@philosophyminis: Is it ever wrong to hold certain #religious beliefs? Is it immoral to believe anything without sufficient evidence? Richard Dawkins, for example, argues that if we tolerate believing things without evidence, then we open up a whole new category of ridiculous beliefs, from conspiracy theories to the tooth fairy to garden goblins. This idea is known as ‘epistemic responsibility,’ which is the idea that we have a duty to believe things only when there is sufficient #evidence or when they are justified. In 1877, the English philosopher W.K. Clifford wrote an essay called ‘The #Ethics of Belief,’ where he said that ‘It is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.’ This principle is today known as ‘evidentialism,’ which is the idea we ought to believe only those things we have evidence for. In his essay, #Clifford gives an example of a ship owner selling tickets to a once-in-a-lifetime wonder journey. The ship owner has a hunch that the ship is not as safe as it ought to be, but the repairs would be pretty expensive. The work alone would dent his profits, but what about those lost ticket sales? And so the ship owner asks no more questions, and he turns a blind eye. After all, it was only a hunch. Is the ship owner morally to blame for his ignorance? And should he have asked more questions? #Dawkins applies Clifford's argument to religion. Dawkins says that faith is ‘The great cop out. It's an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate.’ For Dawkins and Clifford, when we accept things without asking questions or without rigorous evidence, we're not only ignorant. We're immoral. #philosophy #religion #atheist

Jonny Thomson

Open In TikTok:

Region: GB

Friday 05 July 2024 13:29:44 GMT