Is Belief in God ethical?

[Whateverist]

If there is an emoji for ham fisting (where is Vorlon when you need him?) may I suggest that Vulcan have it appended to his username much as Last Poet and his gang of jerkoffs wear their emoji?

[vulcanlogician]

You have good ideas.

Really?   Where?

He actually does have good ideas. The most recent example is his YouTube video which claims that an idea of objective truth requires an all-knowing God. He is wrong, of course, in my view and (let's face it) in your view. But he nonetheless makes a keen observation about the fallibility of truth in a godless universe. Stuff like that prompted me to say that MK sometimes has good ideas.

---

If there is an emoji for ham fisting (where is Vorlon when you need him?) may I suggest that Vulcan have it appended to his username much as Last Poet and his gang of jerkoffs wear their emoji?

Are you saying I'm some kind of hamfister?

---

Word of warning: don't ever search the word "hamfister" on google. (Oh, the horror... the horror.)

---

[no one]

Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. 

[Whateverist]

If there is an emoji for ham fisting (where is Vorlon when you need him?) may I suggest that Vulcan have it appended to his username much as Last Poet and his gang of jerkoffs wear their emoji?

Are you saying I'm some kind of hamfister?

---

Word of warning: don't ever search the word "hamfister" on google. (Oh, the horror... the horror.)

---

Oh MG! I swear you will be taking over for Vorlon in terms tempting people to look up things which once
seen can never be unseen.





For those others who cannot resist looking up ham-fister, here you go. Don't say he didn't warn us.

---

Urban Dictionary: ham-fister
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p...ham-fister
Someone who drives with the fingers of one hand gripped into a fist at the 12 o' clock position of the steering wheel of any vehicle.

---

[vulcanlogician]

Are you saying I'm some kind of hamfister?

---

Word of warning: don't ever search the word "hamfister" on google. (Oh, the horror... the horror.)

---

Oh MG!  I swear you will be taking over for Vorlon in terms tempting people to look up things which once
seen can never be unseen.  

If you actually typed "hamfister" into google and were subsequently disturbed, you can't blame me for that. I was just making a joke because the letters f-i-s-t were in the word. And, you know, fist+porn=disturbing images.

[Dr H]

 If you willfully deny the truth, are you morally responsible for that?

Yes:  we are always to some extent morally responsible for what we do willfully.

Religion, per se, isn't necessarily a willful denial of the truth, however.  One might be ignorant of the truth.  One might believe that various religious precepts are the truth.  

There might be a certain laziness involved there:  e.g., one may not have overly concerned oneself with attempting to test that which is regarded as true.  The moral responsibility in that case is determined by how willfully one avoids searching for or testing that believed to be true.  Some questions dispose themselves to being tested freely; others may rarely come up in a lifetime.  If it never occurred to someone that a particular belief needed to be -- or even could be -- tested, I'd have a hard time putting much moral weight on their circumstantial ignorance.

[GrandizerII]

IMO:

Belief in God is not necessarily unethical, but it's not really ethical either.

Is belief in God intellectual laziness or a delusion? Not necessarily. We all have varying metaphysical intuitions, and some of us find God metaphysically very intuitive, while others find the universe having always existed intuitive, and some others just don't find either intuitive. Depends on the level of conviction one has regarding their beliefs, the specific doctrines they hold, how badly contradicted their beliefs are by what we clearly see within this reality, and how open they are to having their worldview adjusted in light of new evidence or better logic.

[bennyboy]

It seems to me that faith which leads to action is likely to benefit most people greatly. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

I'd say the ethical problem is in binding unwilling participants to your own acts of faith, where logic indicates that danger is involved. People shouldn't be allowed to do this.

[vulcanlogician]

It seems to me that faith which leads to action is likely to benefit most people greatly.  "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

I'd say the ethical problem is in binding unwilling participants to your own acts of faith, where logic indicates that danger is involved.  People shouldn't be allowed to do this.

Your post reminds me of a counterargument to Clifford offered by William James in his essay "The Will to Believe." James argues that faith works much by the same mechanics as "nothing ventured, nothing gained." But he asserts this carefully. He is quick to point out that one's personal religious revelation is best imposed upon oneself; it is misguided and wrongheaded to impose it upon others.