|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Better to believe what's true than what's false?
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
Hello Ship, I'm back after a rather long time away... with a question:
If a belief, about anything, religious or otherwise, does not harm (insofar as we can reasonably tell) but is false then is it legitimate to believe it? So, let us say, hypothetically, that I visit a psychic to get messages about my dead relative, and let us say that I'm not being especially ripped off, and that I draw comfort and happiness from these visits, and do not act on this information in any way and let us also say that there is no truth in the psychic's messages - there is no spirit world, there is no dead relative's soul, there is no actual mediumistic communication. Is my belief here acceptable, is it permissible? Is it perhaps even laudable?
Or, ought I cease this belief, and be, perhaps, less content as a result? Is it better to be sad but right, than happy but wrong? And do my friends/family-members/maybe even total strangers have a duty and/or right to tell me that my belief is bollocks, and to encourage me to enter into a preferable state of affairs, i.e. not believing in a falsehood?
Is it preferable to believe something true as opposed to something false, even if that belief has no effects beyond the believer? And, if it is, why?
Finally, I am assuming here that 'true' means 'corresponds to an objectively existing reality that exists independent of my thoughts and feelings about it.' And false means 'not in correspondence with that objectively existing reality.' I'm rejecting a relativist/subjectivist account of truth - but maybe I'm being naïve and narrow-minded in so doing...?
Many thanks Ship,
Calleva
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
That's why I tend to be slightly sceptical of the idea that 'I can have a false belief and it won't do any harm'. It probably will, unless you leave that belief as some kind of really abstract idea that doesn't influence your life or your actions.
[ 13. October 2013, 07:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
I can clearly see this, in cases where my belief might be along the lines of "Oh, I don't need medical care, just prayer is fine." Or, even worse, when I hold that belief about friends or dependents.
But many beliefs do seem very abstract... don't they? Like, let's say my above example about visits to a psychic: should my (entirely hypothetical) friend/family member try to dissuade me from visiting, even if the visits only provide emotional comfort and are never acted on?
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Surely the 'emotional comfort' is not an inactive element in your psyche? What does your desire for it indicate? That you fear death? That you cannot accept loss? Is the one seance enough, or will you spend more and more time and money pursuing an elusive proof?
There are always motors for what we choose to believe. I don't say that they are necessarily negative - the can be what inspire us to do or be something worthwhile. But they can be a coping mechanism which will eventually fail, and then what happens?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There was a case in the NY Times today where a psychic was convicted of stealing many thousands of dollars from her clients. They were typically trying to cope with death or loss of a relationship. Many times you're putting yourself in a vulnerable position with someone who advocates false beliefs. It's your right to do so, just as it's your right to walk along cliff edges, but your friends have the right to tell you you're being stupid and also point out the false belief.
This does remind me of an Olympic drug doping problem that came up a few years ago, which the drug testers weren't able to cope with. Several coaches were suspected of giving their athletes placebos and telling them they were illegal performance enhancing drugs. So yes, there are false beliefs that may be helpful in some way. But you're chipping away a thread of reality each time you do it.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The problem with false beliefs is that when you act upon them, you probably won't get the result you are looking for. Because you're acting on a false premise.
That's why I tend to be slightly sceptical of the idea that 'I can have a false belief and it won't do any harm'. It probably will, unless you leave that belief as some kind of really abstract idea that doesn't influence your life or your actions.
As they say, "garbage in, garbage out". A false premise will lead to false conclusions (unless it's a superfluous premise). So on the one hand I do agree that wrong thinking will tend to manifest itself in wrong action somewhere down the line.
On the other hand, life isn't a logical argument. Maybe I need an inflated idea of my own capabilities in order to attempt anything difficult; maybe comforting illusions can serve a good purpose (just as on occasion a lie can serve a good purpose).
Am I contradicting myself ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
It's an axiom for the argument: let's say, for this argument, that the existence of the dead relatives that the psychic is 'talking' to is false.
But we could just as easily pick anything - religious or metaphysical beliefs, or political convictions... can truth/falsehood even apply to such beliefs at all, actually?! :/
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Given the relatively common phenomenon of the placebo effect, I'm not sure the truth or falsity -- even where that can actually be determined -- matters.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
It's an axiom for the argument: let's say, for this argument, that the existence of the dead relatives that the psychic is 'talking' to is false.
If the person accepts that the existence of the dead relatives the psychic is talking to is "false", how does it help them?
If they don't know its false, but everybody else thinks its false - that's different.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
That it's better to believe what's true than what's false is inherent in the concepts of truth and belief. That's one of the fundamental characteristics of beliefs and other belief-like attitudes: that they aim to be true. It's what makes them beliefs rather than fictional statements.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious about the independently existing reality - have you decided that this is true, or is it something that you wish is true, or is it an axiom which is important to the argument?
It's an axiom for the argument: let's say, for this argument, that the existence of the dead relatives that the psychic is 'talking' to is false.
But we could just as easily pick anything - religious or metaphysical beliefs, or political convictions... can truth/falsehood even apply to such beliefs at all, actually?! :/
Well, yes. You can assume whatever you like as an axiom, fair enough. But how do you establish that something is false?
I was thinking about Maoris, some of whom do practice forms of honour paid to ancestors, and so on, I would hesitate to call it 'ancestor worship'.
Anyway, my point is that such practices are often tightly integrated into the social structure of communities, and often express various important values. Thus, we find that agricultural practices are often woven into the religious beliefs of various tribes.
So do you go along and say to them, no, sorry, your beliefs are 'false'?
Well, that's what Christian missionaries did, isn't it, much to their shame. It's a kind of cognitive imperialism, isn't it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's what Christian missionaries did, isn't it, much to their shame. It's a kind of cognitive imperialism, isn't it?
But isn't it only to their shame (i.e. wrong of the missionaries) if their (the Christians') beliefs are wrong and/or the Maori beliefs true?
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
And as to an earlier point... (that the notion that inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' is, as a first principle that doesn't need establishing, that it is preferable to believe the true and not believe the false....) I do sort-of believe that, but I couldn't tell you why. Why, really, is belief in something false a problem, allowing that that belief does no harm to the individual and/or others.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ignorance is bliss so give me ignorance?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ignorance is bliss so give me ignorance?
This, really, is one of the main issues of why I wrote the OP, which stemmed from a long conversation at a friend's house the other day: namely, that they believed it was better to believe a lie (or several lies) and to persist in this if it made them happier than believing the truth would. I just cannot imagine or even empathise with any state of affairs where I'd rather believe a lie - I would far rather be miserable as a result of truth, than content by a lie (and I'd be especially pissed off if I found out that my happiness about something was down to believing in a lie.) So no, ignorance isn't bliss - it's a hellish prison and one made worse by warrant of not knowing it's there.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
In some other universe where the truth of Christianity has been established by God deciding that the Divine hiddenness thing was on balance not a smart move, then that would be the case. But in that universe, missionaries would be superfluous anyway. In this one it is still cognitive imperialism whichever way you cut it.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that it stunts our spiritual growth to live a lie, and that the truth sets us free to continue the journey and grow closer to God.
Life means more than pursuit of a comfort blanket.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If one takes any given religious/philosophical outlook, one will find many examples of lives lived more positively for each. Since all outlooks cannot be true, many have lived in untruth with no discernible harm.
Also, given there is no provable "truth", who is to say what is true with any real authority?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
In some other universe where the truth of Christianity has been established by God deciding that the Divine hiddenness thing was on balance not a smart move, then that would be the case. But in that universe, missionaries would be superfluous anyway. In this one it is still cognitive imperialism whichever way you cut it.
Ok, Grokesx, let me push this a little further: what criteria do we use to say of beliefs: "ok, these beliefs, Xs, are established certainly, so telling others of these is cognitive liberation, whereas these other beliefs, Ys, are not established certainly, so telling ("preaching") others they ought believe these ones is actually cognitive imperialism."
Take the beliefs of scientific empiricism: was I justified in telling the guy I worked with as a student that germs exist when he asked me, "Do you believe in germs?". Was I justified in telling the 9/11 conspiracy-ist that, in all reasonable probability, 9/11 was *not* an inside job.... or, in doing those two things, am I a Cognitive Imperialist? Am I guilty of Cognitive Imperialism if I tell Jacob Zuma that, "no Aids can't be cured by eating sweet potatoes...?" Or if I tell my grandma that, "no, grandma, when there's a thunder storm you don't need to cover up the mirrors because uncovered mirrors don't actually 'attract' lightning?"
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's what Christian missionaries did, isn't it, much to their shame. It's a kind of cognitive imperialism, isn't it?
But isn't it only to their shame (i.e. wrong of the missionaries) if their (the Christians') beliefs are wrong and/or the Maori beliefs true?
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
And as to an earlier point... (that the notion that inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' is, as a first principle that doesn't need establishing, that it is preferable to believe the true and not believe the false....) I do sort-of believe that, but I couldn't tell you why. Why, really, is belief in something false a problem, allowing that that belief does no harm to the individual and/or others.
I'm curious how you're going to demonstrate to Maoris that their beliefs are false, and yours (assuming here a Christian view), are true. Will it be a version of 'because I say so'? Or maybe something a bit more sophisticated, like 'it's true because the Bible says it is'?
Or maybe, 'your ancestors cannot possibly be alive and helping you right now, but if you become a Christian, you might be able to meet them in heaven'?
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
This, really, is one of the main issues of why I wrote the OP, which stemmed from a long conversation at a friend's house the other day: namely, that they believed it was better to believe a lie (or several lies) and to persist in this if it made them happier than believing the truth would. I just cannot imagine or even empathise with any state of affairs where I'd rather believe a lie - I would far rather be miserable as a result of truth, than content by a lie (and I'd be especially pissed off if I found out that my happiness about something was down to believing in a lie.) So no, ignorance isn't bliss - it's a hellish prison and one made worse by warrant of not knowing it's there.
I totally agree with you. Coincidentally I was considering this very question yesterday in connection with a poster on another forum. It could just possibly be true in a very small way that no apparent harm results to a particular individual, but any such incident does not justify falsehood. If a person knowingly makes a choice to believe the falsehood, then that is their freedom to do so, but from my atheist point of view, all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false. Understandable, because of history, culture, etc etc, but still false.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Heaven protect us from the zeal of the non-believer!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
Because it is.
To believe one has accepted the one, true system is acceptable; to fail to understand others legitimately feel the same regarding their faiths, not so much.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
In fact, quetzalcoatl, I do agree with you - in the case of the beliefs we're discussing right now, namely Maori 'ancestor veneration' vs. Christian 'sky-god-human-hybrid veneration.' In the cases of both, we cannot *know*, so any amount of preaching, by either side, is epistemic arrogance/cognitive imperialism.
But what I'm getting at is where the line is drawn in epistemology: see my above examples about Aids being cured by sweet potatoes or superstition like mirror-covering in a lightning storm. Can we *know* these are false and so legitimately know that it's cognitive liberation to tell the belief holder that they are - objectively - wrong?
And, second, what would you do, quetzalcoatl, if Maori 'ancestor veneration' or Christian 'sky-god-worship' also included, as a part of its 'unknowable' belief system, the practice of, say, child sacrifice?
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
At this point you are going into demonstrable harm with no empirical benefit.
This is akin to the Christian Science anti-medicine issue.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Calleva
One problem here is that you are doing a massive mash-up of scientific stuff and religious stuff!
On AIDS, surely we would turn to scientific research, to find out what works and what doesn't?
However, with religious stuff, there is no empirical evidence either way.
Child-sacrifice? Do you know the old reply by the conscientious objectors, when asked what they would do if a German attempted to rape their wife? I would interpose my own body. Well, maybe.
But here again you are doing a bait and switch - from beliefs to actions.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Calleva
One problem here is that you are doing a massive mash-up of scientific stuff and religious stuff!
However, with religious stuff, there is no empirical evidence either way.
But here again you are doing a bait and switch - from beliefs to actions.
I'm 'mashing up' religious stuff and 'scientific stuff' quite deliberately - they're often the same thing.
If I make the claim, for example, that Jesus rose from the dead, or that God made the universe 6,000 years ago in 6 days, I am making a scientific claim (I might also be making a religious one.) Now, I don't subscribe to the belief of scientism that *all* truth is scientific truth, but the two above claims are clearly claims to which empirical data can apply: so, again, is it cognitive imperialism if I tell the 6-day-creationist or literal-resurrection-believer that their beliefs are, on the empirical evidence, not true. If it is, why is it not a problem to tell someone that Aids doesn't get cured by sweet potatoes - the evidence there is just as empirical, isn't it?
Second criticism - that I'm moving from beliefs to actions. Yes, I am. But only because beliefs (usually) lead to or cause actions. If I believe that the Sun-God will only be happy and make the sun come back if it eats the heart of a child once a year, then I must sacrifice a child once a year.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Calleva
Jesus rose from the dead a scientific claim? Eh? It's certainly a religious claim, but how is it scientific? Surely it would be considered to be a miracle which is not captured by the laws of physics.
I think the problem with 6 day creationists is that they claim that it's scientifically founded.
Well, if you want to talk about actions, OK. It's a different argument, is all.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Ok, Grokesx, let me push this a little further: what criteria do we use to say of beliefs: "ok, these beliefs, Xs, are established certainly, so telling others of these is cognitive liberation, whereas these other beliefs, Ys, are not established certainly, so telling ("preaching") others they ought believe these ones is actually cognitive imperialism."
This sort of covers ground already alluded to, but there's no cut off point. We're looking at a continuum where there are beliefs that rest on pretty solid foundations that are testable, repeatable etc - the boiling point of water at a given pressure, say - at one end and ones that rest on nothing at all like fairies at the bottom of the garden at the other. We all have our opinions where our particular beliefs lie on the continuum, but it seems pretty obvious to me that religious claims are at best somewhere in the middle and we are not justified in telling others what they should believe in those areas.
Of course, if we move the conversation from Maoris to children, we get into a more highly charged area.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Calleva
Jesus rose from the dead a scientific claim? Eh?
The claim of the Resurrection (notwithstanding the mythological accounts we get from Tillich et. al.) is that a biologically alive man, did cease to be alive, and around 3 days later the blood in is veins and arteries started moving again, cells started to respire, his brain and nervous system in which there had previously been no action of electrical impulses or chemical neurotransmitters begin to operate again, allowing the return of bodily functions, such as breathing again and starting to digest the food that had been undigested at death... and finally that, with all these biological factors returning, consciousness returns. Now *that* is a scientific claim, and a very, very significant one that empirical evidence may appear to defy. Am I a cognitive imperialist / a bit of a bastard if I *tell* someone it's probably false?
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Calleva
Jesus rose from the dead a scientific claim? Eh?
The claim of the Resurrection (notwithstanding the mythological accounts we get from Tillich et. al.) is that a biologically alive man, did cease to be alive, and around 3 days later the blood in is veins and arteries started moving again, cells started to respire, his brain and nervous system in which there had previously been no action of electrical impulses or chemical neurotransmitters begin to operate again, allowing the return of bodily functions, such as breathing again and starting to digest the food that had been undigested at death... and finally that, with all these biological factors returning, consciousness returns. Now *that* is a scientific claim, and a very, very significant one that empirical evidence may appear to defy.
No. It is simply a claim. A scientific claim would have some mechanism theorised. And, no, god does not count as such.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
And as to an earlier point... (that the notion that inherent in the concepts of 'true' and 'false' is, as a first principle that doesn't need establishing, that it is preferable to believe the true and not believe the false....) I do sort-of believe that, but I couldn't tell you why. Why, really, is belief in something false a problem, allowing that that belief does no harm to the individual and/or others.
The reason I believe that is that it's really quite difficult - I'd say impossible - to explain or define a set of interdependent concepts, including truth, belief, knowledge, reason, justification, and so on, without taking it as read that beliefs ought to be true and ought not to be false.(*) Without that the whole lot become meaningless.
That's perhaps not to say that in special circumstances other considerations might not overrule it. But only in special circumstances.
(*) Simplified version. Many beliefs are approximations, and therefore true enough for the purposes we're using them for; even if experts would want to be more nuanced. e.g. Nelson won the Battle of Trafalgar.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
The claim of the Resurrection (notwithstanding the mythological accounts we get from Tillich et. al.) is that a biologically alive man, did cease to be alive, and around 3 days later the blood in is veins and arteries started moving again, cells started to respire, his brain and nervous system in which there had previously been no action of electrical impulses or chemical neurotransmitters begin to operate again, allowing the return of bodily functions, such as breathing again and starting to digest the food that had been undigested at death... and finally that, with all these biological factors returning, consciousness returns. Now *that* is a scientific claim, and a very, very significant one that empirical evidence may appear to defy. Am I a cognitive imperialist / a bit of a bastard if I *tell* someone it's probably false?
Firstly, you're making considerably more claims about the physiology of Jesus' risen body than the New Testament does.
Secondly, that Jesus' body was raised is presumably an empirical claim. That is, suitably placed observers were able to tell whether or not the tomb was empty or not, and whether or not Jesus had appeared in a locked room or not. That doesn't make it scientific. The exact demarcation between scientific claims and non-scientific claims is fuzzy, but still one mark of scientific claims is that they're established by repeatable observations. Claims about one-off events that don't leave discernable traces behind them are thus seldom scientific. That Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French is not a scientific claim but a historical claim.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I agree with Raptor Eye.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one takes any given religious/philosophical outlook, one will find many examples of lives lived more positively for each. Since all outlooks cannot be true, many have lived in untruth with no discernible harm.
Also, given there is no provable "truth", who is to say what is true with any real authority?
'No discernable harm' physically/mentally/spiritually? According to whom? As you have said yourself, opinions vary.
When God gives someone authority to tell spiritual truth, which comes from God, he also provides the proof.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one takes any given religious/philosophical outlook, one will find many examples of lives lived more positively for each. Since all outlooks cannot be true, many have lived in untruth with no discernible harm.
Also, given there is no provable "truth", who is to say what is true with any real authority?
'No discernable harm' physically/mentally/spiritually? According to whom? As you have said yourself, opinions vary.
When God gives someone authority to tell spiritual truth, which comes from God, he also provides the proof.
Right. So let's have the link then.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Right. So let's have the link then.
Jesus Christ.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Bring him 'round for tea, and then we shall talk.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Indeed.
A not-insignificant number of people suffering ailments experience relief from their symptoms by ingesting placebos. In fact, as the link I posted above points out, some people even experience side-effects from placebos that would normally occur only for those taking actual medication, so it seems apparent that humans are not especially adept at recognizing truth, or falsity, or at distinguishing between the two.
It appears that at least some effects we experience from our beliefs, whether beneficial or detrimental, are simply projections of our expectations concerning those beliefs.
[ 14. October 2013, 01:10: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ignorance is bliss so give me ignorance?
This, really, is one of the main issues of why I wrote the OP, which stemmed from a long conversation at a friend's house the other day: namely, that they believed it was better to believe a lie (or several lies) and to persist in this if it made them happier than believing the truth would. I just cannot imagine or even empathise with any state of affairs where I'd rather believe a lie - I would far rather be miserable as a result of truth, than content by a lie (and I'd be especially pissed off if I found out that my happiness about something was down to believing in a lie.) So no, ignorance isn't bliss - it's a hellish prison and one made worse by warrant of not knowing it's there.
Ignorance is the Matrix?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there.
Well, yes, as stated.
I prefer this is what I believe and this is why to statements of this is truth and all else lies!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
all statements which purport to tell truths about God/god/s especially when reported to children as truth, however well-intentioned the information-giver, are false.
Now, see, that's just epistemic arrogance right there.
Yes, and I'm quite happy to agree with you there. I did think of modifying the post slightly, but as I am as certain as I can be that there isn't going to be posted the one piece of factual information that will change me from a non-believer to a believer, I decided against it this time.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
On the news this morning, there was an item from India in connection with the hurricane. A young man said he was alive because of God. Does that belief cause harm? No - and I could add, 'of course not'. But in a small way it does. The reasons for the very low number of deaths is mainly the practical actions taken by the Indian government. Perhaps a more practical, non-believing attitude by the population in general, rather than a reliance on God,might just make for greater safety and forthought? I think so.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye SusanDoris, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
But many beliefs do seem very abstract... don't they? Like, let's say my above example about visits to a psychic: should my (entirely hypothetical) friend/family member try to dissuade me from visiting, even if the visits only provide emotional comfort and are never acted on?
We do not exist in a vacuum. We like to believe that our actions and ideas can be compartmentalized and quarantined and no one can justifiably say anything about them because they only affect us. But that is a fundamentally false premise.
As well as the harm to yourself (i.e. in disabling your ability to tell truth from lies, convincing you of a false way of thinking about the world which may lead you to more, or worse forms of deception etc.) there are other problems with your actions:
1) You are financially rewarding a con-artist and encouraging them to continue decieving others some of whom may be more prone to being financially damaged or emotionally addicted to the deceit.
2) Others who hear of you seeing the psychic will be encouraged that it is true and valuable, and this will propogate 1)
But some false comforts may not have such consequences on the world, on the encouragement of the deceiver, and the leading of others into deceit. Ignoring your example, the question is whether if someone holds a belief that is false but derives comfort from it, then should you seek to dissuade them from that belief, even though you are taking their comfort from them. This has come up on dead horses when we think about creationists. But it touches I think on all forms of evangelism.
It boils down to what we understand truth to be. Do we think of it as a subjective experience, each version equally valid to each person? Or do we hold to the idea that there is an objective truth? And if we hold to this, there is another question. Does this objective truth have any effect on us? Is it mere knowledge, to be filed away once known. Or do we beleive that "the Truth will set you free." (John 8:32).
It is a question of the purpose of ideas as well. Do we believe that the value of an idea is based on how happy or content it makes us feel, or does the value derive from its accordance with external reality. If accepting a truth makes us feel bad does that mean the truth should be rejected? This is often the case, but it shouldn't be. Not if we want to interact sucessfully with anything outside ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Isn't it in fact actually the right, proper and laudable thing to do for them to preach and convert the Maori if the Christian belief is true? Not so much cognitive imperialism as cognitive liberation.
In some other universe where the truth of Christianity has been established by God deciding that the Divine hiddenness thing was on balance not a smart move, then that would be the case.
That's this universe.
"Surely you have heard about the...mystery made known to me by revelation,...In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." (Eph 3:2-5)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious how you're going to demonstrate to Maoris that their beliefs are false, and yours (assuming here a Christian view), are true. Will it be a version of 'because I say so'? Or maybe something a bit more sophisticated, like 'it's true because the Bible says it is'?
Or maybe, 'your ancestors cannot possibly be alive and helping you right now, but if you become a Christian, you might be able to meet them in heaven'?
It just sounds like epistemic arrogance to me.
We cannot. Only Jesus can reveal Truth. All Christians can do is point them to Him. It is up to Christians to preach the gospel. It is up to others to believe it or not. We cannot argue people into the Kingdom using rhetoric and demonstrations, sophisticated or otherwise.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It's funny how so many Christians argue that other people should be separated from their "false beliefs" because knowing the Truth is more important, but once it's their own beliefs that are being disproved they break out the Puddleglum and assert that "even if it's not real I'm going to act as if it is, because it's better".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's funny how so many Christians argue that other people should be separated from their "false beliefs" because knowing the Truth is more important, but once it's their own beliefs that are being disproved they break out the Puddleglum and assert that "even if it's not real I'm going to act as if it is, because it's better".
I've never heard any Christians say that. Who are you talking about?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
It's just a general observation. We've had threads in the past where Christians have heartily supported Puddleglum's Wager, and we've had threads (including this one) where Christians have said we should only believe what is True. I guess it's possible that it was never the same people saying both things, but even then the existence of both strands of thought in the Christian tradition is quite interesting, wouldn't you say?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
