Seldom does an article so well reflect the core of my personal philosophy, and probably most others in this forum. All the while I was reading this, I kept saying to myself, "Holy shit, this guy nails it!" That beliefs without evidence have deep moral consequences for society, is probably indisputable by most everyone including the Baptist down the road. I cannot agree more, but the article caused me to think one level deeper, as I asked myself, "If this is true, and such a widely held philosophy exists, then why is the world still such a shit hole?"
While I'm in total agreement with this philosophy, what is not covered in the article is the problem of how we process evidence. Is it enough to say, "I heard it on the internet,", "I saw a Utube video about it,", "I believe it in my heart,", or, "There must be a god, because who else could create such beauty in Nature," sufficient processing?
Humans are not predisposed to processing evidence logically. It's much easier and therefore more satisfying to process evidence in a lazy slap hazard way, which can provide us with what we want, rather than help us understand what is, and that this sort of processing is what most people consider logical. While I write this, I'm starting to feel disappointed because such an inspiring philosophy, as wonderful as it is, barely scratches the surface of the issue.
This is a rather short read for such a profound thought, and maybe that's why I started reading with fire and finished feeling let down. I'm curious if others have the same reaction.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/believing-without-evidence-is-always-morally-wrong?utm_source=pocket-newtab