the decision to base your life on beliefs which not only can you not prove, but which, on the balance of the evidence, seem unlikely to be true, seems incredibly irresponsible. If religious believing had implications only for the individual believer, then it could be easily dismissed as a harmless idiosyncrasy, but since almost all religious beliefs have incredibly serious implications for many people, religious belief cannot be regarded as harmless. Indeed, a glance at the behavior of religious believers worldwide day by day makes it very clear that religion is something to be feared and justly criticized. “Houses built of emotion” is one thing, but beliefs that can lead to mass beheading for mixed-sex dancing, or the marginalization and victimization of gay and lesbian people, and the second-listing of women, is quite another, and it is for the latter that religious belief is justly held to require more justification
Even though this quote is focusing on religion, I think it applies to any beliefs people have that they think are “harmless” but greatly influence how they treat others. In short, since no person is an island, we have a duty to critically examine the beliefs we have that influence how we treat others.
If you actually care about the influence on how you treat others, why don’t use that as your test whether to hold a belief?
Instead of focusing on whether the belief in likely to be true you could focus on whether it’s likely to be harm other people.
A lot of Christian’s don’t believe in beheading people for mixed-sex dancing and victimizate homosexuals. For them the fact that other Christian’s do those thing is no good reason to drop their beliefs.
If you actually care about the influence on how you treat others, why don’t use that as your test whether to hold a belief? Instead of focusing on whether the belief in likely to be true you could focus on whether it’s likely to be harm other people.
It can be difficult to know what will be harmful without knowing whether certain things are true.
Hypothetical example: A person kills their child in order to prevent them from committing some kind of sin and going to hell. If this person’s beliefs about the existence of hell and how people get in and stay out of it are true, they have saved their child from a great deal of suffering. If their beliefs are not true, they have killed their child for nothing.
Eric MacDonald
Even though this quote is focusing on religion, I think it applies to any beliefs people have that they think are “harmless” but greatly influence how they treat others. In short, since no person is an island, we have a duty to critically examine the beliefs we have that influence how we treat others.
If you actually care about the influence on how you treat others, why don’t use that as your test whether to hold a belief? Instead of focusing on whether the belief in likely to be true you could focus on whether it’s likely to be harm other people.
A lot of Christian’s don’t believe in beheading people for mixed-sex dancing and victimizate homosexuals. For them the fact that other Christian’s do those thing is no good reason to drop their beliefs.
It can be difficult to know what will be harmful without knowing whether certain things are true.
Hypothetical example: A person kills their child in order to prevent them from committing some kind of sin and going to hell. If this person’s beliefs about the existence of hell and how people get in and stay out of it are true, they have saved their child from a great deal of suffering. If their beliefs are not true, they have killed their child for nothing.