions are united in a single enterprise. The Stoics themselves were not united on every matter of doctrine, but they were one in their conception of divine Providence and a divinely established hierarchy: the great ladder that reached from the inanimate to the animate, from the animal to the human and rational, and, finally, from the human to the supreme rationality of the divine. The human soul too exhibited like gradations. As does any animal, the human animal as it develops gains a sense of itself (oikeiosis or, in the first sense of this term, 'proprioception'), that is, a manifestation of its instinct for self-preservation. In time this sense of the self extends to others, as it reaches beyond the herd instinct to an awareness that all human beings are kindred in their rationality. This rationality is the connection between what is divine within the individual human being and the divine fire without, that transforms this unique world of ours into a unified Whole in which everything has its appropriate role and fulfils its duty, and nothing happens by accident or is wasted. The relation between human rationality and the 'directing principle' of reason is tight. As humans, we are presented with the raw data of sense impressions that come from objects without or from within our bodies (phantasiai and hortnai). Some impressions are 'clear and distinct'. They are capable of moving us to pursuit or avoidance and they stir our passions in all of their variety. Our capacity to reason allows us to form judgements concerning these impressions and either to assent to them or to reject them. In this process of constant evaluation there is only one standard of good and evil: virtue and vice. One of the most important injunctions for a Stoic was to 'live in agreement with Nature'. The phase 'in agreement with' (homologoumenos) is significant; by Nature the Stoics meant the highest form of human nature - Reason (Logos). By 'agreement' they meant a participation in and conformity with a higher principle of rationality."

======

There's a very close connection between what the Buddha taught and what the Greeks were teaching, in their classical tradition of education, of which Marcus Aurelius was a student.

I don't want to give the people who have the 'power' to hide evidence any more real power than I have to.



They would like nothing more than to keep us all pegged tightly to what they allow us to know.

There is nothing 'with enough evidence' that can claim the rank of certainty in our world. Only, 'that I am here'. That alone can be verified by any intelligence, and that is a fact. Everything else is subjective and will change as more information is gathered - that is also a fact.

Nothing else falls fully into the category of certainty. Even if 'I' turn out to be a program running on some holographic projected reality, I still am here.

Man's data falls into the category of 'best guess' with a caveat of hypothesis forever stamped on every fact. Until man's understandings become truly comprehensive we will only have a working hypothesis to go by.

A model of the universe is exactly what the universe is not...

I see what you are saying in so far as how this relates to folks like Corey Goode.
The thing is, in my opinion I think human testimonial does count for some kind of proof.
Now is this proof you take to the bank and or defend to the death, no it is something different.
There are folks who give personal testimonial and by the strength of their story I will determine if I believe it or not.
Now let me make it clear, Corey Goode and Shane gave absolutely horrible testimonials.
Shane gave a good written testimonial, but in so far as his ability to communicate it via voice it fell apart completely for me.

There is something to be judged in the human process of giving a testimonial via voice, it is strange to say but there you go.
This is by no means fool proof, and it certainly doesn't warrant belief, but there is another vehicle for apprehending the truth and that is suspending your disbelief.
Keeping such things in a state of perpetual non-belief but non-disbelief if that makes any sense.
And even engaging a sliding scale as new data develops.
This is probably the way I view the entire UFO experiencer subject.
I view it in a state of non-belief and non-disbelief but constantly adjust the scales as weight is applied via correlating data.

The exception being Billy Meier.
I view Meier information as coming in two distinct flavors.

The first:


The Meier of the seventies who was documented by Wendelle Stevens and the Japanese news crew is 100% getting his information from folks who are in the possession of technologically advanced anti-gravity vehicles, these folks have very advanced knowledge possibly even time travel and the ability to look at varying alternate futures for our society.

The second:


It appears that sometime in the eighties these folks who are in possession of said technology have abandoned and left Billy Meier to his own devices, (This could be discussed at length and as far as I'm concerned it does not bode well for our world that these folks gave up on us). Here is where the problem arises because Meier contends that the contacts have continued which is probably a bold faced lie. Being as so much of a first hand experiencers value in so far as their testimony is concerned has to do with their character this has created problems.

Quote:

---

Posted by DNA

I see what you are saying in so far as how this relates to folks like Corey Goode.
The thing is, in my opinion I think human testimonial does count for some kind of proof.
Now is this proof you take to the bank and or defend to the death, no it is something different.
There are folks who give personal testimonial and by the strength of their story I will determine if I believe it or not.
Now let me make it clear, Corey Goode and Shane gave absolutely horrible testimonials.
Shane gave a good written testimonial, but in so far as his ability to communicate it via voice it fell apart completely for me.

There is something to be judged in the human process of giving a testimonial via voice, it is strange to say but there you go.
This is by no means fool proof, and it certainly doesn't warrant belief, but there is another vehicle for apprehending the truth and that is suspending your disbelief.
Keeping such things in a state of perpetual non-belief but non-disbelief if that makes any sense.
And even engaging a sliding scale as new data develops.
This is probably the way I view the entire UFO experiencer subject.
I view it in a state of non-belief and non-disbelief but constantly adjust the scales as weight is applied via correlating data.

The exception being Billy Meier.
I view Meier information as coming in two distinct flavors.

The first:


The Meier of the seventies who was documented by Wendelle Stevens and the Japanese news crew is 100% getting his information from folks who are in the possession of technologically advanced anti-gravity vehicles, these folks have very advanced knowledge possibly even time travel and the ability to look at varying alternate futures for our society.

The second:


It appears that sometime in the eighties these folks who are in possession of said technology have abandoned and left Billy Meier to his own devices, (This could be discussed at length and as far as I'm concerned it does not bode well for our world that these folks gave up on us). Here is where the problem arises because Meier contends that the contacts have continued which is probably a bold faced lie. Being as so much of a first hand experiencers value in so far as their testimony is concerned has to do with their character this has created problems.

---

The best way to judge the credibility of a person's testimonial (testimony) is indeed in a face-to-face encounter.

In a court of law, testimony is evidence. Pure and simple. Just like a document, a photo, a video and an object are evidence. Judges and juries are routinely called upon to judge or weigh the merits, or not, of any and all evidence.

The test for admissibility, that is, consideration, of any evidence, is first and foremost whether the evidence is relevant to the issues. (For example, in a case involving whether the combustion components of a diesel engine met the contract specifications, evidence regarding the digestive system of a cow is irrelevant.) Any and all evidence under consideration must also be credible and reliable, and based upon personal knowledge or based upon one's expertise as a result of experience, education or training in a particular field. (Medicine, accounting, architecture. Engineering etc...)

I have learned from experience that the best way to optimize the chances of getting to the bottom of whether a person is reliable and truthful, is to stare them in the eye as he or she speaks, especially if the words are in response to pointed questions on cross examination.

What about proof of the heart, to one's own self? No prostletyzing to anyone else? Just "I experienced "this"? Isn't that as real as anything else?

Quote:

---

Posted by Valerie Villars

What about proof of the heart, to one's own self? No prostletyzing to anyone else? Just "I experienced "this"? Isn't that as real as anything else?

---

To the one who has the experience for sure. How does one (the subject) prove to others (objective, who are "out there") one's subjective experiences? Humankind's efforts to do this have fallen short and are too often used to achieve less than benevolent ends, even if by mistake.

In today's world, people believe what they want to be true not necessarily what is true.

When people believe without evidence they frequently search out like-minded people, journalist, media, websites etc to validate their belief. Once they validate their belief with enough sources they fervently hold on to that belief with little or no evidence.

People that want something to be true will often believe it without a doubt. The perfect topical example was the Justice Kavanaugh hearings. If you did not want to see him as a sitting Justice and you wanted his nomination to fail you believed his guilt without question. On the other hand, if you wanted to see him appointed to the Supreme Court you believed in his innocence with doubt. In reality, there are probably three or four people on planet earth that actually know the truth but that did not stop people from believing without evidence. Most people believe what they want to be true not necessarily what is true.

We have all seen polls that state that 70 or 80 percent of Americans, Europeans (you fill in the nationality) believe in UFOs. Probably far less than 1 percent of the respondents saw something that they actually believed was a true UFO. So the remaining 69-79 percent want the UFO phenomena to be real. Consequently, they believe without evidence.

Fake news intentionally fans peoples emotions until whatever lie being told becomes solidly entrenched in their belief system. Something needs to be done but it is a slippery slope that can quickly become a runaway train. There needs to be some sort of punitive action against those that distill fake news.

Believing without evidence is always morally wrong

Wish I had more time as I find this a fascinating topic and have given it a lot of thought over the years.

the world is too complex to suss out everything by logic, so when young we learn by intake and copying behavior, actions, and attitudes. and so on.

Logic is abnormal, is the deal. As weird as it may seem, biologically and to the body as a system, logic is the odd thing out.

Logic is tied to thinking which is tied to energetic use. When logic is attempted, we bring our intellect on line, we figure the thing out, and then logic shuts back down. The body is efficient. This is what it is designed to do.

If paying attention in logic analysis, you can even feel it happening.

The first answer we come to is supposed to be the final given moment of logic and analysis and then we go back to being the other mostly egoic, instinctual, unconscious person. That's the body's wiring. That's the design. "The purpose of all thinking is not to think."

If you roll back and look at my prior post in another thread, you'll be able to put two and two together and see part of how we got into this mess and then maybe figure a way out.

Quote:

---

Posted by rgray222

[B] *** We have all seen polls that state that 70 or 80 percent of Americans, Europeans (you fill in the nationality) believe in UFOs. Probably far less than 1 percent of the respondents saw something that they actually believed was a true UFO. So the remaining 69-79 percent want the UFO phenomena to be real. Consequently, they believe without evidence. *** .

---

I respectfully beg to differ. This 70-80% believe with evidence. The evidence is the testimonials of others whom they concluded where providing credible and truthful relevant information.

But, I'd like to add that people often are mistaken when they believe evidence and also when they disbelieve evidence.

Quote:

---

Posted by rgray222

There needs to be some sort of punitive action against those that distill fake news.

---

That's a loaded statement that could have come right out of the mouth of any establishment politician or mainstream media representative.

Who would you trust to set the rules and enforce the punishment?

I think the only moral and viable form of punitive action against fake news is to correct it with a statement of your own.

In other words, have a level playing field that lets everybody express themselves freely and lets the people figure it out themselves what is correct and what is not.

Quote:

---

Posted by William Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793)

Whenever government assumes to deliver us from the trouble of thinking for ourselves, the only consequences it produces are those of torpor and imbecility. […] The proper method for hastening the decay of error is not by brute force, or by regulation which is one of the classes of force, to endeavour to reduce men to intellectual uniformity; but on the contrary by teaching every man to think for himself.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835)

In order to enjoy the inestimable benefits that the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils it creates.

---

Fake news will disappear when those who finance it are banged to rights.



Selling fake pharma products is as fake as the news slots. It's a vertical problem.

If I think about how often I changed my mind in the past based on changing beliefs then it must have been about a gazillion times. And all beliefs were based on what I perceived to be reality at a given time. I am no scientist. I can't trust history books really. And knowing how often science is influenced by agenda, I'm not sure whether I can trust science really either. Also a lot of theory in science. Can't trust media. How evident is someone else's observation? How evident is my own observation? How do I process information? I could go on. My brain can be mislead on so many levels. And I often fool myself too. But does that stop me from believing? No.

I think believing is what brings you forward in evolving your spirit. What is supportable today might not be tomorrow. But you're moving, growing, evolving. Sometimes a step back to take a few forward, but it's progress. Telling people not to believe in anything without evidence to me feels like an effort to control people. It would control the way people evolve if they would take that as an absolute guideline. Might be a gigantic spiritual trap, for all I know.

Everyone has his/her own way of dealing with it I guess. I like to explore/ponder my thoughts and observations. And I think I box my thoughts: feels legit, doesn't feel legit, undecided. Though I always keep on observing and thinking. Some may switch while time goes by. I'm fine with that. To me it's all good. I'm happy like that.

Though we do always have an ethical responsibility towards one another. Gotta have a heart and let love reign high. :heart:

Edit: resolved typos.

Believes are a double sided sword. Even when doing diligent research, there is a decision point when things are labeled true or not.
It's similar with those endless long end user license agreements - it's just too much.
Nobody cares to read them.
The essential thing in the end is upon which believes one acts. Then it shows, whether one has to make excuses or justifications.
So, discernment should be used every day and one should be brave enough to throw ill beliefs out the window and look again.

The title of the thread is a brain teaser: believing without evidence is always morally wrong. This is almost a contradiction because there is never enough evidence for certainty and therefore the code of conduct one chooses to comport oneself by is at best an interpretation of morality based on available facts, unless of course one considers morality a choice.

I think the most serious consequence throughout history of the act of believing without evidence is what Mark Passio very clearly lays out in this video - people who blindly follow orders to do great harm, firstly because they believe without evidence that the person telling them to do so has some 'higher' authority, and then they further believe without evidence the reasons to do harm they are being given. In the worst case, it's to kill.

This aspect of dead wrong believing without evidence has happened.... billions??... of times now throughout history?? The ultimate morally wrong consequence.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSqBN...nel=MarkPassio

What a wonderful dialogue going on here. I am looking at this from the perspective of how belief systems effect one internally. Each belief that we have comes with a set of conditions. Some are so subtle that they don't appear to have an effect on our lives and others have a tremendous effect. If I believe killing animals is wrong, it will effect me because I will either change my diet to eliminate them or I will feel guilt every time I do. If I believe I am a victim of something it will effect how I respond to the world. Maybe, I will believe that I can't be successful, or that I am tarnished, which will greatly effect my life. Obviously, the list is endless. What if I believe that volunteer work is good, I will most likely volunteer and that may have a beneficial effect for me.

It seems to me that that beliefs, especially ones that have not been carefully considered have the effect of internal psychic clutter that in some cases can border on hoarding. Just as we choose what we will have in our living spaces because we know that there are consequences of having lots of junk in the home there are consequences for not being mindful of beliefs. A clutter of beliefs can be likened to self programming that in some cases can become debilitating. Many beliefs come with the added programming of expecting a certain outcome. If I strongly believe you are a "good Christian" I will have certain expectations for your behavior and may become distressed if you don't live up to my belief.

All of this brings me to the point of seeing the benefit of suspending belief (in many cases this will essentially be suspending judgement) and relinquishing the need for outcomes based on those beliefs. Suspending a belief does not have to mean that you no longer think it true, the suspension disconnects you from attachment to it and the outcomes you may expect from it. I am not saying one should live without belief but to be aware of what that belief does for you. We all have an internal barometer that lets us see if a belief system is causing agitation or internal stress, and in some cases it might be found to be worthy of the agitation or stress, and most likely there are many that are not. It is possible to let go of them. It may take persistence but it is possible.

Quote:

---

Posted by Valerie Villars

Just "I experienced "this"? Isn't that as real as anything else?

---

I've experienced things before... only to later see them from an entirely different perspective, and realize that my previous perception was flawed. So not for me, I even question how I've interpreted things I've personally experienced.

Mark Passio says it so clearly, doesn't he? He uses no sugar coating on his rhetoric. Right Action always causes no harm to another. That is morality in a nutshell. But morality goes further. True morality requires proactive intent. Morality only means something if we are sovereign, beholden to no one and answering to no authority but our own. In that case morality must be upheld, defended, and cherished.

And that is why beliefs must be backed by evidence, because it is on that basis that morality can direct right action so that no harm ever comes to another.

Quote:

---

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains

In my opinion it's best not to form hard conclusions about anything at all, and always leave the door open for arguments that are contrary to our current beliefs. To allow oneself to be intellectually "vulnerable" in this way (at least from the perspective of the ego) is actually a strength, which allows great mental flexibility.


"The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental." -- Robert Anton Wilson.

---

Slam dunk. You win this thread. "If I know anything it's that I know nothing."

Also, the title of this thread is nonsense (not taking a shot at you Bill, love ya). 'Evidence' and 'morals' are subjective. Ones 'evidence' can lead to morally wrong decisions, case in point: http://www.heavensgate.com/ or maybe I should brink up Jonestown? Or Waco? Ya know, good God fearing Christians.

So, evidence is great, but good evidence is even better.

In clinical science, there is a pretty straightforward way of rating/scaling evidence into seven levels:

LEVEL I: Evidence that comes from an in-depth review of all pertinent randomized control trials.

LEVEL II: Evidence from a minimum of one randomized control trial.

LEVEL III: Evidence from control trials that aren't randomized.

LEVEL IV: Evidence from case control and cohort studies.

LEVEL V: Evidence from a reviewing of descriptive and qualitative studies.

LEVEL VI: Evidence from just one descriptive or qualitative study.

LEVEL VII: Evidence from expert opinion (committees, authorities, etc...)

First level evidence is stronger (more predictable and reliable) than seventh level evidence, so, if you're facing an illness, you'd better hope your physician treats you with procedures and drugs backed with more Level I and II evidence than the other categories.

Unfortunately, we base all too much of our beliefs on the equivalents of Level VI and Level VII evidence, anecdotal evidence, or simply no evidence whatsoever.

That standalone study that came out saying Supplement X will prevent cancer... Probably Level VI evidence, assuming the data is reasonable.

And if someone makes a decision for their patient based on Level VI evidence (or worse!) alone, well, I could see that as being morally wrong.

In the law, evidence is what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste. In other words, our senses. Extra sensory experiences or perceptions is/are not evidence in the law, regardless of how convincing the claim may be and how much the experiencer believes it. Or how much you may want to believe it.

How something is brought to our senses is also evidence. For example do we have personal knowledge of the evidence because I myself saw, heard, touched, smelled or tasted it? Or, did someone tell me about what came to their senses, i. e., is the evidence hearsay? How many levels of hearsay? Did Jane tell, Bob, then Bob told me, and then I'm telling you? That's an example of two levels of hearsay before the evidence got to the final person who has to judge the credibility and believability of the evidence. How trustworthy and reliable is such evidence?

One need not be lying to provide unreliable or false evidence. Often one is mistaken. Or someone in the chain of hearsay is mistaken. So even if you are not mistaken in what evidence you gave, the person who gave it to may have been mistaken or someone in the chain of hearsay before that was mistaken. You can imagine how all of this can be and is compounded by deliberate lies. Garbage in, garbage out.

Documents, photos, videos etc... Are also often not trustworthy and reliable. They are subject to hearsay issues too, as well as authentication issues. Is the document or other thing actually what it purports to be? Who authored or created it? Does the document or thing accurately portray or depict what it purports? Has it been authenticated? Has it been altered in some way? Is the information in the document or thing based upon first hand personal knowledge coming directly to the author's or creator's senses, or is it some level of hearsay? What is the source of the document or thing and and what is their agenda? What do they have to lose or gain? Cui Bono. "Honor dies where interest lies."

Ultimately, it is up to us, the one whose senses are now receiving the evidence to decide, that is, judge, the credibility of testimony from fact witnesses and from so-called experts, as well as the reliability and trustworthiness of documents and things that are presented to our senses.

Common sense should not be overlooked when doing so. What does your gut tell you? This may be where extra sensory perception plays its part too.

Quote:

---

Posted by Variant

So, evidence is great, but good evidence is even better.

In clinical science, there is a pretty straightforward way of rating/scaling evidence into seven levels:

---

That's good for clinical science, but how many times in your daily life do you have to make a decision without the benefit of a host of controlled clinical trials to draw from?

Politics is a high-profile example. The closest thing you have to scientific studies of how different forms of government work is history, and people draw from history very interpretively, often unreasonably so. You can't prove in a rigorous sense that the candidates you support will objectively do a better job, and different people will believe different things based on contradictory data. There are lots of decisions like this we have to make all the time, that we just don't have the option of basing on rigorous evidence.

This is a fascinating discourse.

It is only in recent months I have been forced to re-evaluate everything I thought I believed and seek validation for what I continued to want to believe.

I came across something Clif High said recently and it made a lot of sense. He mentioned that the word 'believe' comes from an old German word whose root meaning was 'wish it to be so.' English is a sloppy language in many ways, or more precisely the use of English is sloppy these days.

To me there is an inherent difference between knowing something is true and believing something is true.

When I know something is true then it's veracity is unassailable in my mind. I hasten to add that there is very little that I would claim that I know to be true. Such knowledge is usually characterised as something personal and related to an awareness of an experience or experiences. It also has no evidence available that would stand in contradiction to this knowledge. To date my experience of this sort of knowledge is inconsequential to anyone else's knowledge and often doesn't need to be shared. However it may well shape my beliefs, opinions and interactions with others.

I would consider beliefs as ideas to be held in awareness, but subject to evidence. What I mean by that is if there is clear evidence against such a belief then it should probably be discarded. If however the original intention of the belief is sincere and genuine and follows from something I know and there is no contradictory evidence then I could provisionally hold it as being true but always accept that it can and should be open to challenge. This sort of belief may not be evidence based but rather follow logically from (or is implied by) those few things that I consider I know to be true. (And yes I am aware this is the way a mathematician thinks.)

This, to me, then opens up the question of the validity of creating beliefs using linear or logical thinking, even ones that are subject to scrutiny by external evidence. I can't help but feel sometimes that my rigorous mathematical left hand brain training has handicapped me in some ways... but that is a totally different topic.

All beliefs (and ideas), however, to me must fall squarely under the jurisdiction of critical thinking.

Thank you Christian,
Describing the young friends trusting in you to share what she sees, instantly brought into my mind Peter Yarrow singing
" The Wedding [ or is it # And There is love ' ? ] in which he sings the line;
" Do you believe in someting that you've never seen before....? )

I'm NOT a romantic, but I just thought it fitted here perfectly...

id say if you have a personal experience such as a spiritual one you cannot prove it to anyone but you experienced yourself alone only you can believe it, but don't expect anyone else to believe it. But if you have a belief in an absolute such as maybe a belief in god if a person wants to and it works for them and makes there life better for it I don't see a problem with it but then to take that belief and impose it on to someone else and tell them that they also must believe it is wrong. Such as a lot of Christians do. If you want absolute truth I think you should believe in nothing but be open to all possible truth. Because once there is truth it is not a belief anymore it is an absolute. But don't be fooled by anyone who says they know the truth because I don't think anyone does, or maybe they do but it still cant be proven so there truth is only truth to them even though it might be real. You can say science is truth but really it kind of isn't because we don't know all there is to know so all we have is pieces of truth not the full picture so even the science we have today is not really truth. There is belief and then there is truth which is no longer believing. That's my point of view...

Quote:

---

Posted by Astute

This is a fascinating discourse.

It is only in recent months I have been forced to re-evaluate everything I thought I believed and seek validation for what I continued to want to believe.

I came across something Clif High said recently and it made a lot of sense. He mentioned that the word 'believe' comes from an old German word whose root meaning was 'wish it to be so.' English is a sloppy language in many ways, or more precisely the use of English is sloppy these days.

To me there is an inherent difference between knowing something is true and believing something is true.

When I know something is true then it's veracity is unassailable in my mind. I hasten to add that there is very little that I would claim that I know to be true. Such knowledge is usually characterised as something personal and related to an awareness of an experience or experiences. It also has no evidence available that would stand in contradiction to this knowledge. To date my experience of this sort of knowledge is inconsequential to anyone else's knowledge and often doesn't need to be shared. However it may well shape my beliefs, opinions and interactions with others.

I would consider beliefs as ideas to be held in awareness, but subject to evidence. What I mean by that is if there is clear evidence against such a belief then it should probably be discarded. If however the original intention of the belief is sincere and genuine and follows from something I know and there is no contradictory evidence then I could provisionally hold it as being true but always accept that it can and should be open to challenge. This sort of belief may not be evidence based but rather follow logically from (or is implied by) those few things that I consider I know to be true. (And yes I am aware this is the way a mathematician thinks.)

This, to me, then opens up the question of the validity of creating beliefs using linear or logical thinking, even ones that are subject to scrutiny by external evidence. I can't help but feel sometimes that my rigorous mathematical left hand brain training has handicapped me in some ways... but that is a totally different topic.

All beliefs (and ideas), however, to me must fall squarely under the jurisdiction of critical thinking.

---

Welcome Astute, it's great to have you on the forum. I really appreciated your comment on this thread and look forward to hearing more from you!!!!!

Francis: Believing without evidence is always morally wrong.

Allan: So if I believe something to be true, and I don't have evidence for that belief, then I'm morally wrong for having the belief?

F: Yes.

A: And if I act on that belief, and I don't have any proof for that belief, those actions will also be morally wrong?

F: Yes.

A: What about basic beliefs? What about mathematics? What about one plus one equals two?

F: Well, you actually do have evidence for this. The evidence exists in the formula.

A: But what proof do you have for what the number one is?

F: I don't follow.

A: Outside for the symbols we have, the concepts we have, what proof is there that the number one actually exists?

F: I hadn't thought of that.

A: And if there's no proof for a number to exist, there's no proof that mathematics could exist.

F: Oh dear.

A: SO if there's no proof for any number, then it's morally wrong to believe in mathematics.

F: Oh my.

A: Actually, if you think about it, the only thing that you can know with certainty is that everything can be doubted.

F: Well, not everything.

A: How so?

F: Well something has to exist to doubt, right?

A: True.

F: And if that something that doubts exists, that would be evidence, wouldn't it?

A: True!

F: So it's morally right to believe that something exists to doubt.

A: True!

F: But outside of that, you can't really trust that any evidence exists for anything.

A: But that would mean that the only morally right belief is that I exist because I doubt.

F: Right.

A: So it's morally wrong to believe the premise that "belief without evidence is always morally wrong"?

F: Right!

A: That's absurd.

F: You bet it is!

The above is the best proof yet that this reality is false and we are duped...

For me, I tend to use evidence of my experience as my steering wheel.
The problem is, I suspect the assumptions I make regarding my evidence is often incomplete or wrong.
That is why I prefer questions, to answers. :-)