Belief without sufficient evidence is harmful

Hello. I want to thank my friend for providing a response - rather quickly I might add. I've had to give your response a deeper thinking. RebuttalsAs stated in my first round, each contention has a deeper level of complexity. Here, I'll be expanding each of my key points: "Forced and Avoidable option" and "The Problem with Evidence" and while simultaneously giving a rebuttal. Forced and Avoidable optionMy friend provided his opinion that "The idea of forced options seems to be applicable to things like split-second decisions... thought I was going to hit it!!" For clarification, while this might be one definition of the word "forced" as anyone can see I gave the explicit definition when in the context of belief, in the first round: "no possibility of not choosing". This doesn't advert to just "just split-second decisions" but in fact, you basically must choose a side. Fabio Lambert at Saint Benedicts College recognizes this and writes, "An option is forced when there is no possibility of suspension of judgment; that is, where only two excluding hypotheses are available, and not to choose is the same as choosing one of them. On this case, not believing p is the same as believing not p. If someone tells you: “believe or perish”, you either believe or don’t. If you simply ignore it, then you just don’t believe." [1] Additionally, I'd argue my opponents' example about "swerve or brake" is objectively invalid; namely, because it's irrelevant when we're talking in the context of faith and belief. As for my friend's argument about genuine option "momentous," I don't really understand their point in the first sentence. It's worded funny so I'll let you clarify in the second round. The quote stated by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is somewhat funny but also irrelevant. Many biblical scholars along with scientific adequates have disagreed with this quote for years! The problem with this quote is that Sagan never explained what an "extraordinary" claim is; therefore it is subject to scrutiny. Noted philosopher, Timothy Fox, writes "If an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary kind of evidence, then shouldn’t the extraordinary evidence also require an extraordinary explanation to support it, and so on? We’re stuck in an infinite regress, which makes the skeptic’s request impossible." [4] Additionally, William Craig says if we follow Sagan's logic we'd have to rule out all sorts of claims we behold to be the truth. [2] In a debate, Willaim Craig provides an example against Sagan's logic, "In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, for example, this means that we must also ask, “What is the probability of the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, if the resurrection had not occurred?” It is highly, highly, highly, improbable that we should have that evidence if the resurrection had not occurred." [3] Another great example, is the universe coming into existence uncaused from nothing and the existence of the multiverse are both extraordinary claims. Do atheists have extraordinary evidence to support them? Yet somehow those claims are less extraordinary than there being a God who caused the Big Bang and brought our finely-tuned universe into existence. [5] And lastly, I would just like to say that Carl Sagan died a Christian; which is a belief. As for my opponents comments about the option "Live", I agree with them. I would actually concede that a person should "withhold" both ideals "until evidence is presented making one more likely.""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!"Your arguement is interesting, although I do have some issues with it. To address your question and statement, James states that "To avoid error" is the counsel of fear, and we might not see the truth because of it - even if is necessary, for us to see it, to believe upon insufficient evidence. [6] As for the Pascal Wager remark, I disagree with your statement that it's been "debunked." Pascal is assuming that there are no good arguments for God's existence but by the same token no good arguments against God's existence. [8] Wager formulated this arguement so that each side is equal; so regardless of evidence, the decision is morally based on your values and needs (pragmatically). In fact, many theologians use this arguement against atheists and often win. For your last few sentences, I'd argue that God judges us on what we know, not on what we don't. God judges everyone impartially. I'd recommend looking in Romans for more details. "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."The problem I have with this arguement is that you are giving examples based on the social impact of a belief. Willaim Craig argues, that you cannot judge the truth [belief] "of a worldview by its social impact; that's just irrelevant." [9] The problem is that we all know objective morals and values do exist, and each religion distinguishes what values and morals they behold. For example, the Bible has the 'Ten Commandments'. To prove this, Craig further argues, "In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of objective moral goods and evils. Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They are moral abominations. Similarly, love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good, but then it follows logically and necessarily that God exists." [10]"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."No. It's not. You are trying to compare something (snake bites) - which has evidence that it can harm you, to something (religion) - which doesn't have any real proof yet. There's no correlation, your arguement is illogically invalid. As for your second statement, could you provide some religions which all reside in the past, other persons, and material objects? The Problem with EvidenceTo begin, I have absolutely no respect for "Solipsists". Your whole arguement highlights my entire point - that asking for evidence after evidence is just ludicrous. Your example about "fuel" and "cars" also highlights my point. Your conclusion on the example isn't a conclusion because I can still ask, "what type of experience?" As for your last question: Well, one example is I pray. Some people might consider this a judgment based on "absence of evidence" but I don't honestly. CitationsCitations will be in comments.