“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.”
Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays (1928), “On the Value of Scepticism”
Question of the Day:
Do you agree? Is it bad to hold a belief for which there is no evidence, even if it harms no one?
If it harms no one, it’s fine.
I don’t think it’s that way for any belief, though.
A false belief, even if it harms no one, is still a false belief; you’re not doing yourself any favors by not seeking the truth.
If one person believed something that was simply not true, he would be called insane. But it’s when that insanity spreads to others that it gets the label “religion.” It’s a short distance between being a harmless, ludicrous belief to causing harm, and there is no way of controlling it even though they try to control the lives of everyone around them and force their beliefs onto every aspect of society: education, politics, media, relationships, science etc.
Hypothetically though, if it were possible to control the harm caused be theists, then I would say no, it is not a bad thing to believe in something even though it is not true, regardless of the labels they would then get.
I forget the proper quote, but: the truth is still the truth, even if no-one believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.
I always remember Philip K. Dicks quote:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
great quote
He would know, too, since he battled mental illness and substance abuse all his life.
What’s especially interesting is that the speech in which he makes this quote is the one in which he directly questions its accuracy.
Clinging to a belief with no evidence can prevent you from accepting some other truth that contradicts it. So you would be hard-pressed to find a truly “harmless” belief — you can always be harming yourself.
This.
+1
Very good point – it’s not just a waste of time. It could be harmful to you for being blind to the truth.
I think the word evidence needs to be defined. You can hold a belief that is true, for which you don’t have evidence for. This especially true if what is deemed as evidence is of a high level. Strictly speaking we all have beliefs that are unprovable in a rigorous way, such as the existence of other people’s existence. BTW I’m don’t hold to solipsism, but we often overlook the problems of epistemology that are there to be dealt with.
i meant to say existence of other people’s minds.
“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.”
And what were his grounds for believing that?
“And what were his grounds for believing that?”
The evidence of history, and just life experience, I would say. For example, believing baseless rumors usually ends badly. People tend (eventually) to act on – or make decisions based on – what they believe to be true. If you believe nonsense, you will probably make bad decisions. If you believe in a false propostion, and you act on it, the outcome can be very very destructive.
Makes me think of mistaken eye-witness accounts that send innocent people to jail or worse.
I disagree. We could be brains in a jar being fed all this sensory information. There are fundamental things we all must believe on faith in order to act sanely. It is my opinion that we should rely on as few of these as necessary – just enough to be able to comprehend the world around us. From then on, the scientific method takes over.
No harm, no foul.
Those beliefs only become detrimental to the believer and others when they make non-trivial decisions based on that belief, or when they try to force that belief on to others.
For example, a trivial and harmless decision would be going to church on Sunday. My neighbor goes to church on Sunday, while I sit around in my pajamas watching Law&Order reruns.
However, a non-trivial decision would be voting to restrict the rights of others because your belief system says their lifestyle is unholy.
I think supporting such an institution, even if you personally do not go along with its policies, would be harmful. Is enabling harmful?
I’m waiting for the steaming pile of crap that John C is going to serve up over this question, I really am…
I don’t even read his posts anymore. Once I see his name, I just move on.
as it should be.
Shame on you Custy for mentioning the one who must not be named
Lol! Harry Potter.
For the question, I would have to say yes. More-so if that belief is contradicted by other evidence. Sometimes in life you have to guess, but I think one should try to avoid it if possible.
You can spank me another time Sunny :p
Skepticism is the only avenue to advanced knowledge. To blindly accept anything is wrong. To completely accept anything that is not completely proven is wrong.
Religulosos are funny in that they preach skepticism when discussing evolution and deny skepticism when discussing the bible. Sometimes both ideas arise in the same sentence but they are blind to its stupidity.
Skepticism is always healthy and should be encouraged in 2 year olds and 100 year olds and everyone in between.
I do not agree. I’m with William James, who argued that life presents many moments where we are forced to choose between options unguided by knowledge or evidence, and that in such cases is is nonetheless important to pick from those options in a non-arbitrary manner; this requires holding beliefs about the subjects of the choices.
But the beliefs under question are themselves arbitrary, so…
That doesn’t necessarily follow. Arbitrary implies that the belief chosen could well be any other belief that addresses the same situation, but that drops out of the equation the fact that the belief is being held a person whose hopes and desires and proclivities are very much in play, guiding what, in the absence of evidence, would be to *that person* acceptable guiding beliefs. Even in the context of beliefs ungrounded by evidence, there is an element of a belief being either true or not true to the character or personality of the one holding it, insofar as the effects of the belief on behavior can be anticipated by that person.
We cannot always follow that rule, but that doesn’t makes any more desirable the situation when you have to act according to a non-supported belief.
True. On the other hand, Russell’s quote is as close to a meaningless truism as is possible to come on the subject, since nearly everyone would agree on balance it is better to know than not to know. James’ overarching point was in part that the situations in which we find ourselves without relevant evidence are so numerous and common-place that pointing out it would be nice to have more info is almost beside the point. When it comes to moral desirability (rather than mere epistemological desirability, as Russell is talking about), the rule is much more complicated to apply.
A more interesting argument would be about whether there is and to what extent there is a duty to seek more information after the initial confrontation of a situation about which we know nothing.
We may be forced to choose between options without strong evidence one way or the other, but there is almost always some reason to believe that one of the options is more likely than the others. If forced to act as if one were true, we should choose that one that is more probable, and we should believe that it is most probably true, assigning a level of confidence appropriate to the probability. Furthermore, even in a hypothetical case in which there was absolutely no way to determine which has the higher probability, it would still not warrant *believing* one of them by employing faith. If you absolutely had to choose to act as if one or the other were true, then the best option would be to choose one at random, without actually going so far as to *believe it to be true.* This is a perfectly rational method that avoids getting perpetually stuck in inaction, but doesn’t resort to the indefensible position of believing something to be true without any reason.
Russel’s quote is not a meaningless truism, and perhaps it can be improved to say, “you should never believe something to be true when there is no grounds whatsoever to believe it is true.” By my interpretation, that’s what he really meant when he said it is “undesirable.”
I’ve just today been reading about James’ “Will to Believe” and have decided I would like to read it sometime. Having not yet read his arguments, though, I tend to agree with Bertrand Russel’s retort, “What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.”
How would you be “forced” to choose between two options without evidence? What is wrong with saying “I don’t know” and then begin looking for not only evidence for the two but other possible answers that have not yet been posited? A lot of times people supporting religion will try to pose questions in such a way, as if there are only two choices and while neither is really fulfilling those are your only options. This is also used a lot here in the US by politicians, as if the party lines of the Democrats and the Republicans are the only possible solutions where there may be hundreds or thousands of other solutions that haven’t been espoused by either of these two increasingly polarized, increasingly extreme parties.
How would you be “forced” to choose between two options without evidence?
Take marital fidelity, for example. In most circumstances, you have no knowledge whether your spouse is actually faithful or not. You are required to act as though one of two things is true, however: they are faithful, or they are not faithful. If you do not know, you still have to pick a default. Whichever presumption you choose is based ultimately on an unsupported belief.
Again, this is a false assumption. There are other possible options. My first wife and I had an open marriage where discreet sex with others as well as “swinging” situations with couples was mutually acceptable. And in marriages where your mate has been married before and you know they were unfaithful you are making a choice to be with them knowing that they have a history of straying.
There are very rarely situations that are strictly black and white, “choose A or choose B” situations. Often we take a reductionist mindset and create these false choices. We see this a lot in politics where we see only a choice between democrat or republican where in reality there are other choices. For example there are several “third parties” that have candidates in many races or you can run yourself if you don’t find the available candidates appealing or if you feel they are all poor choices you can opt not to vote.
Often people vote not for a candidate they like but either to keep a worse candidate out or because they have established an affiliation with one of the parties and vote the party ticket regardless of who is running. Often, in races where I have no real interest or where I lack any knowledge of the candidates sufficient to make a choice I will opt not to vote on that race. This is usually for minor local officials who have minimal effects on my life.
There is one other thing I left out. If I lacked enough evidence to have a well reasoned belief about how a potential mate will behave, I would not enter into a marriage until I did have evidence from their behavior that would allow me to form an educated understanding of that person. I also don’t make assumptions, I talk and ask questions until I have a clear understanding of their personality.
If you change the word Belief to Hope, then no.
Bad is a very bad word. It can mean so many different things.
Is belief in non-testable but benign things harmful to others? Since they are benign, then obviously no. It hurts no-one to believe in faeries or Bertrand Russels teapot. It is clearly not bad in the sense that it harms others.
These types of harmless beliefs are damaging to the psyche. The prevent learning by placing a stopping point in the information path. The Teapotists don’t want to send any probes through that part of space, they already know whats there, the Teapot! Belief circumvents critical thought and earnest inquiry. In the view of personal growth, beliefs are bad.
That is the real danger of all overarching philosophies based on belief systems. They have always squelched any inquiry over realms of nature that might conflict with their dogma. Small localized beliefs like horoscopes have little impact, where large beliefs like Catholicism or Islam crush rational thought.
I agree.
These types of harmless beliefs are damaging to the psyche. The prevent learning by placing a stopping point in the information path. The Teapotists don’t want to send any probes through that part of space, they already know whats there, the Teapot! Belief circumvents critical thought and earnest inquiry. In the view of personal growth, beliefs are bad.
I don’t think this follows. Beliefs about unknowns abound, and are unavoidable. Even if we commit to a functional agnosticism of claims without evidence, to the extent that the subject of the claim is important to the person asserting the claim there is already a functional belief driving behavior regarding the object of the claim.
Belief in Russell’s Teapot is only damaging if the person holding the belief adopts an unnecessary accessory belief that confirmation of the main belief is unnecessary or undesirable. On the contrary, people are often motivated to test their beliefs in order to obtain the luxury of confirmation. Only when the psychological threat presented by the notion that a belief be overturned is greater than the benefit gained by testing the belief and possibly gaining confirmation is the belief toxic to critical thought. Unfortunately, religious beliefs (or metaphysical beliefs backed by arguments from authority generally) are a class of belief that tend to provoke high levels of psychological anxiety.
We might be talking about different types of belief. I was referring only to dogmatic beliefs, where the holder of the belief refuses to accept any evidence that is contrary.
I personally believe that Big Bang cosmology presents an accurate history of the expansion of our universe from a singularity to where it is now. My belief is not dogmatic. I would gladly change my position if I were presented with a well reasoned argument backed up by empirical data.
Compare that to someone who knows that the entire universe is 10k years old. They refuse to accept any data to the contrary, so their belief hinders their ability to learn or grow in any science that contradicts that belief.
I think we need to define what exactly is meant by “undesirable” and “bad”.
Because “undesirable” and “bad” don’t always equate. E.g. After a crazy night out with my friends, I will probably find getting up to go running undesirable, but I wouldn’t say that running is bad just because it’s undesirable to me.
The disagreement I have is with “no ground whatsoever.” People have reasons for believing.
Reasons or feelings?
Feelings are not, in themselves, automatically invalid as grounds for believing certain things or acting in certain ways. In fact, they can be invaluable when confronting situations where logic does not avail, such as what assumptions to make about strangers or how to treat them. Surely ethical sense is rooted necessarily in part upon the experience of being an emotional, valuating being, not just a thinking one.
True, but a good balance would be key, right?
I know sooo many Christians who “FEEL” everything, and mainly rely on those feelings.
Absolutely. A functional moral sense without a working mind is worse than useless, because such a person would be constantly mistaking the proper situations to apply their insights.
I think though, especially on this side of the theism line, people often denigrate emotional intelligence unduly. As you say, a balance is important.
Maybe that’s why I’m not so prone to religious belief… because I’m a cold, hard, unsympathetic soul! Or maybe I’m just too rational. Either one is fine with me.
Unless the belief is about feelings, I think they are automatically ruled out. I hold that the most powerful statement we can make and the one that might lead us to truth and knowledge is “I don’t know”. Taking a position without evidence is what makes religion different from science. This applies to any other dogmatic belief system such as politics.
If religious people have reasons to believe, then the sentence don’t apply to them. That doesn’t make the sentence less true.
Of course we could argue if they have reasons to believe.
Everyone is free to believe whatever they choose. I think that is fine, if it doesn’t harm someone else.
Anyone who believes in something that isn’t true is harming themselves, so obviously they are harming someone.
There are certainly instances when someone’s beliefs would not harm another person. For instance, someone who feels the need to cover their head in aluminum foil to stop aliens from reading their minds, may not be harming someone else. However, they are certainly harming themselves.
In the context of religion, I think all who “believe” are, in some way, harming others.
Short answer to QotD: Yes, because the believer is harming themselves.
“In the context of religion, I think all who “believe” are, in some way, harming others.”
They are only really harming others if they somehow act on those beliefs. Holding a collective belief doesn’t in itself consitute harm, no?
I would say causing others to hold erroneous beliefs, especially children, is harm. This indoctrination is the function of the institution of religion. So, yes, collective erroneous belief in itself constitutes harm.
Religion itself causes violence between those whose religions hold different beliefs.
Religious organizations are involved in politics, which affects everyone.
Simply “holding a collective belief” does not constitute harm, assuming that you don’t support any religious organization, vote based on your beliefs, treat anyone differently based on your beliefs, raise children to believe the same as you, and basically keep your beliefs to yourself.
P.S. The luminosity.com ad caught my attention. It looks pretty cool. I think I might try a membership and see if it works.
It depends what it is. I ‘believe’ that my sports team will perform better if I sit in a certain position on my couch, or wear certain socks. I don’t ‘believe’ it on a rational level, but in a sense I do ‘believe’ it because I do it. I don’t think there’s any harm in that.
My point is that my mini-delusions are no different than the delusions of religious people. But mine are fun and harmless, and theirs are usually dangerous.
LOL. Love the sports thing!
I contend that it is always undesirable to insert an epistemological wedge into the mix of reality and thought. Similarly, it would be undesirable to add even a single drop of pooh into your favorite recipe. Although you may not able to taste it, you will always know it’s there.
Eew. :)
Seriously though, categories, judgments, and valuations are part and parcel of thought (many would say essential to it), and all those things require beliefs and axioms in order to take shape and be usable.
Sooooo….lets answer the question…it IS bad to hold to a belief that isn’t true.
What then?
What does that mean to us as atheists? Evangelize(so to speak) the belivers? I’m just wondering.
The best pastor I ever had when I was a xtian had once said that the best way to convert is be the example that you want others to be. I refuse to tell others how to live their lives. Even when they’re wrong. Now, if they ask me for my opinion…..
Or…
…we could corral them in concentration camps. That has always worked in the past.
Or…
…we could corral them in concentration camps. That has always worked in the past.
Are you serious? Please tell me that presenting that as an “option” for atheists is an attempt at internet sarcasm, not what you think atheists would advocate.
LMAO….that was major sarcasm!!
I’m just curious…if we maintain that it is bad for theists to believe what they believe, what next?
What do you mean “what next”?
Very important question, and one of the reasons I hold the obverse position. If you conclude that other people holding certain beliefs, in itself, is a pernicious state of affairs, then it is hard to avoid an implied moral duty to ameliorate it.
Exactly.
Wow. That’s insightful.
“implied moral duty to ameliorate it.”
Hence, new atheists.
What if a particular belief (such as a belief that God, via the Bible, wants you to beat your child, or maybe some other belief that isn’t in opposition with laws of the land) does, in fact, lead to pernicious acts, do others have a moral duty to stamp out that belief?
That’s where it gets dicey. One might reasonably argue that if the belief does not necessarily lead to the pernicious action, it is important to determine to what extent are they correlated and whether there exists a reasonable candidate for causative mechanism.
My significant other and I just were talking about an apropos analogous situation. Take the example of laws or regulations that punish people for being intoxicated with alcohol absent any other criminal behavior, suxch as those that prevent intoxication in certain classes of people (like youth) or in certain locations. Alcohol intoxication is strongly correlated with other crimes, and medical and psychological evidence points to a reasonable causative mechanism. However, there are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of getting completely fall-down drunk and yet never commit any crime. What is the legitimacy of the regulation preventing the mean drunk and the happy drunk alike from getting drunk, if only the mean drunk commits a crime pursuant to their drunkenness?
(Adopts blank start and monotone voice): The greater goooooood….
LOL.
Is it true that there’s a point on a person’s head that if you shoot them in it, their head will explode?
“Have you ever jumped through the air while firing a gun?”
There is no regulation preventing them from getting drunk (though there is regulation preventing them from getting high on marijuana and other drugs). The right to get drunk, however, is conditional (certain age, certain locations, can’t drive, etc.). As is the right to own a gun, and so on.
As Ty points out below, I don’t want to make holding a certain belief illegal (though I do support, for instance, prohibiting public school employees from promoting religious beliefs). But I do feel it’s necessary to somehow combat beliefs that inevitably lead to pernicious (yet legal) acts.
Beating a child, which is against the laws of the land, is a poor example. Here’s a better one: John and Jane Doe believe their pastor, who says God created the Earth less than 10000 years ago and wouldn’t allow anything really bad to happen to the planet. Or maybe they hear a secular right wing radio personality say climate change is not taking place (and, if it is, humans have no role in it). Therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Doe do not take steps to protect the Earth, nor do they support the regulation of big polluters, and so on. Whether religion or politics (or both) is the driving force behind their denial of facts doesn’t much matter.
“Have you ever fired two guns whilst jumping through the air?”
I guess I should say there’s no “law” preventing them from getting drunk. There are regulations, and I’m fine with those. The drunk who commits a crime will hopefully suffer consequences. The drunk who doesn’t commit a crime doesn’t have anything to worry about. I suppose we could get into a discussion about whether or not those regulations (such as not being allowed to drive while drunk) should exist, but I don’t see much point in that (as I don’t think it pertains to the topic of this thread).
The problem becomes, in a religious-majority democracy, such as the US is, such a position inevitably leads to us losing. If the ceasefire of religious conscience is called off, atheists lose, simple numbers game. Because to Christians, by-and-large, atheism is a pernicious belief which ought to be opposed as obviously destructive.
I wouldn’t call the US a democracy, but I understand your point. I didn’t realize that a ceasefire had been enacted. It seems to me that Christian fundamentalists and their enablers have been on the attack (or on the defensive) for as long as I can recall. And atheists, with evidence being a valuable weapon, must fight back so as to not lose the ground that’s been gained.
What of secular beliefs that result in pernicious acts?
I didn’t realize that a ceasefire had been enacted. It seems to me that Christian fundamentalists and their enablers have been on the attack (or on the defensive) for as long as I can recall. And atheists, with evidence being a valuable weapon, must fight back so as to not lose the ground that’s been gained.
In the larger body of culture (outside the fundamentalist fringes), attacks are seen largely as uncouth and are not paid much respect. So, yes, I’d say there was something of a cultural cease-fire over the issues of religion.
What of secular beliefs that result in pernicious acts?
Well, I think part of the larger problem with religion as a class of beliefs is that nobody has access to demonstrable metaphysical truth, and so it is harder to claim that a given belief is wrong. When it comes to secular beliefs, they tend to be more amenable to empirical attack. When it comes to racism, it is possible to show race as an empirically illegitimate category given any merit factor. Bit harder to do that with gods.
Is anyone arguing that general belief in god is pernicious?
Unless you think that a strong anti-science stance is inextricably linked with religion, then the position I’m in favor of would affect belief in god/s not at all.
That’s a great question. To me, there’s a fundamental difference between secular beliefs and religious beliefs. The secularist might lose his temper, or generally be an a**hole. However, there are laws, conscience, and social norms that usually control negative actions (for example, I didn’t punch out my colleague when she deleted a project I’d worked on because that is frowned upon in the workplace). Religious people, on the other hand, consider “god’s laws” above “man’s laws”, and since they can interpret “god’s laws” any way they like (depending on where they look in the bible), they can now legitimize, from the highest authority, their actions. You want to stop me from beating my kid? No, I listen to god’s word that tells me that assaulting my child is a nice thing to do. http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin10.htm. My point is that there are evil atheists and evil christians. However, there’s an old saying that religion makes even good people do bad things.
“If you conclude that other people holding certain beliefs, in itself, is a pernicious state of affairs,”
I think this is true of quite a number of beliefs, as do we all. I could probably name a dozen off the top of my head.
Such as believing homosexuals or blacks or women et al. shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals or whites or males.
Holding that belief is bound to have a negative impact (on the believer and, more than likely, on others). I suppose there’s a *chance* that the holder of that belief might not let his/her bigotry be known to anyone or let it influence his/her actions in any way, shape or form. That certainly seems unlikely.
And, at least in the case of racism, while the remedy for *acting* on the thought might be legal, we still try to remedy the thought itself in non-legal ways. We try to educate children that racism is wrong, long before they are in any position to act on their beliefs.
I think this is a useful analog for certain types of religious thought. I don’t think that there should be any legal repercussion for people who want to believe in creationism. But I do think we should attempt to educate people so that they are less likely to believe in it.
I think the problem we run into with discussions about things like this is the idea that there is some slippery slope to ‘thought crime’ hiding in it. I disagree. I think that there are many many remedies outside of punishment for dealing with harmful ideas.
Ignorance is never preferable to knowledge. Ignorance blocks finding knowledge. Whether you see an actual harm or not, the mere fact that it displaces truth is sufficient reason to find it unacceptable. Also, if you are accepting something false it means that you are not using your critical thinking skills and when you continue not to use those skills eventually you will find harm results.
This has always been one of my problems with scientists who are religious. At some point there are likely to be times when their lack of use of critical thinking skills will effect their scientific judgement.
Isn’t there something intrinsically harmful about believing in falsehoods? Especially when the political and social mechanisms are driven by these beliefs?