Belief without sufficient evidence is harmful

May i start by similarly thanking Nichlaspanda for not only joining the debate, but doin g so in such a positive, thoughtful and interesting manner. Your response has at least focused my view, even if I do not necessary think it has refuted it. I would talk about your citation of the idea of forced and avoidable options thus- The idea of forced options seems to be applicable to things like split-second decisions, e;g whether to swerve or brake when presented with an obstacle while driving a car. I would say that I don't think this counts exactly as a "belief". You are faced with two options, and know you must choose one. You do not necessarily "believe" in one over the other- you just had to do SOMETHING and you may have done so with no actual belief that it was the better option. You choose braking, but close your eyes as you still believe you will probably hit the deer in the headlights, only to be surprised and relieved when you stop in time. Your actual belief at the time will be related as "I REALLY thought I was going to hit it!!" For momentous I would argue that if the decision is trivial and the outcome reversible, likewise the amount of evidence that would count as "sufficient". "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as stated by Carl Sagan, but the opposite is also true- trivial claims can be accepted with no need for overwhelming evidence. and doing so does not involve what I would state as a dangerous propensity to believe without siufficient evidence. With the "Live" situation- two conflicting hypothesis- this is a perfect time to practice critical thinking, and withhold belief in BOTH ideas until evidence is presented making one more likely. "James argues when we're placed in a situation about our religion - and can't provide sufficient evidence - we're left with a "leap of faith." Furthermore, James believes that faith is a genuine option. "There is so much to lose if we err with respect to religion; we must take a position even without sufficient evidence." [5] In fact, there are a lot of instances where we take stances; for example, political matters. " In this, I think James contradicts himself- If there is so much to lose if one errs with respect to religion, is it not a very good idea to try and be as close to truth in ones religious beliefs as possible? So taking a position without sufficient evide3nce is good way TO err, not to avoid error. In some ways, he is simply re-stating Pascal's Wager- and this idea has been debunked, as there is no more evidence that believing will gain one favour to a deity than not believing will. It can, in fact, be argued that if a deity gave us the ability to reason, then no good reason to believe in his existence, that it is in fact the deities desire that we DON'T believe in him. For all we know, the one unforgivable sin for which eternal, torture is the penalty is gullibility, while god actually wants the critical thinkers with him in heaven! "Additionally, James argues that even if a person's belief is false there are "still pragmatic reasons to sustain it." Jeff Jordan states "The doctrine of a future state is so strong and necessary a security to morals that we never ought to abandon or neglect it." In other words, he's referring you still have object values and morals in that said belief. [10] " In this, James is trying to say that morals simply believed are superior to those derived from secular co-operation, and here I vehemently disagree as it has been shown over and over that submitting to imposed morals under the guise of faith have consistently led to very bad outcomes- one has only to look at the atrocities perpetrated by those who sincerely believed they WERE sustaining a "security to morals" as they stoned the adulteress or flew the 757 into the WTC. " For my own benefit, I'll be addressing Christianity; and how some people believe that Christianity has "insufficient evidence". Many non-believers ask "Where is your evidence?" or "Nope not enough evidence." Most Christians don't have answers to these questions; in fact, many Christians don't rely on evidence to justify God's existence! They simply believe. Question: Is justification needed for Christianity? No. According to Christian Reformers, it is "entirely right, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all; in this respect belief in God resembles belief in the past, in the existence of other persons, and in the existence of material objects." [6] I'm sure there are other religions as well that hold to the same standards, but I'm probably unaware of them. " Firstly, if it is OK to "simply believe" in a god, is it any less OK to "simply believe" that a snake bite will be harmless, that a jump off a cliff will not kill you, at that this god you believe in wants you to kill infidels? Secondly, the last part of the statement is simply false. There is evidence of the past, of other persons and material objects. Believing in one of the thousand, contradictory deities in no way resembles that. In regards to the so called "problem of evidence" I think this is lapsing into hard solipsism, and as such a similar response is appropriate. How do we know we need evidence? The continued reliable results of assuming it as axiomatic. Just as we cannot know the objective Universe conforms with our subjective perception of it, the assumption that it does allows us to at least maintain the illusion that we are alive, uninjured and happy, and the assumption it doesn't leaves us at least seeimg to be dead!! Similarly the assumption that things for which there are evidence are true is borne out by our experience of this- the evidence that there is fuel in your car seems to inevitably lead to the result that your car runs. Do we know for sure that your car won't run forever without filling up occasionally? No. But there is evidence to the contrary and experience seems to show that that which is evidential closely conforms to our best model of reality. What practical things in your life do you actually act on absent evidence?