Is belief/non-belief a morally culpable state?

Meowzltov said:

I am no friend of Paul. But in this instance I think he is simply being human. When a particular perception is common, most people will jump to the conclusion that everyone experiences it this way.

Click to expand...

I've read the rest of that chapter. He's pretty .. um.. horrible ... (I think I can use that one) ... in that passage. I have other thoughts about the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, but I'd like to maintain my access to this site so I will not write them down.

public hermit said:

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?

Click to expand...

I have been wrestling with this as well after having discussions on the line between methodology and epistemics and metaphysics.

I think there is an ethics for epistemics. Especially with supporting objective facts. Especially if a person is making claims and arguements. Even knowing the opposing beliefs and views.

But I also think that metaphysical beliefs can influence how people see the facts.

I think the only way anyone could sort all this out is to have some sort of epistemic rules that we all agreed on. For example laws of logic. No misrepresentations or logical fallacies. Fact checking ect as theres a lot of misinformation out there.

I think morals and epistemics are a seperate domain but are linked to establishing proper belief. Pershpas more like epistemic morals.

I think good supported arguments that can support a belief as a proper and reasonable belief to hold are possible even for the non factual aspects such as testimony and experiential aspects that are not always directly evidenced by the objective facts.

I don't thing we have truely destingusihed the line between the objective and subjective as far as what is believable.

stevevw said:

I have been wrestling with this as well after having discussions on the line between methodology and epistemics and metaphysics.

I think there is an ethics for epistemics. Especially with supporting objective facts. Especially if a person is making claims and arguements. Even knowing the opposing beliefs and views.

But I also think that metaphysical beliefs can influence how people see the facts.

I think the only way anyone could sort all this out is to have some sort of epistemic rules that we all agreed on. For example laws of logic. No misrepresentations or logical fallacies. Fact checking ect as theres a lot of misinformation out there.

I think morals and epistemics are a seperate domain but are linked to establishing proper belief. Pershpas more like epistemic morals.

I think good supported arguments that can support a belief as a proper and reasonable belief to hold are possible even for the non factual aspects such as testimony and experiential aspects that are not always directly evidenced by the objective facts.

I don't thing we have truely destingusihed the line between the objective and subjective as far as what is believable.

Click to expand...

A lot of this discussion turns on the idea that beliefs are “subjective,” but that isn’t quite right. Some beliefs have predictable and measurable social consequences, and that’s where morality/immorality and epistemic responsibility overlap.

For example, presuming someone guilty without evidence isn’t a personal preference or a metaphysical opinion. It has factual negative effects. For example, it increases false accusations, erodes trust, encourages fear‑based reasoning, and justifies harmful actions on the basis of ignorance. In contrast, presuming innocence until there is evidence of guilt is the more reasonable. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of how unfounded beliefs affect real people.

So yes, some beliefs carry moral weight because they are tied to epistemic norms. If a more thorough investigation would show that X is false, and X is the kind of belief that can harm others or justify harmful behavior, then there is a responsibility to investigate.

So I don’t think the line between objective and subjective is as blurry as it seems. When a belief has the potential to harm others, the standards for holding it responsibly become higher. And in those cases, presuming innocence without evidence isn’t just a moral preference, it’s the epistemically reasonable stance.

public hermit said:

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?

Click to expand...

I dont think anyone can choose to believe or not believe anything. They either do, or they don't.

Oompa Loompa said:

I dont think anyone can choose to believe or not believe anything. They either do, or they don't.

Click to expand...

We have to believe something to reason. Knowledge has to precede ignorance so that it can be learned.

childeye 2 said:

A lot of this discussion turns on the idea that beliefs are “subjective,” but that isn’t quite right. Some beliefs have predictable and measurable social consequences, and that’s where morality/immorality and epistemic responsibility overlap.

For example, presuming someone guilty without evidence isn’t a personal preference or a metaphysical opinion. It has factual negative effects. For example, it increases false accusations, erodes trust, encourages fear‑based reasoning, and justifies harmful actions on the basis of ignorance. In contrast, presuming innocence until there is evidence of guilt is the more reasonable. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of how unfounded beliefs affect real people.

Click to expand...

Though I agree. What about when someone persues another person they believe the evidence shows guilt. Yet the evidence was a matter of opinion. For example when people target someone because they believe they are guilty of descrimination. When they were merely expressing a religious belief. Some people say simply beleiving that SSM is wrong are descriminating against SS couples.

childeye 2 said:

So yes, some beliefs carry moral weight because they are tied to epistemic norms. If a more thorough investigation would show that X is false, and X is the kind of belief that can harm others or justify harmful behavior, then there is a responsibility to investigate.

Click to expand...

Such as the example above. If someone denies a SS couple in making them a wedding cake because their belief does not allow them to create a celebration cake of a SSM. The SS couple could make a case of descrimination. The Christian can make a case that he cannot go against his religious belief.

This is where two beliefs clash around social norms. The norm may support SSM but the Christian has a right to not celebrate such norms.

childeye 2 said:

So I don’t think the line between objective and subjective is as blurry as it seems. When a belief has the potential to harm others, the standards for holding it responsibly become higher. And in those cases, presuming innocence without evidence isn’t just a moral preference, it’s the epistemically reasonable stance.

Click to expand...

But what if a case can be made that both beliefs can be harmful. Denying the SS couple a wedding cake and denying a Christian their right ro follow their conscience and belief.

stevevw said:

Though I agree. What about when someone persues another person they believe the evidence shows guilt. Yet the evidence was a matter of opinion. For example when people target someone because they believe they are guilty of descrimination. When they were merely expressing a religious belief. Some people say simply beleiving that SSM is wrong are descriminating against SS couples.

Such as the example above. If someone denies a SS couple in making them a wedding cake because their belief does not allow them to create a celebration cake of a SSM. The SS couple could make a case of descrimination. The Christian can make a case that he cannot go against his religious belief.

This is where two beliefs clash around social norms. The norm may support SSM but the Christian has a right to not celebrate such norms.

But what if a case can be made that both beliefs can be harmful. Denying the SS couple a wedding cake and denying a Christian their right ro follow their conscience and belief.

Click to expand...

What, though, is really "religious belief?" Particularly, what is our religious belief?

I'm a portrait photographer, and this is a discussion I've had for years with other Christian portrait and wedding photographers, which is even more pertinent for us than it is to a baker, because we are putting even more personal imagination and effort into the process.

One photographer put it this way: "I make it clear in my marketing that I an Christian. It's in my speech, it's in my products. Anyone who inquires to my services will know that. If they still come to me knowing that, then I believe the Lord has placed them into my path for His reasons, and I won't change what I do, but I'll do them even more robustly. I might not be there for them, I might be there for someone adjacent to them who needs to hear me praise God when I get a good shot."

stevevw said:

Though I agree. What about when someone persues another person they believe the evidence shows guilt. Yet the evidence was a matter of opinion. For example when people target someone because they believe they are guilty of descrimination. When they were merely expressing a religious belief. Some people say simply beleiving that SSM is wrong are descriminating against SS couples.

Such as the example above. If someone denies a SS couple in making them a wedding cake because their belief does not allow them to create a celebration cake of a SSM. The SS couple could make a case of descrimination. The Christian can make a case that he cannot go against his religious belief.

This is where two beliefs clash around social norms. The norm may support SSM but the Christian has a right to not celebrate such norms.

But what if a case can be made that both beliefs can be harmful. Denying the SS couple a wedding cake and denying a Christian their right ro follow their conscience and belief.

Click to expand...

There are situations where it's impossible to not offend someone. The gay couple lost that case. Ironically, the baker could've said, "it's my political stance" and it would have been legal to discriminate on that basis.

childeye 2 said:

There are situations where it's impossible to not offend someone. The gay couple lost that case. Ironically, the baker could've said, "it's my political stance" and it would have been legal to discriminate on that basis.

Click to expand...

Yeah I think its a mind field of controversy. With this type of identity politics no one ever wins. Its always one against another.

Its a spiritual war of belief and the truth will be according to that belief. Two beliefs about how the world is fighting each other.

But the important destinction is that the culture war in which this happens is about the world and not Gods Kingdom on earth. Its about how the world should be ordered. What is truth and peace within the world according to the world. Whereas Christs truth and peace is not of this world.

RDKirk said:

What, though, is really "religious belief?" Particularly, what is our religious belief?

I'm a portrait photographer, and this is a discussion I've had for years with other Christian portrait and wedding photographers, which is even more pertinent for us than it is to a baker, because we are putting even more personal imagination and effort into the process.

One photographer put it this way: "I make it clear in my marketing that I an Christian. It's in my speech, it's in my products. Anyone who inquires to my services will know that.

Click to expand...

Yes like any art or even occupation or vocation that a Christian does will be through God as everything they are is through God. Even small things like how one takes care of their own environment or finances. Or at least should be and is part of belief in God.

I think that is part of the hypocracy. That those who have alternative beliefs will demand respect and understanding of the intimacies of their belief. While completely detaching all this from Christian belief. Like its a purposely chosen opposition that they should not have. As though it was only chosen to oppose and therefore has no ligitimate status.

But then I guess some could say the same about some Christians who overstep the mark and push their belief while not fully understanding where the other person is coming from. Not that they agree but that they detached from their experiences.

RDKirk said:

If they still come to me knowing that, then I believe the Lord has placed them into my path for His reasons, and I won't change what I do, but I'll do them even more robustly. I might not be there for them, I might be there for someone adjacent to them who needs to hear me praise God when I get a good shot."

Click to expand...

Yes thats a good way to look at it. You never know how God works. All I know is I don't think a confrontation will help. Each side going to their corners ready to fight out their differences to the end. At least not personally.

The law will sort out most cases and if not then this is up to God. But no one can take the law into their own hands.

I think or hope that most people may be open to reason and empathetic. Appealing to commonsense and being Christlike such as loving your enermy. Hopefully this can help other people see that they are accepted regardless of the differences in morals or beliefs.

Otherwise it is what it is. If you choose not to abide because of your belief then that is ok. If you choose to make an effort because you believe it is still honoring God in that you are showing love despite differences with an aim to hopefully win hearts to God. Then how could someone deny that belief.

Belief is such a hard thing sometimes to know exactly. But I do think in the end the fruits will bear what is Gods way or not.

Certainly there is a real spiritual war going on and some are going out of their way to make it hard for Christians as deep doown it is about God and who is God of this world and over individuals.

All I know is that in these times when its hard then the only clear example is Christ. What would Christ do. Remembering that for the most part it was Christs example and not His words or political position that stood out and done the talking.

So when He did say something it was seen as truth because He lived that truth. But He lived that truth first and that was enough. He did not need to engage in any social or political squabbles because He was not even about that world. He offered another way.

stevevw said:

Yeah I think its a mind field of controversy. With this type of identity politics no one ever wins. Its always one against another.

Its a spiritual war of belief and the truth will be according to that belief. Two beliefs about how the world is fighting each other.

But the important destinction is that the culture war in which this happens is about the world and not Gods Kingdom on earth. Its about how the world should be ordered. What is truth and peace within the world according to the world. Whereas Christs truth and peace is not of this world.

Click to expand...

In the semantic taxonomy I use, 'agape' is the semantic primitive. The image of sacrificing self for others is the positive pole and the image of sacrificing others for self is the negative pole. The subjective left/right spin is the law vs grace.

childeye 2 said:

In the semantic taxonomy I use, 'agape' is the semantic primitive. The image of sacrificing self for others is the positive pole and the image of sacrificing others for self is the negative pole. The subjective left/right spin is the law vs grace.

Click to expand...

This is a interesting insight. I understood the fundemental issue was spiritual. But as you frame it its like the Christ and AntiChrist positive and negative pole.

Like a inherent opposite nature. You either have Christs nature or you have the AntiChrist nature when it comes down to it.

Christ even mentions this opposite pole when He said Matthew 12:30 (and its parallel, Luke 11:23): "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters".

And division and scattering is exactly what we are seeing.

Because the world scatters Christ truth among substitutions or the belief that there is no single truth.

stevevw said:

Because the world scatters Christ truth among substitutions or the belief that there is no single truth.

Click to expand...

Consider that instead of spreading Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom, God's ultimate defeat of adversity, man went out and converted the world to a religion instead. How typically human.