It seems that implicit in any discussion of the kind is, “What do you think I ought to do if you are right?”.
For theists, the answer might be something leading to, “Accept Jesus as your personal savior”, etc.
For atheists, it might be, “Give up the irrational illusion of God.” I’m questioning whether such an answer is a good idea if they are at least humble and uncertain enough to respect others’ views—if their goal is comfort and happiness as opposed to placing a high value on literal truth.
But do recall, I’m placing this in the “stupid questions” thread because I am woefully ignorant of the debate and am looking for pointers to relevant discussions.
It seems that implicit in any discussion of the kind is, “What do you think I ought to do if you are right?”
That is implicit in any discussion of this type. But it doesn’t go without saying that we should be trying to have a conversation of this type. In fact, it is totally unfair of you to assume that having this conversation is so pressing that it goes without saying. After all, not all theists proselytize.
For a more substantive response, I’ll say only that I’m not convinced that believing unpleasant but truth things is inherently inconsistent with being happier. But there is a substantial minority in this community that disagrees with me.
In fact, it is totally unfair of you to assume that having this conversation is so pressing that it goes without saying. After all, not all theists proselytize.
OK. This seems to imply that there is some serious downside about starting such a conversation. What would it be? It would seem conciliatory to theists, if some (naturally enough) assume that what atheists want is for them to embrace atheism.
I’ll say only that I’m not convinced that believing unpleasant but truth things is inherently inconsistent with being happier.
I hope I’ve parsed the negatives correctly: Certainly believing unpleasant but true things is highly advantageous to being happier if it leads to effective actions (I sure hope that pain isn’t cancer—what an unpleasant thing to believe… but I’ll go to the doctor anyway and maybe there will be an effective treatment). If it means unpleasant things that can’t be changed, then that’s not inherently inconsistent with being happier either, for instance if your personal happiness function includes that discovering that you are deceiving yourself will make you very unhappy.
The question is more whether it is a valid choice for a person to say they value pleasant illusions when there is no effective way to change the underlying unpleasant reality.
We object when someone else wants to infringe on our liberties (contraception, consensual sexual practices), and my suggestion was that a mild dose of doubt in one’s faith might be enough to defang efforts to restrict other people’s liberties.
I knew a devout Catholic who was also a devout libertarian, and his position on abortion was that it was a grave sin, but it should not be illegal. I’m not sure if that position required a measure of doubt about the absolute truth of Catholicism, but it seems possible.
What boat-rocking are you talking about? Do you know a lot of people who “ask of” religious people that they do something?
It seems that implicit in any discussion of the kind is, “What do you think I ought to do if you are right?”.
For theists, the answer might be something leading to, “Accept Jesus as your personal savior”, etc.
For atheists, it might be, “Give up the irrational illusion of God.” I’m questioning whether such an answer is a good idea if they are at least humble and uncertain enough to respect others’ views—if their goal is comfort and happiness as opposed to placing a high value on literal truth.
But do recall, I’m placing this in the “stupid questions” thread because I am woefully ignorant of the debate and am looking for pointers to relevant discussions.
That is implicit in any discussion of this type. But it doesn’t go without saying that we should be trying to have a conversation of this type. In fact, it is totally unfair of you to assume that having this conversation is so pressing that it goes without saying. After all, not all theists proselytize.
For a more substantive response, I’ll say only that I’m not convinced that believing unpleasant but truth things is inherently inconsistent with being happier. But there is a substantial minority in this community that disagrees with me.
I remain quite confused.
OK. This seems to imply that there is some serious downside about starting such a conversation. What would it be? It would seem conciliatory to theists, if some (naturally enough) assume that what atheists want is for them to embrace atheism.
I hope I’ve parsed the negatives correctly: Certainly believing unpleasant but true things is highly advantageous to being happier if it leads to effective actions (I sure hope that pain isn’t cancer—what an unpleasant thing to believe… but I’ll go to the doctor anyway and maybe there will be an effective treatment). If it means unpleasant things that can’t be changed, then that’s not inherently inconsistent with being happier either, for instance if your personal happiness function includes that discovering that you are deceiving yourself will make you very unhappy.
The question is more whether it is a valid choice for a person to say they value pleasant illusions when there is no effective way to change the underlying unpleasant reality.
We object when someone else wants to infringe on our liberties (contraception, consensual sexual practices), and my suggestion was that a mild dose of doubt in one’s faith might be enough to defang efforts to restrict other people’s liberties.
I knew a devout Catholic who was also a devout libertarian, and his position on abortion was that it was a grave sin, but it should not be illegal. I’m not sure if that position required a measure of doubt about the absolute truth of Catholicism, but it seems possible.