By itself it is not immoral. It is immoral, however to expect and force others to accept the same claim without evidence.

By itself it is not immoral. It is immoral, however to expect and force others to accept the same claim without evidence.

How can we not believe in the one who only tells me to love everyone and to trust no one? What proof must he given to convince myself that this approach is one that allows my own self-fulfillment in the midst of others? I have to trust my parents (or to scientists with a good reputation) while waiting for evidence? 

One has to believe somehow on a claim in order to prove it or discard it. What is immoral is to state that such a claim is a proved fact.

Well Prof , morality is not based no evidence , it is what elders /society dictates.

Now, it depends on the claim , something to do with religion /practices again it boils down to what we would like to follow . Acceptance in the society (because we are social beings) or isolation with ideas ...

Conformance is the norm leading to" claim" established as  "truth" .

Now the only exception I see is Einstein , he had a  claim that was strongly supported by his theories ...

Faith is usually out of the category of morality.

I believe that any faith can not be immoral, although the practice of a certain faith can be immoral. But that's about religion.

To any assumption that we want to prove, we are approaching in the spirit of an indeterminate and uncertain belief whoch may be probably true. But we have an experiment and verification to verify the truth.

Faith alone can not be tested or can not test anything.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_it_be_stated_that_a_Christian_may_not_know_that_he_is_a_Christian

It is immoral to believe on the hereditary (genetically identified) monarchy properties (queens & kings all type). It is moral to claim that to be human is to be free, to be in control of the forces that determine our life. It is not moral to claim that human slavery is a normal situation for some (genetically identified exactly as the monarchy) and, it is amoral to claim that scientists are by definition honest people.

Most religions have made a claim with argument and evidence, however, they have become mere stories and stories in the Scriptures but after a while, they need evidence and arguments. I believe that the confidence of the source may help to accept the claim without an argument, but not to the contrary of logic.

It is flawed to adopt that claim, because it means the end of the life of society

It is an interesting question and that question makes me wonder what would happen if the evidence we believed was nothing more than a lie. We enter the post-truth era and the power of evidence leads us into the field of dystopia. Let's look at two examples in these two videos about a single fact. What is really true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZHcYFQpCjo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWKzdJZLiQk

Thanks for sharing my question dear.

Definitely it is immoral. (Some suspect is sin).

Hello Doctor, I should not judge or condemn a person unless there is evidence to prove it

The evident is very important befor any judgment on any matter ,  Regards

What means "why", and what means "why not"? Give some background,

Yes of course dear

Yes, it is Prof. Kirk.

It would not be just immoral but irresponsible and even a sin to believe a claim without evidence. As scholars, we need to be great thinkers and fact finders. As great scientists, we should not reduce our dignities to believing mere hearsays and whims from others without substantial evidence. Thank you and best regards.

Dickson Adom

To believe a claim without some kind of evidence would be non-scientific if the claim is related to a scientific matter, and the person's being non-scientific is especially immoral if that person is a researcher. As for a claim not related to science, however, believing it within one's mind is not necessarily immoral.

Dear Kirk MacGregor

It depends, there can be ethics without morality and morality without ethics. Likewise, the belief "per se" is not immoral or moral, as it also depends on the context and subject matter.

• If belief without evidence is in the scientific field, then it is a belief or assumption not validated by experience or tangible evidence. That is, not science or pseudoscience.
• If it is a non-scientific belief, as in matters of religion, values, ethical principles; the evidence that is required is solid and logical argumentation.
• If this type of evidence does not exist in non-scientific subjects, it would be treated in a belief that is not based on a logical or argumentative basis. In other words, ideas, thoughts or expressions outside a coherent discourse; delusions, hallucinations or illusions.

regards

Jose Luis

Estimado Kirk MacGregor

Depende, puede haber ética sin moral y moral sin ética. Asimismo la creencia "per se" no es inmoral o moral, pues también depende del contexto y del tema de que se trate.

• Si la creencia sin evidencia es en el terreno científico, entonces es una creencia o suposición no validada por la experiencia o evidencia tangible. Es decir, no ciencia o pseudociencia.
• Si se trata de una creencia no científica, como en temas de religión, valores, principios éticos; la evidencia que se requiere es la argumentación sólida y lógica.
• De no existir en temas no científicos este tipo de evidencia, se trataría entonces en una creencia no sustentada en base lógica o argumentativa. En otros términos, ideas, pensamientos o expresiones fuera de un discurso coherente; delirios, alucinaciones o ilusiones.

Saludos

José Luis

Dear Dr. Kirk, I think it will be best you provide some examples where it will be immoral to believe a claim without evidence. This will guide a more narrowed answers. Again, do you believe there is a word called "Faith"?

Thanks in anticipation of your reply.

Best regards,

Egbuna, C.

Dear Kirk, In my opinion one could believe in something without having an evidence. Evidences are mostly connected to the scientific issue, but believing in something  is something else. A person needs so have strength to believe without evidence. It is a powerful thing.

Best regards,

V. Janusheva 

¿Es inmoral amar a alguien? Tonto, quizás, pero no inmoral...Believe, and believe with all your might! Immoral is expecting me to site you...

Oh, my! Certainly no: it is not immoral. It is just naif.

Now, naif people are not bad by themselves. They are just... innocent.

Oh, my! It is certainly not immoral. It is just naif.

Now, naif people are not bad by themsleves. They are just... innocent.

Oh, my! It is certainly not immoral. It is just naif.

Now, naif people are not bad by themsleves. They are just... innocent.

Oh, my! It is certainly not immoral. It is just naif.

Now, naif people are not bad by themsleves. They are just... innocent.

Oh, my! It is certainly not immoral. It is just naif.

Now, naif people are not bad by themsleves. They are just... innocent.

You can believe or mistrust - it completely depends on you and it has no relation to morality

Let me respond to Hein's and Chukwuebuka's good questions. By "why" I mean "assuming it is immoral to believe a claim without evidence, why is it immoral?" By "why not" I mean "assuming it is not immoral to believe a claim without evidence, why not?" I do believe in faith, but then the question becomes, What is the nature of faith? For me, faith is placing my trust in or making a commitment to someone or something that I have good reason to believe in. To illustrate, when my wife and I got married, I put my faith in her and she put her faith in me, namely, we pledged our life, love, and allegiance to each other. And that was perfectly consistent with our having good evidence that we were made for each other! As a Christian philosopher, I think there is good evidence for God's existence and God's self-revelation in Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore I have put my faith in (i.e. made a personal commitment to) Jesus as Lord. But many of my fellow Christians disagree strenuously with my understanding of faith, insisting that faith means believing something without evidence. To me, this just seems immoral. If I believed without evidence that a cruise ship would float, and a bunch of people boarded it and it sank, then I am immoral and guilty of involuntary manslaughter. How is belief without evidence any different?

I agree with all RG Colleagues. Best regards

Consider self-evidence through personal experiences that cannot be scientifically shared with others: is it immoral to make claims about self-experience that cannot be scientifically verified by others, e.g. because of human perception constraints not having access to the personal experiences (e.g. thoughts, feelings) from other beings?

I apologize for my multiple posts: the system did not wrk well yesterday. I am normally not that obsessive! hahahaha!

Dear Dr. Kirk,

Thanks for your clarification. There are two sides to the coins. Sign vs Evidence. We need a sign to believe a claim (non-scientific). This is not immoral. But I think it will be immoral to seek evidence after a sign. One analogy is this, everyone knows that 'experience is a great teacher'. This is not immoral. But it will be immoral to always want to experience before one learns. Sometimes is better to learn from other people's experience. Shall one test the depth of ocean with both feets to know how deep it is? I shouldn't expect a yes.

Thanks.

Even if it is not immoral - it is unscientific. We - as scientists - should find some kind of evidence before we support a claim or theory...

Best Regards

Andreas

At the very least it is harmful, because it ends the search for answers right there: the claim has been accepted, and that's henceforth all there is to it.

If we believe that there is no higher moral than 'getting closer to the light', then yes, it is immoral to believe anything without having thoroughly researched the question and done one's level best to examine and analyze the evidence.