← Back to the axis

Relation to truth· Belief and knowledge

Non-evidentialism

Axis: Ethics of beliefCan we legitimately believe without sufficient evidence?

When the evidence is inconclusive and the stakes are vital, we have the right, sometimes even the duty, to believe beyond what the evidence guarantees. Some truths reveal themselves only to those who first dare to wager on them.

Foundations and implications
↑ What grounds itNon-evidentialism — Ethics of belief!Non-evidentialismEthics of belief
Prescriptive
Fideism — Faith and reason=FideismFaith and reason
Descriptive
Pragmatism — Nature of truth=PragmatismNature of truth
Descriptive
A leaf — an application that grounds nothing further here.

What grounds it

Faith and reason

If faith is a leap that begins where proof ends, then to believe is a matter of decision, not a constraint of the evidence. Fideism grounds doxastic voluntarism: Pascal's wager invites us to bet on God for want of demonstration, making belief an act of the will.

Nature of truth

If an idea is true insofar as it succeeds and makes action fruitful, then, when proof is lacking and the stakes are vital, daring to believe can be legitimate, even fruitful. Pragmatism supports non-evidentialism: James claims a "right to believe" where evidence does not decide and where belief engages life.

What it implies

A leaf — an application that grounds nothing further here.