No matter how crazy, wrong-headed or stupid people’s beliefs are, somebody always gets up and says. “Well, we have to give them credit for sincerity. At least they’re willing to standby what they believe.”

Are we to believe that sincerity is the virtue that nullifies all vices?

When I was little, I had a friend who believed she was going to heaven because her name was Mary. She believed this so charismatically that even I began to wonder how god could send someone to hell who has the same name as the mother of Jesus. (In another thread, we can discuss the cruelty of telling little seven year olds about hell.)

In the fourth grade, there was a boy in my class who believed with all his heart that he could fly like Superman. He believed so strongly that he was willing to act on his belief. Over the weekend he tied a towel around his neck like a cape, climbed up on his parent’s roof and jumped. Fortunately he wasn’t killed, but he tore a hole in his leg that went all the way to the bone.

Sincerity of belief, strength of belief, steadfastness of belief in no way justifies the content of belief. You can be sincerely wrong. If you find yourself on the wrong road, you wouldn’t stay on that road just so people can give you credit for steadfastness.

Hitler was very sincere.

I'm not sure I buy the premise.

I agree. At some point, sincerity turns into being irrationally stubborn in the face of contrary evidence. That kind of sincerity is dangerous.

I truly believe being prepared to question everything is the healthiest position.

Almost all psychotics are very sincere in their delusions. Even the non psychotic with delusions.

We don't have to believe in the delusion, just accept that they believe in it and hope it does then or others no harm.

My objection to Kim Davis and virtually all the rest is they could not possibly pass even the most lenient test of belief sincerity.

So, no offense to the TS, but huh ?

I suppose someone who isn't capable of realising they are wrong is "better" than someone who knows they are wrong but won't admit it. But it's not exactly a prestigious competition. I feel sympathy for the former, as they are a vulnerable person.

Any belief that is not supported by sufficient evidence is immoral.  Sincerity is simply a question of whether one really has a belief or not, and makes no difference for this.  For why I think that believing without sufficient evidence is immoral, you can read William Kingdon Clifford's essay "The Ethics of Belief" which can be found at:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

(September 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Sincerity of belief, strength of belief, steadfastness of belief in no way justifies the content of belief. You can be sincerely wrong.  If you find yourself on the wrong road, you wouldn’t stay on that road just so people can give you credit for steadfastness.

Yes, but not everyone is a preaching sanctimonious prick. Most people just believe and leave everyone else in peace. Not everyone is a Randy, so to speak and who am I to pester them?

And it doesn't take much of an instance of a heretical belief someone holds dear for me to ENTIRELY discount any other supposed religious sentiments that person might possess.

Screwing up on Genesis 2:7 would be close to top of that list. Mark 10:11 (etal) is right there too.

Sincerity is one of the easiest things to fake and therefore - irrelevant.