Is it always better to believe the truth than it is to believe a fiction?
Suppose that the truth about reality is, at least for some people, incorrigibly bleak, but that endorsing a particular system of beliefs makes their existence meaningful or bearable. (No marks for guessing I have religion in mind.) Would someone who knows better--perhaps a distinguished intellect from the Freethinker's clan-- be justified in attempting to disabuse those people of their belief, on the grounds that it would be better for them to believe the bleak truth than a comfortable fiction?
Of course, the beliefs that people hold do not only have implications for them, but also for others and for society, and so one's computation of the moral value of disabusing them of their false but comforting beliefs would have to take that into account. But, leaving aside these remoter ramifications, if one concedes that it is sometimes subjectively adaptive for people to have false beliefs, then one would seem to be under an obligation not to attempt to disabuse them of those beliefs unless one has a higher regard for the value of believing the truth in itself.
I think that I personally would want to know the truth, no matter how bleak it was. But I am not sure whether other people would, or whether it would be objectively good that should.
Take placebos in medicine. These work only if a patient falsely believes that they work because of their intrinsic nature. Many doctors would hold that it is good for a patient to falsely believe that a placebo is real because it results in a positive change in their condition worth more than the patient knowing the real truth.
Could religion be the ultimately psychological placebo?
Aiden
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholei think sometimes what appears to be fiction, can become the truth.
Is it always better to believe the truth than it is to believe a fiction?
as stephen leacock said
illusion is the real reality, because it is better than reality.
in friendship,
prad
ps btw, i generally enjoy your posts which seem to be always well-considered and thoughtful
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Is it always better to believe the truth than it is to believe a fiction?
Suppose that the truth about reality is, at least for some people, incorrigibly bleak, but that endorsing a particular system of beliefs makes their existence meaningful or bearable. (No marks for guessing I have religion in mind.) Would someone who knows better--perhaps a dis ...[text shortened]... ient knowing the real truth.
Could religion be the ultimately psychological placebo?
Aiden
Why restrict the battlefield to religious value systems?
Why not include secular ideologies such as marxism, anarchism, socialism, communism, greenism and liberalism, libertarianism and capitalism, woman's lib-ism, feminism and animal lib-ism, Buddhism and Utilitarianism, Neo-Kantian-ism and Existantialism, personalism, materialism, idealism and fascism ....... to name just a few non-religious -isms. That would make this debate more general and therefore more applicable to the subject of this thread, the "TRUTH" as a universal entity.
If you want to find the truth we ALL must be willing to look in the mirror, don't you agree ?
..... unless of course you want to degrade truth to a convenient commodity, meant to dismiss the other, to lable the other ......... in this case labelling the religious other as .... well .... whatever ..... ? ...... just to delude yourself in thinking that YOUR way of belief is NOT meant for the things you mentioned in your post, self-delusion and fleeing from the real non-ideological reality ?
...... What is YOUR ideology, Pawnokeyhole ?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeBut how do you know that the alternative must be a bleak truth? They also may feel liberated after a while. I wonder if it is correct to think that bleakness will replace the fiction. Is it possible that bleakness can be a character trait disconnected from what one believes?
Is it always better to believe the truth than it is to believe a fiction?
Suppose that the truth about reality is, at least for some people, incorrigibly bleak, but that endorsing a particular system of beliefs makes their existence meaningful or bearable. (No marks for guessing I have religion in mind.) Would someone who knows better--perhaps a dis ...[text shortened]... ient knowing the real truth.
Could religion be the ultimately psychological placebo?
Aiden
But at the end I don't think we have the right to take someone's self chosen illusion away, unless it affects the outerworld too much.
fjord
Originally posted by fjordI do think humans have an urge, a willingness, an eagerness to find the truth. This urge is engraved in our hearts and souls.
But how do you know that the alternative must be a bleak truth? They also may feel liberated after a while. I wonder if it is correct to think that bleakness will replace the fiction. Is it possible that bleakness can be a character trait dis ...[text shortened]... usion away, unless it affects the outerworld too much.
fjord
The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie.
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to do evil.
We have an obligation to tell others when they are going astray from the path of truth, because it will hurt them. It will cause them to suffer.
Why does going astray from the path of truth, following the path of lies, cause suffering ?
..... or is suffering irrelevant when discussing truth ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI do think humans have an urge, a willingness, an eagerness to find the truth.
I do think humans have an urge, a willingness, an eagerness to find the truth. This urge is engraved in our hearts and souls.
The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie.
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is ...[text shortened]... f lies, cause suffering ?
..... or is suffering irrelevant when discussing truth ?
They also want to feel safe. These two can sometimes conflict.
This urge is engraved in our hearts and souls.
Dis-covering truth is like onion you start peeling. Com-passion, and empathy could be more fundamental.
The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie.
I don't know if that is THE natural law. The church has often tried to hide the truth. (e.g. sun-earth) Would that mean she is not in accordance with the natural law?
We have an obligation to tell others when they are going astray from the path of truth, because it will hurt them. It will cause them to suffer.
That is what Aiden likes to discuss. Imagine that you are in error with your rather dogmatic belief. Do we have to wake you up? Could we wake you up?
fjord
Originally posted by fjordIvanH: "I do think humans have an urge, a willingness, an eagerness to find the truth. [/b]"
[b]I do think humans have an urge, a willingness, an eagerness to find the truth.
They also want to feel safe. These two can sometimes conflict.
This urge is engraved in our hearts and souls.
Dis-covering truth is like onion ...[text shortened]... elief. Do we have to wake you up? Could we wake you up?
fjord
[/b]
Fjord: "They also want to feel safe. These two can sometimes conflict."
IvanH: Can you elaborate on that please ?
Fjord: "Dis-covering truth is like onion you start peeling. Com-passion, and empathy could be more fundamental."
IvanH: ...... could be more fundamental ...... what do you mean ? ... in what kind of perspective or light ?
Fjord: "I don't know if that is THE natural law. The church has often tried to hide the truth. (e.g. sun-earth) Would that mean she is not in accordance with the natural law?"
IvanH: Please could we leave the Church out of this. Just for once ....
Fjord: "Imagine that you are in error with your rather dogmatic belief. Do we have to wake you up? Could we wake you up?"
IvanH: I'd rather refrain from going personal, if you don't mind.
If you want to know the Roman Catholic dogma's, please visit:
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I stop the discussions with you. they are useless. You are too upset or whatever. We cannot continue here in these forums. If you want you can PM me and we can see if there is a way to find a solution. Sans rancune.
IvanH: "I do think humans have an urge, a willingness, an eagerness to find the truth. "
Fjord: "They also want to feel safe. These two can sometimes conflict."
IvanH: Can you elaborate on that please ?
Fjord: "Dis-covering truth is like onion you start peeling. Com-passion, and empathy could be more fundamental."
IvanH: ...... could be ...[text shortened]... to know the Roman Catholic dogma's, please visit:
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
[/b]
Fjord
Originally posted by fjord
Ivanhoe, I stop the discussions with you. they are useless. You are too upset or whatever. We cannot continue here in these forums. If you want you can PM me and we can see if there is a way to find a solution. Sans rancune.
Fjord
Fjord,
I am afraid you want to discuss the question : "Why are religious people so stupid, so gullible and so stubbornly dogmatic ?"
Are WE, yes you the enlightened elite, allowed to wake THEM up, are WE allowed to lead these poor fellows to the liberal truth of freedom and enlightenment.
YOU place yourself as the one holding the truth and at the same time you accuse OTHERS of doing just that.
At the same time you state that everybody has his or her own truth.
If you believe this, there certainly isn't a universal truth.
As a matter of fact you mix a lot of notions taken from different kinds of philosophies and religions (!) and mix it until a nice and tasteful dough is the result. You bake a nice bread or cake. Next I want to know what the ingredients are ....... you start giving (Zenlike?) statements that I cannot understand ...... you become angry and irritated and you stop the discussion.
I don't know if this relates, but as I was driving around the other day the thought/question hit me: what if the poets, musicians and artists have "it" and the rest of those espousing the truth (for me I focused on the organized church) are missing it. This sort of came out of my experience of going to see Riverdance and having a somewhat spiritual experience seeing all these varieties of dance from many cultures being celebrated. I left wondering why some parts of the world can't do that and why churches have gotten stuck in ideas instead of celebrating the movements of their bodies in God-given expressions. Lately I am finding more "truth" in poetry than the Sunday sermon.
If you assume my character is inflexibel for some reason, than how in the world is it possible for me to make a conversion to Christianity, the most thorough, important and radical change in someone's life ?
I think I am starting to understand. I should have known better. I should have remembered from the time I myself was an agnostic: Atheists, agnosts, etc. cannot understand what has happened to someone who has converted to Christianity. They desperately try to explain why and how this has happened. The reasons they can come up with are, of course; they must be stupid, they must be ignorant, they must have certain characters, they must be retards, they must be having delusions or whatever ...
That, fjord, is ignorance on the part of the atheists and agnosts. But in their eyes this is impossible. THEY are intelligent, omniscient and the others are stupid ...... that's the truth ..... or .... ?
Originally posted by kirksey957
I don't know if this relates, but as I was driving around the other day the thought/question hit me: what if the poets, musicians and artists have "it" and the rest of those espousing the truth (for me I focused on the organized church) are missing it. This sort of came out of my experience of going to see Riverdance and having a somewhat spiritual ex ...[text shortened]... in God-given expressions. Lately I am finding more "truth" in poetry than the Sunday sermon.
Now you have posted the above I think I can ask you the following:
When I read your interpretation of the story of the Rich Young Ruler I concluded you were losing your commitment, you were losing your faith. Am I correct ?
Originally posted by kirksey957Nice point, Kirk
I don't know if this relates, but as I was driving around the other day the thought/question hit me: what if the poets, musicians and artists have "it" and the rest of those espousing the truth (for me I focused on the organized church) are missing it. This sort of came out of my experience of going to see Riverdance and having a somewhat spiritual ex ...[text shortened]... in God-given expressions. Lately I am finding more "truth" in poetry than the Sunday sermon.
I think there is as usual a lot of wisdom in what you say. Thought-systems are static and in a sense dead born babies. Movement and sound is catching an aspect of life that is beyond the grips of religion and science. Dancing can unite people with total different views. (So let us dance)
That is also why I find taoism among the religious systems a very attractive one.
It is religion and it is not.
Rambling fjord
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI can think of one very good reason for trying to pop the religious bubble.
Is it always better to believe the truth than it is to believe a fiction?
Suppose that the truth about reality is, at least for some people, incorrigibly bleak, but that endorsing a particular system of beliefs makes their existence meaningful or bearable. (No marks for guessing I have religion in mind.) Would someone who knows better--perhaps a dis ...[text shortened]... ient knowing the real truth.
Could religion be the ultimately psychological placebo?
Aiden
Religious people believe in an after life. This entails that they are willing to accept their life, however miserable it is, because they have a promise of a better time when they're dead.
Now. To bring about social change on a grander scale, you need to motivate people now. Not passate them with tales of great kingdoms to come when they're passed on to a next life. To create great social change you need a lot of people! You can't do it on your own.
The more people passated by religion, the less people driving for social change now.
Hence that socialists try to argue the case against God. Not because it might not be a happier way of living (many the times I've wished I believed in a Gods and heavens), but because people will accept a lot more abuse on a religious ticket. Dragging me down with them.