Is Belief in God ethical?

[vulcanlogician]

I'm no anti-theist. I tend to have a "live and let live" attitude concerning religion (so long as it isn't influencing politics, protecting pedophiles, placing itself in science classrooms, indoctrinating children, endorsing bigotry toward gays... etc. etc. etc.) But otherwise, if people are just saying prayers, chanting mantras, or "blessing" things, I (generally) don't have a problem with it. Philosopher W.K. Clifford disagrees with this sentiment. He argues that religious belief is a denial of the facts, and he explores the moral dimension of such fact denial. Clifford's argument: If a willful denial of the facts should ever result (directly or indirectly) in the harm of another, the denier of such facts is morally culpable for the injuries sustained.

What's your opinion on this? Is it unethical to believe? Clifford's argument is that knowledge of the facts empowers one to make better moral decisions. Therefore, denial of the facts amounts to moral negligence.

A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales. 

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf

[Mystic]

Lying to yourself is condemned. If we don't know God exists, it's wrong to believe in Him. And it's wrong to build faith on other vision of God and build faith in a religion based on other then proofs.

If there is no God, then it's wrong to make a concept of God. However, since morality and God go together, then believing in morality in linked to believing in God. I realized I was in paradox when I was telling myself I don't know if morality is real or an illusion, and I was trying to be morally authentic in that search, it's paradoxical, if there is no morality, there is no need to be authentic, and I already realized then if there is no God, there is no real morality. So I realized I was confused, and then clarification happened, and I realized the degree we are linked to God is by a living connection, not a conceptual code of morality, not conceptual programming of morality, but his word of light is his breath of life that he breathes creation to know him and they make use of his light day and day out.

So to me, it would be wrong to believe in God and morality if you don't know they are true, but at the same time, morality fails, so it's paradox, and so I picked it all existing, and didn't choose by the praise of God to succumb to nihilism.

[vulcanlogician]

Mk... please... less dogma, more epistemology/ethics. If you willfully deny the truth, are you morally responsible for that? (In your case I'd recommend considering the argument apart from whether God exists or not.)

[Bahana]

I wouldn't say it is unethical on it's own. The promotion of believing extraordinary claims based on faith is the biggest danger I see from popular religious beliefs.

[Mystic]

Mk... please... less dogma, more epistemology/ethics. If you willfully deny the truth, are you morally responsible for that? (In your case I'd recommend considering the argument apart from whether God exists or not.)

Building on conjecture is condemned. We have a duty towards holding to truth individually and collectively.  If God isn't known, it's wrong to believe in Him. If a religion doesn't have proofs, it's wrong to believe in it.

In fact, anything we believe in and collectively unite on (any dogma), has to have proof.

And we especially have to have proof of what morality is. We can't just say it's a biological program in the mind and get away with it, by conjecture.

Whatever we unite on,  there has to be no doubt concerning it, and it has to be build on solid proofs.

As for as lying to yourself, if you convince yourself you know something you don't, truth becomes on par with falsehood, and you are bound to be confused. Aside from collectively needing to unite on truth, it's wrong individually to confuse yourself between what you know and what you don't.

[no one]

I would not say it's unethical or even that it's negligent, plenty of godders would do the right thing if a life or death situation. With that being said, you are clearly delusional if you think you are the right hand of said god, doling out its justice.

[vulcanlogician]

@MK
Dude, your heart is in the right place... exactly the right place. But your philosophical positions need refinement. For one, you need to stop answering questions with dogma. And you need to stop considering those who promote atheism as deceivers. Many atheists are committed to discovering the truth--as much as (if not more than) you. Food for thought.

[Mystic]

@MK
Dude, your heart is in the right place... exactly the right place. But your philosophical positions need refinement. For one, you need to stop answering questions with dogma. And you need to stop considering those who promote atheism as deceivers. Many atheists are committed to discovering the truth--as much as (if not more than) you. Food for thought.

I proved it individually - we get confused by what we know and what we don't, then truth becomes the same as falsehood.   We can't really know anything for real, if we believe in falsehood to the same degree as the truth we believe in and should be certain of.

I proved it collectively - we ought to unite on truth. Building on fantasy and falsehood is wrong, building on lies will not guide people aright and will not make us real with reality as is.

God is no exception to the rule. If he doesn't exist, then it's upon us to unite and build society, without his help. And if he exists, it's upon us to find his guides and his rope and help on earth.

There is two different outcomes. If God doesn't exist, religions should be ignored. If God exists, they should be studied.

As for Atheists, and Theists, we aren't discussing their ethical place. I've clarified many times, I consider most humans to be seekers of truth, including Atheists, including you guys, and even those afflicted with mocking God's signs, they need a level of proof of clear miracles, before I will call them disbelievers. And even then, they should be given some time, to digest what they saw, before being called disbelievers who never believe and are firm in not accepting any proofs.

[Angrboda]

I would agree that a degree of moral responsibility follows from willful denial of the truth which leads to bad consequences, but I wouldn't characterize religious belief as willful denial of the truth. Reckless disregard, maybe, but not willful denial, and even then I'm doubtful.

[no one]

Why does the almighty give two shits about the cosmic Paramecium that is the human being?