Amazon.com Widgets

Is it justified to believe something as truth without evidence?

Asked by: Yarowold
  • A belief is a belief.

    If you believe something, no one can take that away from you, as it's your own belief. What's unjustified is when someone makes a claim to provide proof, but then can't give any. This can be said of both theists and atheists. If you make a claim that God exists, you should be able to provide proof for that, but you won't be able to because God is not subject to any scientific proof. If you make the claim that God doesn't exist, then you'll have to provide proof for why not, and this will go in an indefinite circle. But if someone believes something and simply says that it's their belief, no one can really challenge that because that's a belief from their perspective and not anyone else's. It's when people attack each other and compare each other's beliefs, fighting for who's is best, that's when we have problems in this area.

  • Yes because it a belief not fact.

    I could believe that dinosaurs still exist because I simply want to but could I convince anyone else? I think that there are a lot of things that you have to believe in without solid evidence. That is why there is a thing called trust and faith. I am not saying that you should never want to seek evidence but it is okay. How could you have evidence that someone loves you the first time they say it? You have to take their word for it and see that they prove it through actions.

  • Especially if there is also no evidence that it isn't true

    When you look at belief like faith in God, there may be nothing that people count as solid evidence, but there is just as little evidence that it isn't true.

    It takes just as much of a leap of faith to believe as it does to not believe in most cases.

  • Everyone has their own truth

    Everyone can have their own truths. But they cannot have their own facts. Truth is a matter of perception of what the facts are. This does not mean perceptions are correct by any means. This is why the "truth" answers "why" questions. Accordingly truth can be justified without evidence. In some cases "truth" is arrived at by what people perceive as reality. Versus the facts will always remain the same whether we are capable of finding it or not.

  • Depends on what you mean by evidence?

    Believing something is a personal choice, often based on personal experience, or supported by the views of others whom we trust, also based on personal experience.
    The acceptance of the existence of 'evidence' to support a belief depends on whether or not the 'evidence' is perceived as reliable, and supports what it claims to support. Evidence is, therefore, not about opinion, but about fact. But not everyone can agree on what sort of facts are acceptable as evidence.
    So it is possible to believe things without evidence because no generally agreeable evidence exists - but personal experience does.

  • Where there is a will there is a way ...

    The will to do something and the belief in doing it is a very powerful combination. Don't believe someone else when they tell you, you cannot do it - the evidence is in the future and they have no evidence of it becoming true. It is your experience and future, not theirs.

  • Sure it is...

    Believing something could be true even before being presented with definitive evidence of the truth has led mankind to many of its greatest discoveries. There are things that exist that I cannot explain myself, or even provide physical evidence of---but the do exist.

    That said, believing something to be true without evidence and attempting to force that belief upon others without proof are two entirely separate things.

    Posted by: Tink
  • It can be

    If we could only be justified in believing things as long as we can infer them from evidence, then it would be impossible to ever know anything because it would lead to an infinite regress. The only way knowledge is even possible is if it's possible to be justified in believing some things without evidence. And it seems to me there are a few obvious items of knowledge we all have that we don't infer from anything. For example, when you feel pain, you know you feel pain just because you're feeling it. You don't infer that you're feeling pain from anything prior. The knowledge is immediate and incorrigible.

  • I am disappointed

    I'm honestly too appalled to think right now. The majority saying it's fine to believe something just because? I thought that people's egos might at least get in the way of their ignorance! But no, the world isn't just full of ignorant people, ironically, it's full of people who are ignorant and proud of it! How can you sleep at night knowing you're denying facts!? Obviously at this point you've probably pin-pointed me as an atheist and I am taking a bit of anger out on theists. I apologize, sometimes it's maddening however, trying to understand the mind of a theist, being comfortable denying scientific truths, those shoes just don't fit these feet and they never will. I'm glad for you if you are a theist, it must be nice "knowing" a god loves you and you'll have a place to go after death. I'm not so much against believing something without evidence because I don't like the concept, as much as I'm literally incapable of it. I can't live with myself like that. To each his own I suppose. Cheers.

  • That would being lying to yourself and diluting your mind

    Believing something just for the sake of believing it and knowing that it is unproven is doing a disservice to yourself. It is like some form of advanced gullibility, where you continue to believe a lie even after you have been given 100 reasons to not believe it, and your only response is "It's just my belief." Why? Why is it your belief? Because you're an idiot? If you can not logically explain why you believe in something, that thing is not worth believing in.

  • Curiosity of Truth

    If you want to take faith on things then it's fine but never say that's justifiable because taking it on faith is the exact opposite of being justified.

    Nobody want's to believe things without evidence, we always want to base our views and positions on a ground of evidence, that way you're comfortable with arguing you reasons however you can't argue your positions on the basis of faith.

    So assuming it's justifiable to accept something as true without any evidence is the acceptance of ignorance, which is not justifiable as an argument.

  • Of course not.

    No one would really believe it if I said that invisible gnomes affected our minds, without any evidence to support that claim. In most areas we need confirmation before making a big decision or information of which of the two buttons accelerates a nuclear meltdown and which stops it. But in other areas, the same principles doesn't seem to apply.

    It could also be potentially dangerous and gullible to trust anything you hear, just because it could make "sense" or feels good. One needs to think critically before believing, otherwise it increases the risk for mistakes and the spread of misinformation.

  • Truth : that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

    The literal definition of "truth" is that which is accordance with fact. If you believe something without facts or evidence, it's not true at all. It's a delusion. Without real evidence or facts an opinion means nothing. If someone blatantly refuse facts based on their beliefs they are deluded plain and simple.

  • The key word here is justified

    Is it justified to believe something as truth without evidence? Justified, if defined as a good or legitimate reason. Then the answer is no! Anyone can believe anything they want with no reason but they are not justified. There are many people in all religions who profess faith in a god. They are free to do that but they are not justified. To be justified you need proof or it just looks like gullibility.

  • Why would it make sense to do that?

    If someone asked you to trust them without any explanation and then stated giving you simple tasks that seemed to lead up to something with no explanation would you do it? If I made a statement that you couldn't definitively tell was true or false and I gave no reasoning would you believe it? What makes sense about full-heartedly believing something with no proof? If there was a pit and you couldn't see the bottom and someone said don't worry it's safe to jump and encouraged you to and said that it was just dark water and that's why you couldn't see the bottom would you believe them and do it? I mean sure to get through daily life in a functional way you at least have to make some assumptions but I can't prove that you really exist so I don't fully believe you do, that doesn't mean for the convience of it that I won't assume you are or say that you are. But I just can't imagine why you would except something as fact with no proof.

  • Absolutely not. This is a no-brainer

    If i say i believe there are mountain goats on venus, leprechauns running wild in my house, and fairies in my garden, how many people of this world take that as "truth"?
    Hopefully none, as they should. Without evidence..Such claims can be labeled delusional. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence..Simply put.

  • Absolutely not. This is a no-brainer

    If i say i believe there are mountain goats on venus, leprechauns running wild in my house, and fairies in my garden, how many people of this world take that as "truth"?
    Hopefully none, as they should. Without evidence..Such claims can be labeled delusional. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence..Simply put.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.