Our beliefs about the world guide our actions in it. Likewise, our actions reveal our beliefs. But are there beliefs we hold in theory, but would never act on? Such a distinction can be dangerous and irresponsible, writes Kenneth Boyd.

The COVID-19 pandemic has proven to be ripe source material for those looking to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories throughout social media and elsewhere online. One does not have to look far before finding people defending beliefs that the virus was made in a Chinese lab in order to control population numbers, or that it can somehow be contracted by being in proximity to 5G cellular towers, or that Bill Gates is, for whatever reason, behind the whole thing. Such beliefs are seemingly held in defiance of the available evidence and, for the most part common sense, and show no signs of going away any time soon.

Despite it being confounding that anyone should believe these things, we might think that, for the most part, beliefs in these and similar kinds of theories are largely inert: although someone might express beliefs in such theories, they are not likely to act on them, at least not in a way that goes beyond expressing one’s views on social media. There have, of course, been exceptions. For example, workers erecting 5G towers have been berated by those who believe that 5G signals are related to the spread of coronavirus, and several such towers have been vandalized in the UK. In these cases, those acting on their beliefs that 5G signals are dangerous are rightly chastised for their actions. But we also might think that while people are not entitled to act in any way they want, they are entitled, at least in some sense, to believe whatever they want. Not only that, the fact that only a small number of those who purport to believe in these conspiracy theories do, in fact, go out and act on them, implies that people may be willing to defend some beliefs in theory that they may not be willing to defend in practice.

We might think that while people are not entitled to act in any way they want, they are entitled, at least in some sense, to believe whatever they want.

It is perhaps easy to come up with cases in which we treat some beliefs differently than others. For example, say that I am a self-proclaimed believer in astrology, and as such I enjoy discussing and reading about astrology, consulting my horoscope, and blaming my fiery Scorpio temperament for most of my personal flaws. Sure, I’m aware that there’s no empirical evidence that your date of birth has any effect on your personality, and that there are probably better explanations for my vices than my star sign. What’s more, it’s not as though I’m going to act on most of these beliefs: if my horoscope tells me that I will have good financial luck today I might believe it, even though I’m not going to restructure my investments in preparation for a monetary windfall. But this all seems fine: my astrology beliefs are, in a way, ones that I hold just for fun, don’t harm anyone, and, for the most part, aren’t going to influence how I act.