Not wanting to change to some other word is not because they do not want to admit they were wrong. It is because they do not want to abandon their tribe.
So they don’t want their tribe to know that they internally admit they were wrong. Then this is about strategic lying.
(Note: I am not against strategic lying per se. If my life would be threatened if I tell the truth, I would definitely be interested in learning good methods of strategic lying.)
I was not talking about strategic lying. It is true, however, that in many such cases strategic lying might be appropriate. This simply reveals more clearly the badness of Bound_up’s advice. As I said in another comment, it comes across as, “Abandon your tribe and come over to mine!”, and in fact that may be what he intends.
I was talking about using the word “God” to express whatever true elements there are in the idea, and abandoning the false elements, and being quite specific about this. This would not involve any lying, and if you are clear enough your tribe will know quite clearly that you disagree with them. Nonetheless, I assure you that people who believe in God will still feel better about this than if you simply say “God does not exist.” So as long as you are only speaking of real things, a person from such a tribe will not get any benefit from denying that God exists, unless he specifically wants to say that he is abandoning his tribe and joining another.
So they don’t want their tribe to know that they internally admit they were wrong. Then this is about strategic lying.
The best way to show your tribe that you believe their distinguishing “truths” is to actually believe them. In many cases, it’s strategic self-deception, rather than internal truth-seeking with outward lying. Of course, distinguishing between these is difficult even reflectively in oneself, and nearly impossible in committed others.
Which is why religion is so often a mind-killing topic. It’s hard to trust yourself and impossible to trust others.
So they don’t want their tribe to know that they internally admit they were wrong. Then this is about strategic lying.
(Note: I am not against strategic lying per se. If my life would be threatened if I tell the truth, I would definitely be interested in learning good methods of strategic lying.)
I was not talking about strategic lying. It is true, however, that in many such cases strategic lying might be appropriate. This simply reveals more clearly the badness of Bound_up’s advice. As I said in another comment, it comes across as, “Abandon your tribe and come over to mine!”, and in fact that may be what he intends.
I was talking about using the word “God” to express whatever true elements there are in the idea, and abandoning the false elements, and being quite specific about this. This would not involve any lying, and if you are clear enough your tribe will know quite clearly that you disagree with them. Nonetheless, I assure you that people who believe in God will still feel better about this than if you simply say “God does not exist.” So as long as you are only speaking of real things, a person from such a tribe will not get any benefit from denying that God exists, unless he specifically wants to say that he is abandoning his tribe and joining another.
The best way to show your tribe that you believe their distinguishing “truths” is to actually believe them. In many cases, it’s strategic self-deception, rather than internal truth-seeking with outward lying. Of course, distinguishing between these is difficult even reflectively in oneself, and nearly impossible in committed others.
Which is why religion is so often a mind-killing topic. It’s hard to trust yourself and impossible to trust others.