Does religion need to be true to be good?

[Tormac]

Or, put another way, does a religion have to be 100% accurate to be useful to society?

It has always seemed to me that every religion (that I am familiar with at least) is the work of man, and not the hand of the divine. Now there is no way to disprove that God gave the 10 commandments directly to mosses, or that Badb did not accurately predict the end days of the gods. I will accept that it is not a given with everyone that a particular religion is not literally true.

But, for the sake of discussion, even if a particular religion (or all of them) is not literally true, does that fact lessen the utility of that religion to society (or to the individual practitioner)? I am curious on what others think about this (I’d like to hear from both theists and atheists on this).

[arcticpenguin]

Some religions are worse than others. I feel that having an accurate perception of reality is a useful trait in dealing well with reality. Therefore I think any religion that is not true (i.e. all of them, in my view), is less than ideal. Again, some are more 'less than ideal' than others.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tormac
Or, put another way, does a religion have to be 100% accurate to be useful to society?

It has always seemed to me that every religion (that I am familiar with at least) is the work of man, and not the hand of the divine. Now there is no way to disprove that God gave the 10 commandments directly to mosses, or that Badb did not accurately predict the end days of the gods. I will accept that it is not a given with everyone that a particular religion is not literally true.

But, for the sake of discussion, even if a particular religion (or all of them) is not literally true, does that fact lessen the utility of that religion to society (or to the individual practitioner)? I am curious on what others think about this (I’d like to hear from both theists and atheists on this).

Accuracy and usefulness aren't related. Total lies are often useful.

The problem is the collateral effects of the use of less than truthful constructs. If we don't consider the accuracy or truthfulness, we then judge it on "usefulness," which is largely in the eye of the beholder. For example, using Christianity" as a shortcut to teach moral principles versus using the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to rally for political support.

Once you open the door to using fantasy as a tool, you risk that tool being "hijacked" for perhaps less than positive uses. Better to just base everything on truth.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Tormac

But, for the sake of discussion, even if a particular religion (or all of them) is not literally true, does that fact lessen the utility of that religion to society (or to the individual practitioner)? I am curious on what others think about this (I’d like to hear from both theists and atheists on this).

Great question Tormac!

It is my opinion that any religion/philosophy/worldview/idea has the potential to be used for good or for bad.

There are, of course, examples of good work and bad work being done by Christians, Taoists, Atheists, Scientologists, Hindus, Shinto, and etc.

I think that ideas are great motivators, and even if the idea isn't true (who are we to say what is true? If we knew everything that was without a doubt 100% true, we'd be a God. I'm not ready to be that arrogant. :) ), it still has the potential to be useful.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Accuracy and usefulness aren't related. Total lies are often useful.
Took the words right out of my mouth, couldnt have said it better myself.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Tormac
But, for the sake of discussion, even if a particular religion (or all of them) is not literally true, does that fact lessen the utility of that religion to society (or to the individual practitioner)? I am curious on what others think about this (I’d like to hear from both theists and atheists on this).

Certain religions are 'opiates of the masses'. Xianity and Islam appear to me to fall into that category.

Hinduism, and its caste system - separates individuals at birth. That's just your lot in life. I would say that is opiate.

Buddhism - although the most enlightened of all religions - appears to be an opiate also.

Part of the Jewish tradition, however, is education. It is important as part of their faith to be well educated. Thus, through the ages, the Jews were the people who dealt with numbers, business, money, etc. This allowed them to become easy targets for other idiot religions and governments.

It seems to me, being Jewish is a national/religious/political identity that the other religions don't have. Zola (what's his face) is a Christian Jew....part of Jews For Christ. You would never hear of a Muslim who was for Christ. He would just be a Christian.

I'm sorry I got a little off track....

To answer your question: All religions are illogical and keep people 'down'. Can you "Imagine" how wonderful things would be if we didn't have religion? (John nailed it)

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tormac
Or, put another way, does a religion have to be 100% accurate to be useful to society?

It has always seemed to me that every religion (that I am familiar with at least) is the work of man, and not the hand of the divine. Now there is no way to disprove that God gave the 10 commandments directly to mosses, or that Badb did not accurately predict the end days of the gods. I will accept that it is not a given with everyone that a particular religion is not literally true.

But, for the sake of discussion, even if a particular religion (or all of them) is not literally true, does that fact lessen the utility of that religion to society (or to the individual practitioner)? I am curious on what others think about this (I’d like to hear from both theists and atheists on this).

Well, I think one has to make a distinction between "truth" and "facts". It is one thing to believe that the bible, for example, is a great source of human truths and another to think it is a factual account of the creation of the world and the nature of God. This is precisely where we run into trouble, when people start taking ancient allegorical type texts and start presuming they are literal accounts and directives. I think the only way religion can be anything but harmful is to recongnize its allegorical and symbolic nature - not to suppose that it is something to "believe".

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is my opinion that any religion/philosophy/worldview/idea has the potential to be used for good or for bad.



T'ai Chi and i are having a similar discussion in another thread--the problem with the above OPINION is that it has no basis in reality or logic....There is a worldview that can not be used for bad---

We have had thousands of years experience wherein faith has been used by the majority of society as a method of controlling undesirable behaviour in our society--- I am unaware of any significant experiment wherein the majority of a society tried to to live based on real, rational, natural principles free from superstitious and supernatural belief systems...My prediction would be that such a society would indeed achieve more of what our current society can define as good than what any faith or religion has ever achieved thus far.

One cannot talk about good or bad without defining what that means...Once defined it is something one can "measure" in some way...Once you measure something you can figure out which things lead to good and which things lead to bad....such an approach to figuring out reality is called reason or rationality...it is also known as scientific thought and it is an idea/worldview that has only been around a few hundred years....it starts with the basic assumption that we ourselves can be deceived fairly easily so to determine the truth of something one needs to collect information in ways that are as free from the potential for self-deception as possible...

Since good and bad are rationally derived, a rational approach cannot have the potential for bad... bad outcomes can only come from failure to behave rationally.. If one knows the outcome to be bad and strives for that outcome that cannot be considered rational as all the terms are defined. If one always behaves rationally to try to achieve the good-- the outcome can only be good or not good..not the same as bad...since one was not seeking to achieve the bad. IF one strives to do good, but the good outcome is not achieved...than it is a result of error in the application of reason -either inaccurate or incomplete information or misapplication of reason....

Now to the original question asked "if a particular religion (or all of them) is not literally true, does that fact lessen the utility of that religion to society ?" If one applies inaccurate or untrue information to a task-it is of less utility- yes...it is. Is there a worldview that is scrupulously devoted to the seeking of only the truth and is such a worldview of MORE utility to society..yes there is such a worldview...it is (to date) the best and most useful worldview --it is called the scientific method. Per strict adherence to this method one must admit that future evidence may show other methods are better.

[Yahzi]

Yes.

[reprise]

While many religions have some philosophies which I think are useful ones for individuals and societies, those philosophies can stand alone - religion is not an essential element of them. So IMHO in order for religion to be good, it needs to be true - otherwise we should just adopt whatever principles found in religion which have value in themselves and discard the rest.

[evildave]

Of course, like any religious concept, "good" is thoroughly in the eye of the beholder.

To millions, convincing those guys to crash airplanes into towers was "Good". Really, very good. It was instrumental in convincing them to do it. "You get to live forever in a paradise, instead of as a pathetic mortal loser who can't even get it up to jerk off."

Have you listened to what the family members of suicide bombers say when they blow up a bus? "We're so PROUD of him!"

To others, convincing people to blow up abortion clinics is "Good". Really, very good. Religion is instrumental in convincing them that killing adults is not as bad as killing unborn babies. Far less bad. Good.

For David Koresh and Jim Jones, religion got them laid frequently with the cutest young girls available. With Jones, the cutest boys, too. That's obviously "Good" from their perspective. Convincing girls that you're Christ reborn so they'll put out. Good.

Then we have Applewhite and Heaven's Gate. Did there need to truly be a UFO in the comet tail, or did they simply all want to put bags on their heads as part of their cult? Well, since some of them chose castration before this... maybe the bag was good.

Aum Shinri Kyo thought it would be good to put nerve gas in a subway. They got their members to do it. Probably no questions asked. Except maybe "When, oh master?" Gas random people: Good.

Now we have the latest generation of "Beam Me Up" Christians who believe the "End Times" will be great for them. If they hurry up and bring about doomsday, there are better chances for them to be "Beamed Up" to see their god. Destroy all human life on Earth: Good.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Accuracy and usefulness aren't related. Total lies are often useful.

The problem is the collateral effects of the use of less than truthful constructs. If we don't consider the accuracy or truthfulness, we then judge it on "usefulness," which is largely in the eye of the beholder. For example, using Christianity" as a shortcut to teach moral principles versus using the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to rally for political support.

Once you open the door to using fantasy as a tool, you risk that tool being "hijacked" for perhaps less than positive uses. Better to just base everything on truth.

What he said.

Bravo! Suddenly.

Glory

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

T'ai Chi and i are having a similar discussion in another thread--the problem with the above OPINION is that it has no basis in reality or logic...


Since I clearly stated that it was my opinion, I think people already got the idea that it was an opinion.


We have had thousands of years experience wherein faith has been used by the majority of society as a method of controlling undesirable behaviour in our society---


You don't think other factors could be involved? Politics? Power? Military? Haves vs. Have-nots?


My prediction would be that such a society would indeed achieve more of what our current society can define as good than what any faith or religion has ever achieved thus far.


I just got a scary vision...perhaps some militant atheists somewhere would want to force all people to disbelieve, and perhaps try and engineer people to be more rational? That would never happen!

I hope.


.. a rational approach cannot have the potential for bad...


On one hand you say science is rational. Now you say that science cannot have the potential for bad. Um, have you read anything about bombs and stuff lately? I know I know, it was an error in the application of rationality.. or whatever other apologetic words you may have.


...the best and most useful worldview --it is called the scientific method.


This is simply your opinion. The scientific method is one of many approaches. I guess "best" depends on what you are applying the worldview towards.

[DialecticMaterialist]

This sort of reminds me of an old saying concerning Rome:

"The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful."


-Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[Fun2BFree]

T'ai Chi-
you obviously don't undertand what rational thought is...We are talking about rationality here -- and you keep coming out with nonsequiters and strawmen.....First you construct out of what I said a nightmare of atheists forcing nonbelief--
I never said anything about atheism being the basis of a better society I said it would be based on real rational principles --of course you are corrrect that atheism would likely flow from such an approach---but reality based, rational principles would be against forcing any belief on anyone since any rational person knows you can't force anyone to believe anything...so what does what i proposed have to do with what you said...oh yeah, pretty much the same as your responses to everything I have said...nothing...you keep making arguments against these strawmen you have made up in your mind...Sad when opinions are made with no basis in facts.

Again--rational approaches cannot be bad if you define bad and good by rational means..Same goes for picking which worldview is best...how does one define such things if not by rational thought? I have asked you enough times to tell us how it is that you define good and bad without you answering (as I predicted you would not answer) that it is clear you don't have an answer... just more evidence of the lack of any rationality to your posts and opinions.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
T'ai Chi-
you obviously don't undertand what rational thought is...


Uh huh..., yeah, you're right. :rolleyes:


of course you are corrrect that atheism would likely flow from such an approach--


So I'm not too off-base then, am I? I guess I do understand rational thought afterall. A "rational" society would want all of its members to be rational. Therefore, the society would be "encouraged" to not have paranormal, religious, or other "irrational" views, and would thus tend towards non-belief or atheism.


Again--rational approaches cannot be bad if you define bad and good by rational means..


That sounds awfully circular to me.

Hey, ever think of who does the choosing of what "rational" means? It would seem that that word is mighty subjective... Could you tell us?


I have asked you enough times to tell us how it is that you define good and bad without you answering (as I predicted you would not answer) that it is clear you don't have an answer... just more evidence of the lack of any rationality to your posts and opinions.

I don't really consider good and bad separate. Good and bad are complementary opposites. What is good in one situation can be bad in another situation, or bad when viewed from a different angle, and vice versa. So that is how I answer your question.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Hey, ever think of who does the choosing of what "rational" means? It would seem that that word is mighty subjective... Could you tell us?

What do you mean rational is subjective? That makes no sense. Also lets say he couldn't fully tell you, its quite obvious most of rationality is not subjective. That is pretty axiomic.

Are you saying that logic is subjective?


I don't really consider good and bad separate. Good and bad are complementary opposites. What is good in one situation can be bad in another situation, or bad when viewed from a different angle, and vice versa. So that is how I answer your question.


Ah Relativism......



I consider rationality, knowledge and authenticity to be good things, better then religion, pseudoscience and superstition, so I would advocate rationality by means of discourse and proper influence, not brute force.

I think those three values outweigh any good provided by religion. I see these things are intrinsically good. Quite attacking the "atheist police state" straw man.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


[/b]

So I'm not too off-base then, am I? I guess I do understand rational thought afterall. A "rational" society would want all of its members to be rational. Therefore, the society would be "encouraged" to not have paranormal, religious, or other "irrational" views, and would thus tend towards non-belief or atheism.

Hey, ever think of who does the choosing of what "rational" means? It would seem that that word is mighty subjective... Could you tell us?



I don't really consider good and bad separate. Good and bad are complementary opposites. What is good in one situation can be bad in another situation, or bad when viewed from a different angle, and vice versa. So that is how I answer your question. [/B]

Way off base as usual---admitting this time that you don't know what rational means..I have told you in other posts what it means and you can lok it up if you really want to know ..a rational society would realize that while it would be nice if everone were rational it is not possible in reality--because we have met people like you who just cannot think rationally..all we would realistically be able to hope for is to be protected from the irrational types like you who think you can determine what is good or bad based on your "different angle"--you have proven that your approach has no definition of good and bad so anything can be good--like child rape, mass murder..what ever if you view it from the right angle...thanks--you have once again proven what I said...those who think that the real world is subject to their own thoughts are dangerous. Rational people would of course realize that the way to protect against such irrationality is not to persecute it or to try to force it underground unless such irrational types were trying to destroy others freedom to seek the truth...Since rational thought is an ongoing search rational people would work to guarantee everyone the safety to find out what is true and real if they choose-- so long as they do not stop anyone else from finding out for themselves.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Also lets say he couldn't fully tell you, its quite obvious most of rationality is not subjective. That is pretty axiomic.


I take it you can't tell me who decides what is rational either.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I take it you can't tell me who decides what is rational either. [/B]

That's because there is no "who" who decides...this is the concept of reality and rationality that believers- like you- can't grasp intellectually...if there were a who - it would be subjective---it is not a who--it is objective reality.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

Way off base as usual---admitting this time that you don't know what rational means..I have told you in other posts what it means and you can lok it up if you really want to know


Now I'm wondering here...did you decide what the word rational means, or did you get it out of a dictionary, or... ? Do you think the meaning of the word rational came about through objective means or through subjective means?


-because we have met people like you who just cannot think rationally..


Your ad homs do nothing for your argument. You can stop those anytime.


all we would realistically be able to hope for is to be protected from the irrational types like you who think you can determine what is good or bad based on your "different angle"--


Protected? hehe, um, yeah... I've never hurt anyone in my life. Try again.

I've never said I think I can determine what is good or bad, especially considering I don't view good and bad as separate things! Good and bad are irrational subjective human constructs. Nothing more.


you have proven that your approach has no definition of good and bad so anything can be good--like child rape, mass murder..what ever if you view it from the right angle..


Exactly, those things can be viewed as good (because anything can be viewed as good or bad). It all depends on who or what is doing the viewing, or when the viewing is taking place. But you're terribly mistaken into thinking that I created that way of interpreting things. That way of viewing the world exists because of the complementary opposites that exist. Go blame nature or God(s), or whoever for those complementary opposites.


Since rational thought is an ongoing search rational people would work to guarantee everyone the safety to find out what is true and real if they choose--

That is certainly a possibility. However, if so called rational people already believe they have the market on the truth, and that others who are not rational like them are irrational and are living in a fantasy world in their minds and they could be dangerous, the irrational people might be 'handled' to benefit the cause of a safe rational society. That is a possibility too.

[Fun2BFree]

Time to go re balance your energy, T'ai...

The strawmen you keep creating can't stand up...you said good and bad are irrational--so...

In your little Tao worldview is there an opposite of Irrational?

What would that be?

And the opposite of subjective?

Seek these....

[FireGarden]

I try to achieve objectivity by applying, in turn, as many subjective filters as I can. (Including the opinions of other people)

Nietzsche might have said it better. [From Genealogy of Morals]
Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself".....

These always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense.

There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?
On the thread topic, I'll agree with Yahzi. :eek:!!!

(Don't worry, he won't agree with the rest of this)
Lies are bad, and they are always bad.
But sometimes they are not the worst alternative.

I find it hard to believe that everyone involved in religion is out for their own self-interest. Even amongst the founders.

We'd all like an ideal world, but (unfortunately) sometimes rational argument is not the best way to achieve social change.

For example:
I would agree that homophobia is bad, and that there are rational arguments that can be used to convince people to end the persecution of gay people. But I do not object to propaganda methods of achieving that end. Ostrasizing people that are homophobic in the media (soap-opera, talk shows, whatever) and making it "unfashionable" to hate gays may be the only way to convince some people to change their behaviour. A lot of people only go along with flow. If they think that fashions have changed, then fashions will change.

I realise that sounds elitist, but that's because it is.
However, I don't think that anybody can be objective on every matter. (I'm certainly not). And even for those that do work out what's right or wrong, many will not have the courage to stand up against the mob.

Summary:
Religion is bad because it tells lies. But that doesn't mean that no good can come from it. (Or even that the good can't be greater than the bad.)

[billydkid]

I don't think anyone can rationally argue that there is not a certain wisdom to be had from studying the ancient collected sacred texts of different cultures. Many biblical scholars and theologians do not, in fact, "believe" the bible. I guess when you discuss "religion" as distinct from its literature and you assume that believing untruth is necessarily a bad thing and leads to suffering (as I am inclined to do) then, no, nothing ultimately good can come from religion. Personally, I would find religion to be even scarier if it were the "truth". Man, the God of the Jews and Christians and Muslims is one truly horrifying entity taken as a whole. And what a terrifying universe it would be to inhabit if the bible were factually "true". On the other hand, it might be nice to know where you stand in the universe.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
But I do not object to propaganda methods of achieving that end.
When you sup with the devil, you better bring a looooong spoon.

You cannot justify lies in the name of truth, because truth requires so much trust. Once people find out you lied about one thing, they dismiss everything you said.

It's like when the government was running that campaign to convince people that smoking pot was fatal. Most people discovered they had exaggerated: and when speed came along. and the government tried to warn people that it was fatal, nobody believed them.

The pious lie might seem noble, but in the long it never actually works.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tormac
Or, put another way, does a religion have to be 100% accurate to be useful to society?



Hi Tormac.

Maybe you won't be surprised with my reply.

To me, the usefulness of a Religion has to do with the needs that satisfy in a society. If a religion is accepted by the majority of a society, regardless if this Religion advocates lies or not, this means that it satisfies certain existing needs of the people that believe in it. So,a Religion is good as long as it serves the needs of the people and not the Truth. As Protagoras used to say anyway , true is only what a person feels or needs.

[Fun2BFree]

GoodPropaganda's answer re homophobia demonstrates a common misconception about what rational approaches involve...the plan to use the forces of peer pressure to ostracize homophobes is entirely rational....thegoal is measurable- to end the real measurable discrimination and violence visited on people just because they are gay...this as part of a greater measureable goal of social peace and harmony in this world..and the means is real...social pressure...if it works you have applied reason and rationality successfully...note the difference between that and the irrationality of all belief systems which have unreal or unknowable ends--eternal life, cosmic harmony, balance of unmeasurable energies, please Casper the Ghost in the sky...etc....no way to know if you reach those goal...not knowable, not measureable not accessible to reason and therefore--not rational....If you start with irrational premises/goals then there is no impediment to irrational means---
Homophobia --example of the irrational approach- Homophobia is bad because it disrupts the cosmic energy field of our world (because I say so--I can feel it) Anything is allowed to set right the energy---Kill all homophobes--it's okay because it will rebalance the energy (as before- I will tell you if I feel that too)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Time to go re balance your energy, T'ai...


Um? You probably looked up "t'ai chi" on Google, came across a site that claimed t'ai chi balances energy or something, and assumed I believe that.

In any case, you completely avoided any and all questions I asked you. Typical, twice.


In your little Tao worldview is there an opposite of Irrational?


Um, don't be so patronizing if you expect to seriously continue this conversation.

Sure, in my little worldview the complementary opposite of irrational is rational.

So tell us all, who decides what rational means? And is that decided objectively or subjectively? If objective who, and if subjective, then it isn't rational.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Hi Tormac.

Maybe you won't be surprised with my reply.

To me, the usefulness of a Religion has to do with the needs that satisfy in a society. If a religion is accepted by the majority of a society, regardless if this Religion advocates lies or not, this means that it satisfies certain existing needs of the people that believe in it. So,a Religion is good as long as it serves the needs of the people and not the Truth. As Protagoras used to say anyway , true is only what a person feels or needs.

If alot or even most of the people want it it must be necessary? I don't think so. Most people want TV sets, junk food, alcoholic beverages, and cheap goods from foreign labour. A great many people want recreational drugs, SUV's, micro wave popcorn, Stilletto heel shoes, computer games, and Monday Night Football.
I don't think any of these things satisfies a need of society. Wants and desires? Yes, absolutely, but a need? The fact that alot of people buy into a religion says nothing to me about wether or not said religion is benefitting its members or society in any way. I don't have a lot of faith in the vast number of people who at times have believed that Cigarettes are good, that bathing is dangerous, that women should not vote, and that Nixon was good for the country. How many instances can you think of in which the overwhelming majority was dead wrong?

Glory

[FireGarden]

Yahzi,
You cannot justify lies in the name of truth, because truth requires so much trust. Once people find out you lied about one thing, they dismiss everything you said.
I didn't justify lies in the name of truth.
I justified lies in the name of the greater good.

I suppose that you'll stick to patiently explaining the wrongs of bigotry to everyone who won't listen. (As you have such a long "ignore list", I'm sure you'll agree that there are some people out there who will not be convinced by argument). I'll resort to the deception of invoking an appeal to popularity (ironically, a kind of bigotry in itself). Do you think that you'll convince all of those that need to be convinced?

And nobody has ever believed their government and/or parents about drugs. "Don't smoke weed, it funds terrorism" Just like pirated videos, CDs, etc.

"Stick to your legally taxed entertainments."

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that governments are behind any media campaign concerning homophobia. Probably it's just the programme makers pushing forward their own agendas. But I still support this kind of campaign to end bigotry.


Fun2BFree,
I think that you're agreeing with me, but it's you're contrasting example that "demonstrates a common misconception about what rational approaches involve", in that people think they are being rational merely if their conclusions follow from their premises. However, if those premises state untestable or unknowable "facts" then the chain of logic that follows is entirely an academic matter.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I take it you can't tell me who decides what is rational either. [/B]

That's the wrong question, rationality is not like law in that it is decided by a person.

That's like asking "who decides what is edible?"


As if the FDA could pronounce tomorrow that plastic is edible and we could all just go around eating it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Now I'm wondering here...did you decide what the word rational means, or did you get it out of a dictionary, or... ? Do you think the meaning of the word rational came about through objective means or through subjective means?


You do that based on sense data and certain axiomic principles. (Which are btw absolute and self-evident).

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well I think it's ok to lie in order to serve the greater good, but I for one consider the preservation and promotion of truth to be a greater good.

Likewise I don't think religion does serve the greater good. I think it in fact does more harm then good, especially now at days, where some fanatic who believes in an afterlife, might start world war 3- because God will take all souls to heaven so earthly bodies are not important.

In a day and age where man has more power then he ever has in history, one cannot afford the luxury of religious confusion. We have as a society, tough decisions to make, and what we need for these decisions is an accurate (or as accurate as possible) worldview.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

That's the wrong question, rationality is not like law in that it is decided by a person.


No. It is a very sensible question:

What does rational mean, who decides it, and is its meaning objective or subjectively? Are you saying rationality IS or IS NOT decided by a person or people?

If people hold up rationality as objective, but it arose through subjective means, then rationality is not as objective as it is pretended it is.

If someone is holding up rationality as some standard of moral good, I sure hope it is objective...

[justsaygnosis]

Any well constructed fable, myth, etc. serves the purpose of conveying a valid philosophical point.
Religious myths are no different in this regard.
Eternal damnation has pretty much been next to useless as a deterrent when individuals and/or groups and/or societies are determined to behave destructively and anti-socially.
I'm more for the notion of regarding anti-social behavior, from its' mildest to its' most extreme manifestations, as an indicator of mental illness.
Politically that would do little to ward off taking a forward defensive posture or counterattacking after being attacked be it as an individual or a society.
It MAY eventually go a long way toward removing the superstitious elements of engaging in divinely or demonically inspired behaviors and justifications.
It's not a panacea or a paradigm but a step in the right direction IMO.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda

I justified lies in the name of the greater good.

And thereby you open the cornocupia of misery.

If we've learned anything in the last 5,000 years, it's that lying never leads to good.

It might lead to less bad (if I'm hiding Jews, and the Nazis bang on my door, I'll lie because the harm of lying is less than the harm of telling the truth in this case), but that's not the same thing, really.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahzi

And thereby you open the cornocupia of misery.

If we've learned anything in the last 5,000 years, it's that lying never leads to good.

It might lead to less bad (if I'm hiding Jews, and the Nazis bang on my door, I'll lie because the harm of lying is less than the harm of telling the truth in this case), but that's not the same thing, really.

What about white lies?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
[B]

No. It is a very sensible question:

You mean begging the question?

What does rational mean,

You should know what rational means. But to give a brief description, it means to follow the principles of reason, and evidence.



who decides it, and is its meaning objective or subjectively?

Again nobody decides the above, rationality is fundamentally objective.

Why does someone have to decide this?



Are you saying rationality IS or IS NOT decided by a person or people?

Is not.

If people hold up rationality as objective, but it arose through subjective means, then rationality is not as objective as it is pretended it is.

I think you are using the term subjective in an ambiguous manner here. Rationality is subjective in that it pertains to the mind, but not subjective in the sense of being unreliable, a matter of taste, or unique to one's-self.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by Yahzi

And thereby you open the cornocupia of misery.

If we've learned anything in the last 5,000 years, it's that lying never leads to good.

It might lead to less bad (if I'm hiding Jews, and the Nazis bang on my door, I'll lie because the harm of lying is less than the harm of telling the truth in this case), but that's not the same thing, really.
More good/less bad
I'll take either justification. I think you're splitting hairs.

Of course you'd lie to Nazis.
You'd have to be extraordinarily arrogant to risk peoples lives in order to try and "de-convert", with honest argument, people whose behaviour will lead to murder.

In your example, we agree that lying is the best course of action. More accurately, perhaps, it's the least bad thing to do. I'm happy with either justification, they both indicate the same course of action. I suppose I'm a pragmatist.

What's your point?
Is it just that you don't like the way I phrased things?

[Tormac]

Thank you for the thoughts everyone. A discussion with a friend about her taking up Lutheranism was what sparked my question. Here in the Blackswamp, most people are of the Lutheran persuasion, with Catholicism second I believe. My friend had been an agnostic before. She seemed to imply that part of the reason why she started attending church was for her two daughters. I will admit, I was surprised when my two friends asked me to be a “godfather” for their daughters, as she had claimed that she did not think any religion was literally “true”, and I had always made my own feelings plain on the subject.

My friend felt that Christianity had a very utilitarian side to it, and seemingly embraced it to help socialize her daughters, and use it as a way to teach morality. I also think that social acceptance may have played a roll in her starting to attend church as well, (the Blackswamp area is a pretty “traditional farming community”).

I think that her attitude falls in with the general feelings that you expressed Cleopatra.

Talking with her about her decision to raise her girls in the Christian faith (and deciding whether or not I could honestly go thought the ceremony as a “godfather”) got me thinking about the role of religion in people’s life.

[LW]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

You should know what rational means. But to give a brief description, it means to follow the principles of reason, and evidence.

and later

Again nobody decides the above, rationality is fundamentally objective.

Could you then please tell me, where you can find fundamentally objective evidence? You see, someone could think that several thousands of anecdotes witnessing the truth of some religion X is more objective than the stuff made up by nasty unbeliever scientists. So apparently someone has to decide what evidence is objective and what subjective.

And as a small digression, I might add that in decision theory there is slighly different definition for rationality:

If a person has to make a choice to perform one of several possible actions, then a rational person always chooses the one that has the highest expected utility of the result.

For example, suppose that a person has the choice to either (a) get $5000 no matter what or (b) flip a coin and get $0 with heads and $20000 with tails. Suppose further that he perceives the utility of money linearly, that is, the utility of 2*X dollars is two times the utility of X dollars.

Then, the expected utilities of choices are U(a) = 1 * 5000 = 5000 and U(b) = 1/2 * 0 + 1/2 * 20000 = 10000. So, if he acted rationally he would flip the coin.

But now here comes the interesting thing that the choice depends completely on the utility function. For example, I would personally choose (a). This decision would be rational since I value certain $5000 more than a 50% possibility of getting $20000. However, if the figures were, for example $5 and $20, I would flip the coin because "losing" $5 would mean nothing in my current money situation and with an extra $20 I could go to have an extra mid-price dinner out.

Using decision theoretic rationality as a guide for ideal society would be rather difficult as it is not at all certain that there exists some objective utility function that could be used for decision making. It would not be nice if the leaders of the society decided that attacking all neighbouring countries always has the highest utilitity.