Is belief/non-belief a morally culpable state?

[childeye 2]

Did you even read what I wrote? Again:

I did and I do. I did not respond because it seemed to me that your mind was made up and I was not going to be understood.

childeye 2 said:
For what it's worth, it appears to me that you're wanting to establish the objective meaning of "reliable" which connotes a positive meaning. And Bradski is applying a subjective meaning that is objectively going to appear as a negative. So, For what it's worth I'd say you're both right.

zippy2006 said:
No, I am just pointing to the meaning: the thing you will find in dictionaries. One can argue about whether a source is reliable, but both parties know what 'reliable' means.

childeye 2 said:
I think he means to express a negative connotation indicating that in this case the reliable source actually means spinning the narrative to what someone wants to hear.

zippy2006 said:
A dictionary definition is neither positive nor negative. It is just a definition. It expresses meaning.

childeye 2 said:
The dictionary gives the objective meaning of 'reliable' which denotes a 'good' thing (a positive). That's why when we look up the word 'unreliable' it denotes a 'bad' thing (a negative).

zippy2006 said:
Reliability is reliability. Whether it is good or bad depends on context. The reliable doctor is good; the reliable dictator is bad.

'Reliable' is a descriptive word, so it will infer in the reverse when describing a negative noun. But, standing alone it does not carry a neutral connotation, it is positive.

I know the dictionary doesn't label the term 'reliable' as a positive or a negative. The dictionary must be objective though, and the objective meaning of the term standing alone denotes a positive.

Below the dictionary indicates that the objective meaning of reliable standing alone denotes a positive.



re·li·able
[rɪˈlʌɪəbl]
adjective
noun
reliable (adjective)

1. consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted:
   "a reliable source of information"
   

   Similar:​

   • dependable
     good
     well founded
     well grounded
     authentic
     definitive
     attested
     valid
     genuine
     from the horse's mouth
     sound
     true
     copper-bottomed
     trustworthy
     faithful
     devoted
     steady
     steadfast
     staunch
     unswerving
     unwavering
     constant
     loyal
     trusty
     dedicated
     committed
     unfailing
     infallible
     certain
     sure
     truthful
     honest
     safe
     fail-safe
     tried and tested
     well built
     reputable
     responsible
     established
     proven
     stable
     solid
     secure
     well engineered
     safe as houses
   • Opposite:
   • unreliable
     untrustworthy
     dodgy

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree with that.

I find that anything else...oh, hang on. Was that sarcasm? Haven't had a caffeine fix this morning yet.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree with you that it is possible your flat-earther may have been dishonest, but I think the social-psychological dynamics that Tali Shalot mentions in the following video (5 minutes) unfortunately have to be considered in the evaluation of our harboring expectations of another person's epistemic culpability here:

So, my earlier affirmation about the psychological presence of "locus of trust" plays a part in the extent/degree to which any one person is willing to adapt and/or adopt new information into his existing view of the world, even if that new information is in essence updated and completely accurate. Sometimes the locus of trust catalyzes a delusional state in a person; sometimes, though, that same relation with a trusted source simply causes a person to be hesitant to accept outside information, even though he or she intuits or understands that it is 'technically' correct.

Some of what I'm saying here should be already familiar to both of us since we both read (and trust) respective sources on neuro-science and psychology, or even evolutionary psychology. It also plays into how you prefer to listen to someone like Robert Sapolsky but I prefer to listen to someone like Malcolm A. Jeeves.

I agree with the points made in the video. Interestingly, at the the very end, she points out the concept of common ground which was mentioned upstream. In the case of vaccines and autism, don't argue that the one doesn't cause the other as you'll just end up throwing stats at each other. Just show a mother a picture of a kid with a severe case of measles and say that we both don't want this to happen to her child.

 

[Bradskii]

We would expect mathematicians and experimental scientists to be able to resolve whatever disagreements confront them. We would think that concluding those differences to be irresolvable as scandalous and intolerable. We also think that they are morally obligated to sustain their efforts to settle their disputes until they finally succeed in doing so.

However, if those scientists determine that the constraints imposed by the scientific method make resolution in there realm impossible then they must accept the conclusions offered by other realms of inquiry.

Very true. Bearing in mind that mathematicians can use proof as opposed to experimental scientists who can't. But if you have 98 scientists agree that in their opinion, the evidence points to one conclusion and 2 that say it points to an opposite conclusion, then which one are you going to go with?

This goes back to the flat earther in that I could prove to her satisfaction that a couple of claims that she made were wrong. So she ignored those and headed off in another direction.

 

[childeye 2]

Very true. Bearing in mind that mathematicians can use proof as opposed to experimental scientists who can't. But if you have 98 scientists agree that in their opinion, the evidence points to one conclusion and 2 that say it points to an opposite conclusion, then which one are you going to go with?

This goes back to the flat earther in that I could prove to her satisfaction that a couple of claims that she made were wrong. So she ignored those and headed off in another direction.

There's the saying that wise men love instruction, but fools despise correction.

 

[o_mlly]

There's the saying that wise men love instruction, but fools despise correction.

Like those fools named Galileo and Copernicus?

The ad populism fallacy is often invoked by those whose prejudices or emotions inhibit their ability to examine the evidence and use critical thinking.

 

[childeye 2]

Like those fools named Galileo and Copernicus?

childeye 2 said:
There's the saying that wise men love instruction, but fools despise correction.

I believe I get your point and that your question looks rhetorical. But I'd still like to answer the question as posed. First, I'd say no, that's not who I had in mind. As I see it, there is a nuance in the term wisdom that is more descriptive than knowledge. I believe the proverb is alluding to the foolishness of pride, as in feeling put down by others because others know more, or feeling lifted up when looking down upon others due their ignorance. Galileo or Copernicus certainly would have understood the proverb from their experiences and point of view, yet they still might not have been able to escape their own carnal vanity.

The ad populism fallacy is often invoked by those whose prejudices or emotions inhibit their ability to examine the evidence and use critical thinking.

I understand what you mean. People who know how to think critically, and who also understand why they need to be cautious about what they accept/believe as true, would not resort to populism.

While you're here, I'd like to get your view on something. Are you able to see how the following dichotomy is parsing opposite sentiments relative to that which is Truth? --> Knowledge/ignorance
To me it's self-evident, but others have claimed they don't understand or comprehend it.

And by the way, I'm not asking because I embrace populism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Very true. Bearing in mind that mathematicians can use proof as opposed to experimental scientists who can't. But if you have 98 scientists agree that in their opinion, the evidence points to one conclusion and 2 that say it points to an opposite conclusion, then which one are you going to go with?

This goes back to the flat earther in that I could prove to her satisfaction that a couple of claims that she made were wrong. So she ignored those and headed off in another direction.

So, the epistemic questions that remain and which it seems you may not be recognizing are: What epistemological influences motivated her to ignore what you had to say and head off in another direction? Could it be she perceived that your new set of evidence(s) would require the relinquishing of her central personal religious concerns and her locus of trust?

 

[Bradskii]

Could it be she perceived that your new set of evidence(s) would require the relinquishing of her central personal religious concerns and her locus of trust?

In short...yes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In short...yes.

Yes. But my point is that sometimes one certain line of thought can be relearned and seen from other, perhaps more accurate vantage point (or even a scientific one) without at the same time having by any necessity to relinquish one's central sphere of personal concerns.

I'm going to guess that the flat-earther you spoke to sees her Christian faith and what she thinks is the truth of it as fully dependent upon the earth being 'flat.'

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. But my point is that sometimes one certain line of thought can be relearned and seen from other, perhaps more accurate vantage point (or even a scientific one) without at the same time having by any necessity to relinquish one's central sphere of personal concerns.

I'm going to guess that the flat-earther you spoke to sees her Christian faith and what she thinks is the truth of it as fully dependent upon the earth being 'flat.'

Yes. She has fundamentalist beliefs which she obviously considers to be more important than facing facts.

It will always be a mystery to me.

 

[Meowzltov]

What is the relation between belief and moral culpability? Is it wrong to believe/not-believe certain things?

Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X? If so, how would we know when our investigation is sufficiently thorough?

I assume the answer may differ depending on the belief in question. Beliefs that lead to right/wrong actions will clearly have a moral component. But what about beliefs regarding evolution or that the earth is flat/spherical?

Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? I'm not sure that we do. Is it wrong to believe what is false?

Please avoid theological subjects such as whether one is morally culpable for belief/non-belief in God since such subjects are not allowed in this forum. I know that's a big ask, but I believe we can do it! Maybe I'm wrong in so believing, i.e., such a belief is false, but is it morally wrong for me to so believe?

I don't attach moral culpability to making honest mistakes. And not everyone is a scholar, so it is not reasonable to expect people to do extensive research. Finally, our minds are hardwired to tune out information that goes contrary to what we already think--confirmation bias is so strong that it's a wonder anyone ever changes their mind on anything.

 

[o_mlly]

While you're here, I'd like to get your view on something. Are you able to see how the following dichotomy is parsing opposite sentiments relative to that which is Truth? --> Knowledge/ignorance
To me it's self-evident, but others have claimed they don't understand or comprehend it.

Perhaps defining terms would be a good starting point:

• "Sentiment" belongs to the realm of emotions or feelings
• "Information" is our sentient perceptions of the universe
• "Knowledge" is information organized
• "Wisdom" is knowledge understood
• "Truth" is reality
• "Reality" is singular and independent of the thinking minds (except the mind of the Creator)

If you except these definitions then "sentiment" is an unreliable source in our search for truth.

 

[hedrick]

In the abstract the idea of culpable ignorance makes sense, but it's very hard to apply in practice. People quite commonly reject evidence against what they believe. Is this an honest mistake? I'm not so sure. But generally the pont of ethics is to guide people's behavior, and I'm not sure how useful this is going to be.

I think people who believe in inerrancy are culpably ignorant, but it's unlikely that this will have any effect on them. Is it an honest mistake when there's clear evidence available to all that they are wrong? But it's an idea they grew up with and all the Christians around them are telling them it's essential to Christianity. How much of a moral obligation do we have to try to look at evidence independent of our builtin biases? Is it even possible?

There is perhaps a limited use in law. There are people whose job requires them to take care. An auditor who fails to detect cheating beccause they didn't take standard steps to detect it would be culpably ignorant.

I read a book decades ago by a doctor (Nolan) who investigated faith healers. One section was on Katheryn Kulhman. He concluded that when you investigated the medical history of people who supposedly healed, she didn't actually heal them. But she thought she did. He thought her ignorance of how to tell the difference was probably morally culpable. I mean, if you're making public claims to work miracles, you should have some idea how to know whether something is miraculous or not. Is that reasonable?

God may say that all these people are culpably ignorant, but except perhaps for the auditor, it's not likely to help guide their decision-making.

 

[childeye 2]

Perhaps defining terms would be a good starting point:

• "Sentiment" belongs to the realm of emotions or feelings
• "Information" is our sentient perceptions of the universe
• "Knowledge" is information organized
• "Wisdom" is knowledge understood
• "Truth" is reality
• "Reality" is singular and independent of the thinking minds (except the mind of the Creator)

If you except these definitions then "sentiment" is an unreliable source in our search for truth.

Thank you for the time you spent in this response. I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics. <--- We all do this whenever we try to understand someone's expressed sentiments. To me you have expressed your sentiments above which reveal a predilection that feelings and emotions, sentiments, are primarily subjective opinion and unreliable as a source for truth. I would point out the 1+1=2 is an expressed sentiment of fact. Furthermore, I would contend that emotions like say kindness and compassion or the spirit of hope, or the spirit of joy are objectively real, and I don't think you would disagree.

So, for what it's worth, I might take issue with the articulations defining "information, knowledge and wisdom" but further questions would need to be asked to get a clear understanding.

However, I must disagree if you think that 'sentiment' is not an objective observable power in thought and words, and an unreliable source for truth, in that capacity. If I may point out, God's Word is a sentiment, the expression of His Person as Spirit. I believe coming to Know God is the most meaningful Truth to KNOW according to that which abides in the character of the soul.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The term God represents the Eternal power.
That which exists Eternally is why our present reality exists.
The Christ is the seed that contains the power to become the children of God.
For the above to be True then all of reality would testify to God as the Eternal power/energy.
This means reality would serve the purpose of experiencing the Eternal, which is experienced in sentiments that reveal spiritual/carnal, moral/immoral qualities in the fullness of that which is virtuous and the depravity thereof.

An example of knowledge in the moral/immoral context --> If the Eternal Power denotes incorruptible Love/compassion, then every lie and every falsehood in the moral/immoral paradigm would serve to undermine the following two commandments:

Love God with all your heart mind and soul and Love your neighbor as yourself.
He who loves his brother KNOWS GOD for God is brotherly Love.

Ephesians 3:19
And to KNOW the LOVE OF CHRIST, which surpasses knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

2Corinthians 4:5-7
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Below are all positive/negative dichotomies that represent qualities of Character along with the depravity. I'm asking if you are able to see how the following dichotomies are parsing opposite sentiments relative to that which is Truth? --> That which is and isn't the Eternal power. To me it's self-evident, but others have claimed they don't understand or comprehend it.

True/false, Knowledge/ignorance, Honesty/dishonesty, Moral/immoral, Faithful/faithless, Compassionate/uncompassionate, Reasonable/unreasonable, Heartful/heartless, Kindness/unkindness, Merciful/merciless, Goodness/wickedness, Gracious/disgraceful.

 

[timothyu]

He who loves his brother KNOWS GOD for God is brotherly Love

Simply put, it takes the focus away from self-interest , the original sin in the Garden

 

[o_mlly]

To me you have expressed your sentiments above which reveal a predilection that feelings and emotions, sentiments, are primarily subjective opinion and unreliable as a source for truth.

Does the truth (God) change? No. Do our sentiments change? Yes. The latter's mutability makes it unsuited to discover that which is immutable.

I would point out the 1+1=2 is an expressed sentiment of fact.

What is invented by one human mind can be wholly possessed by other human minds. One may, I suppose, "feel" a statement of fact is true but that feeling does not make it so.

As to God's mind, we can only know with certainty that which He deemed to reveal to us. We may be able to derive other truths via right reason based on those revelations but all else remains in the cloud of unknowing.

Furthermore, I would contend that emotions like say kindness and compassion or the spirit of hope, or the spirit of joy are objectively real, and I don't think you would disagree.

Our affections (or sentiments) determine our attitudes, and our attitudes determine our behaviors. Behaviors can be moral or immoral. Therefore, our sentiments (passions) can be ordered to God's or disordered.

 

[childeye 2]

Simply put, it takes the focus away from self-interest , the original sin in the Garden

You are consistent in articulating the simplicity of Christ as being a selfless love. You're showing this dichotomy selfless/selfish. The truth is simple, it's the lies that are more complex because they can submit a hidden premise that being selfless is good yet attribute that goodness to the creature rather than to the Creator.

When evaluating Eve's actions, the scriptures show that Eve was beguiled into doing what was NOT in her best interests, by making her think she could improve her station under God by obtaining knowledge.

 

[childeye 2]

Does the truth (God) change? No. Do our sentiments change? Yes. The latter's mutability makes it unsuited to discover that which is immutable.

The knowledge that we change testifies to God/gods. It's my experience that our sentiments change according to what we believe to be true. As we were enslaved to a false tyrant image crafted by the creature in a darkness of ignorance, then It's the Image that God is a self-sacrificing Love seen in the Christ crucified bearing and forgiving sin, that transforms mind, heart and soul through faith/trust. That is my testimony, which reiterates that we have this treasure in earthen vessels so that the excellency of the power is of God, and not of us. It's therefore necessary that our sentiments change according to what we believe to be true so that God's purpose will be realized.

What is invented by one human mind can be wholly possessed by other human minds. One may, I suppose, "feel" a statement of fact is true but that feeling does not make it so.

We may be talking past one another. I'm saying that knowing and stating that something factual is true, is an expressed sentiment. I'm not meaning to imply the sentiment makes the fact true. A fact would be able to change a sentiment as realized. It makes the sentiment true when there is conviction. It's the same as saying the sentiment expressed by the Eternal Truth is objectively True.

As to God's mind, we can only know with certainty that which He deemed to reveal to us. We may be able to derive other truths via right reason based on those revelations but all else remains in the cloud of unknowing.

The necessity of God revealing Himself to us is a crucial piece of knowledge hidden in the Gospel. This is exactly what I'm describing when I say I study semantics particular to psycholinguistics, the sentiments that are carried in words people use to express their thoughts do reveal whether that person reasons upon the knowledge that God is a revelation.

Our affections (or sentiments) determine our attitudes, and our attitudes determine our behaviors. Behaviors can be moral or immoral. Therefore, our sentiments (passions) can be ordered to God's or disordered.

I agree with this articulation. In my psycholinguistics I see morality as 'caring' how my actions affect others, and immorality is 'not caring' about how my actions affect others. Due to these opposing sentiments, I can see that caring is a real Spirit which empowers morality.

 

[timothyu]

When evaluating Eve's actions, the scriptures show that Eve was beguiled into doing what was NOT in her best interests, by making her think she could improve her station under God by obtaining knowledge

Which was a self-serving act, the original sin of putting man’s will ahead of God’s even though before and all through the bible He said otherwise.