when is it ethical to believe without evidence?

evidentialism says it is always wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence. but pragmatism says this has absurd consequences for moral, political, and religious beliefs. what justifies faith-based beliefs? or ought we to give those up? ✧･ﾟ: ✧･ﾟ: i'd love to hear what you all have to say *:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧ TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 intro 2:10 evidentialism 13:03 pragmatism ★・・・・・★・・・・・★ If you want extra ways to support my channel and get more content, check out my PATREON: patreon.com/oliSUNvia socials: ,, instagram: @olisunvia FOR BUSINESS INQUIRIES: [email protected] EDITOR: @daikohi and IG: @doug1xs ★・・・・・★・・・・・★ SOURCES: William K. Clifford. 1877. "The Ethics of Belief." William, James. 1896. "The Will to Believe." tags: belief, epistemology, pragmatism, evidentialism, ethics, philosophy, what to believe, religion, faith, theology, ethics of belief, scientific method, enlightenment, thought experiment, moral philosophy, politics, internet analysis, video essay, analysis video, movie film tv show, tiktok, twitter, shanspeare, jordan theresa, cj the x, tiffany ferg, alice cappelle, philosophy tube, madisyn brown, chad chad, sisyphus 55, tara mooknee, noah samsen, the financial diet, dangelo wallace, according to alina, hank green, michael burns, einzelganger, aperture, pursuit of wonder, big think, jeffrey kaplan, jared henderson, FD signifier, mina le