Belief without sufficient evidence is harmful

I wish you good luck, and I hope we can reach a conclusion by the end of this discussion. Willaim James, argues against the work of William Clifford and discusses five (I'll be addressing two for brevity) instances/problems where a belief can be held without sufficient evidence: "Forced and Avoidable option" and the "problem with evidence". As explored by James, each of these contentions contains deeper levels of complexity which cannot be fully explored here; all citations will be listed below (or in comments if I run out of space) and you can look into the arguments further if you wish. Below is a basic consideration of each contention. Forced and Avoidable optionIn many scientific cases, we often allude to the fact "evidence is always needed. " However, James asserts that our beliefs are followed by consequences and that there are circumstances in which it is better to act than not, even the action itself not being based upon sufficient evidence. When this happens we’re facing hypotheses, and we must evaluate which one of them is the best option. [1] Initially, James calls this the "genuine option" which is based on the following principles: forced, momentous, and live. Forced - an option for which there is "no possibility of not choosing" [2]Momentous - an "option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later proves unwise" [3]Live - "a living option is one in which both hypotheses are live ones" [4]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. 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]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. The Problem with EvidenceAdapting off James first argument, he later introduces the problems with evidence, i. e it leads to self-contradictions and infinite regression. James states, "What is the evidence for the belief that all beliefs require evidence? " [7] He calls this the 'incoherence problem. " Some people call this the 'why-regress', because whatever you do "you can still ask why. " [8] Paul Copan expands this and writes, "What evidence can you give that all beliefs require evidence? This is like saying, “If you cannot prove something scientifically, you cannot know it. ” This prompts us to ask: “How do you know this? How can you scientifically prove that all beliefs must be scientifically provable? ” [9] This example shows that you get into the contradicting, confusing, and most importantly, logically invalid conclusions. However, James and many theologians tell us that evidence is "important" and "valuable", but insisting on evidence has its limits. ConclusionIn conclusion, I've given a philosophical view that was adapted from William James and provided evidence that sufficient evidence isn't needed for any belief. I will be intrigued by my opponents rebuttal. Citations1. . https://commons.pacificu.edu...;2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;3. Ibid4. Ibid5. . https://commons.pacificu.edu...;6. Reason and belief in God. ” In Faith and Rationality. University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, third edition, pp. 16-93. 7. . http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org...8. . http://philosophycommons.typepad.com...;9. . http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org...;10. James, W. The Will to Believe and Other Essays. New York, Longmans, Green, 1897.