User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 82

  1. #1
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default I am an atheist but...

    Daniel Dennett (YouTube - Daniel Dennett--Breaking The Spell (talk at Caltech)) a philosopher who attempted to expose the many inconsistencies of religions once complained that he is chastised the most not by the believers, but by non-believers. His most vehement critics were other atheist philosophers who did not think that the incoherence of religion should be exposed.

    Before I lose my readers once again, let it be clear that this thread is not about Dennett and not about the atheist philosophers who chastize him. What I wish to get it is a much deeper concern to us all. Namely, should those of us who do know the truth share it with the ignorant?

    Those who criticize Dennett think that he is simply wrong to assume that people would be liberated and enlightened as a result of knowing the truth. Far from becoming free to live their life being true to themselves, they would be destroyed by the disturbing discoveries. Why is that? Because people have an emotional reaction to all that they observe, and when what they see is unpleasant, they become deeply saddened. Would it really be good to awaken them from their slumbers and reveries when their false beliefs make them happy? It seems doubtful to me.

    The question that I have in mind is, do we truly want to destroy the most popular myths of society, such as the belief in the potency of the individual, true love, god, immortality of the soul? As for love, what I mean specifically is the romantic fiction that most teenagers hold dearly that there is one true soul-mate for them who will make them happy in all possible ways? Do we want to take this away from them? As for the potency of the individual, consider the following cases; motivational speakers across the country preach the message that if you can puit your mind to the task, you can do anything. For example, the Secret (YouTube - How Can I Make A Six Figure Income? David W Bevan) teaches the public very persuasively that they can literally get what they want by BELIEVING that they can do it. If this truly leads people to be self-confident and successfully convince themselves that they are as capable as they'd like to believe they are, do we want to strip them of such an empowering conviction? With regard to God and immortaility of the soul, what if we are dealing with somebody who subscribes to Rick Warren's ( YouTube - Rick Warren: Living a life of purpose ) dictum that God is all one needs in his life. What if it truly is the case that the belief in God and in immortality is what inspires the person to be strong and together. Should this be taken away?

    Finally, for the sake of the general principle, consider the case of a father who has incurred amnesia and mistakenly regards a woman who is not his daughter as his beloved child and continues to do so till the dying breath. Would it truly be better that he be informed of the reality of the situation?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    With all that has been said hitherto, is there any reason to believe that the ignorant should be informed? It must be urged that knowing the truth leads to inner peace as well as prevents us from making mistakes. It prevents us from making mistakes because we are simply more informed of how we wish to live. One acquires inner peace as a result of a belief that his beliefs are true. If one earnestly believes in a falsehood, his mind-set would not be at all different from that of the person who earnestly believes in a true statement. This will continue to be the case until the person who believes in a falsehood is forced to discover that his views are not true. Yet, what if such a person is never informed of the falsity of his views? Dennett would say that it is too late, the cat is already out of the bag. If we do not expose his false beliefs, he will have to learn the hard way simply because it is difficult to avoid information that debunks the popular myths in the 21st century. But is the cat truly out of the bag? It is true that people often are forced to question their implausible beliefs for the aforementioned reasons, however, they often have the will power to give themselves hope to continue believing in what they want to believe in. For the very least, the evidence against the popular myths is inconclusive as it does not meet the standards of a strict proof, as such proof is not at all available outside of mathematics and logic. Hence, this means that no statement can be conclusively refuted and it is possible for the person of faith to find inspiration to believe in any absurdity, should he be resolute and self-disciplined enough in the regard of wilfull ignorance.

    Truly how far can one go in the regard mentioned above? How much can one deceive himself? In order for this question to be answered, it should be noted that all actions are followed by their consequences. A person who has false beliefs, may incur negative consequences as a result of such beliefs. In some cases, it is safe to say, this serves as a compelling reason why he should not have such beliefs. Can one truly be hit over the head numerous times or collide with the moving trucks and proclaim to be alive and well? It appears doubtful. For the very least, no strength of will shall grant us immortality, or even immunity from the acutest of pains. Man obeys the laws of nature, not the other way around. The assertion that it is the other way around is wishful thinking and a manifest appeal to magic. The superstitious, the ignorant, the vulgar, and the archaic have hitherto maintained that they can change the world by mere incantation. By simply wishing any particular entity into existence and out of this sprang the the belief in miracles which to this day is endorsed by all the prevalent religions of the world. The life and ministry of Jesus as depicted in the Christian book of dogma is the case in point. It is true that such beliefs are absurd and only the most ardent men of faith will have the self-discipline to endorse them with earnestness of heart, yet I return to my previous question; should they be awakened their slumbers, or left asleep? It seems to me that in some cases, it is inevitable that people know the truth. For the very least they must know that they cannot will themselves back into existence after they dive off the edge of the Sears Tower, or that they cannot buckle a moving truck upon impact. In some cases, no degree of self-deception shall entail contentment. Yet, the most important question is, are the popular myths in this category? Or is it possible to endorse obviously false beliefs about such matters which would conduce to happiness of the individual in question more than true beliefs? If it is possible to endorse such false beliefs, then the question is, how much self-discipline is required for one to have strong, nearly unshakeable beliefs about such matters? Are such beliefs easy enough to form that the pleasure they lead to in the end would outweigh the consistent effort one must put forth to establish the beliefs in question in the first place?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point I do not wish to voice my judgment regarding this problem. All I want to say is that it might be the case that it is better for the ignorant to be informed, and it might be the case that it is better that they would not be informed. Perhaps even an intermediate point between the two solutions is desirable, whereas in some cases they should be informed, in others they should not. For now, lets just say we should not dogmatize as I have full intentions of leaving this inquiry as open-ended as it could be.


    *Note, "I am an atheist but..." was the phrase initially coined by Richard Dawkins to describe non-believers who protest against the exposure of the absurdities and harmfulness of religions.
    Last edited by SolitaryWalker; 06-02-2009 at 11:04 PM.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    I vote that we expose the truth, if we can, and allow them to suffer. Humanity is not entitled to happiness. Happiness and comfort makes them arrogant.

    The idea behind it... is something like this:
    [Youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEMVgNldFW0"]YouTube - Assemblage 23- Crush[/youtube]

  3. #3
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Daniel Dennett (YouTube - Daniel Dennett--Breaking The Spell (talk at Caltech)) a philosopher who attempted to expose the many inconsistencies of religions one complained that he is chastised the most not by the believers, but by non-believers. His most vehement critics were other atheist philosophers who did not think that the incoherence of religion should be exposed.

    Before I lose my readers once again, let it be clear that this thread is not about Dennett and not about the atheist philosophers who chastize him. What I wish to get it is a much deeper concern to us all. Namely, should those of us who do know the truth share it with the ignorant?

    Those who criticize Dennett think that he is simply wrong to assume that people would be liberated and enlightened as a result of knowing the truth. Far from becoming free to live their life being true to themselves, they would be destroyed by the disturbing discoveries. Why is that? Because people have an emotional reaction to all that they observe, and when what they see is unpleasant, they become deeply saddened. Would it really be good to awaken them from their slumbers and reveries when their false beliefs make them happy? It seems doubtful to me.

    The question that I have in mind is, do we truly want to destroy the most popular myths of society, such as the belief in the potency of the individual, true love, god, immortality of the soul? As for love, what I mean specifically is the romantic fiction that most teenagers hold dearly that there is one true soul-mate for them who will make them happy in all possible ways? Do we want to take this away from them? As for the potency of the individual, consider the following cases; motivational speakers across the country preach the message that if you can puit your mind to the task, you can do anything. For example, the Secret (YouTube - How Can I Make A Six Figure Income? David W Bevan) teaches the public very persuasively that they can literally get what they want by BELIEVING that they can do it. If this truly leads people to be self-confident and successfully convince themselves that they are as capable as they'd like to believe they are, do we want to strip them of such an empowering conviction? With regard to God and immortaility of the soul, what if we are dealing with somebody who subscribes to Rick Warren's ( YouTube - Rick Warren: Living a life of purpose ) dictum that God is all one needs in his life. What if it truly is the case that the belief in God and in immortality is what inspires the person to be strong and together. Should this be taken away?

    Finally, for the sake of the general principle, consider the case of a father who has incurred amnesia and mistakenly regards a woman who is not his daughter as his beloved child and continues to do so till the dying breath. Would it truly be better that he be informed of the reality of the situation?

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    With all that has been said hitherto, is there any reason to believe that the ignorant should be informed? It must be urged that knowing the truth leads to inner peace as well as prevents us from making mistakes. It prevents us from making mistakes because we are simply more informed of how we wish to live. One acquires inner peace as a result of a belief that his beliefs are true. If one earnestly believes in a falsehood, his mind-set would not be at all different from that of the person who earnestly believes in a true statement. This will continue to be the case until the person who believes in a falsehood is forced to discover that his views are not true. Yet, what if such a person is never informed of the falsity of his views? Dennett would say that it is too late, the cat is already out of the bag. If we do not expose his false beliefs, he will have to learn the hard way simply because it is difficult to avoid information that debunks the popular myths in the 21st century. But is the cat truly out of the bag? It is true that people often are forced to question their implausible beliefs for the aforementioned reasons, however, they often have the will power to give themselves hope to continue believing in what they want to believe in. For the very least, the evidence against the popular myths is inconclusive as it does not meet the standards of a strict proof, as such proof is not at all available outside of mathematics and logic. Hence, this means that no statement can be conclusively refuted and it is possible for the person of faith to find inspiration to believe in any absurdity, should he be resolute and self-disciplined enough in the regard of wilfull ignorance.

    Truly how far can one go in the regard mentioned above? How much can one deceive himself? In order for this question to be answered, it should be noted that all actions are followed by their consequences. A person who has false beliefs, may incur negative consequences as a result of such beliefs. In some cases, it is safe to say, this serves as a compelling reason why he should not have such beliefs. Can one truly be hit over the head numerous times or collide with the moving trucks and proclaim to be alive and well? It appears doubtful. For the very least, no strength of will shall grant us immortality, or even immunity from the acutest of pains. Man obeys the laws of nature, not the other way around. The assertion that it is the other way around is wishful thinking and a manifest appeal to magic. The superstitious, the ignorant, the vulgar, and the archaic have hitherto maintained that they can change the world by mere incantation. By simply wishing any particular entity into existence and out of this sprang the the belief in miracles which to this day is endorsed by all the prevalent religions of the world. The life and ministry of Jesus as depicted in the Christian book of dogma is the case in point. It is true that such beliefs are absurd and only the most ardent men of faith will have the self-discipline to endorse them with earnestness of heart, yet I return to my previous question; should they be awakened their slumbers, or left asleep? It seems to me that in some cases, it is inevitable that people know the truth. For the very least they must know that they cannot will themselves back into existence after they dive off the edge of the Sears Tower, or that they cannot buckle a moving truck upon impact. In some cases, no degree of self-deception shall entail contentment. Yet, the most important question is, are the popular myths in this category? Or is it possible to endorse obviously false beliefs about such matters which would conduce to happiness of the individual in question more than true beliefs? If it is possible to endorse such false beliefs, then the question is, how much self-discipline is required for one to have strong, nearly unshakeable beliefs about such matters? Are such beliefs easy enough to form that the pleasure they lead to in the end would outweigh the consistent effort one must put forth to establish the beliefs in question in the first place?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this point I do not wish to voice my judgment regarding this problem. All I want to say is that it might be the case that it is better for the ignorant to be informed, and it might be the case that it is better that they would not be informed. Perhaps even an intermediate point between the two solutions is desirable, whereas in some cases they should be informed, in others they should not. For now, lets just say we should not dogmatize as I have full intentions of leaving this inquiry as open-ended as it could be.


    *Note, "I am an atheist but..." was the phrase initially coined by Richard Dawkins to describe non-believers who protest against the exposure of the absurdities and harmfulness of religions.
    hola! Good to hear from you again.

    It's better to inform them.

    Reason is the test for meaning first, then it's a test for truth. What we as rational animals first need is meaning, and then truth. A person can only believe a false proposition to be true if he hasn't meaning, and so his lesser need for sincerely believing that what he believes is true will be fulfilled, but his more basic need for meaning will not be sated.

    Oh, I'm hoping to respond to the "formal debate" in the near future. Still interested?

    Edit: How did we ever come to such radically different conclusions?
    Last edited by Owl; 06-02-2009 at 02:10 AM. Reason: added more stuff.

  4. #4
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    The below doesn't really engage your argument, SW, but I post it as a toy.

    You suspect that ignorance is bliss, but you cannot believe in a truth you do not believe in, and if it makes you unhappy or appears saddening, then you do not believe in it wholly. How can you be saddened except by entertaining alternatives as true, and then claiming they are false? For no one can lose except by having once had. To admit to having had is to admit to the truth of it. So your emotions betray you here. It can be rightfully said to be shown that you do not even believe what you are saying, if you say that the ignorant should not be informed as a matter of their personal well-being. It follows.

    As a corollary, the truth can happiness can clearly not be separated. Or again, ignorance is not bliss. Or again, be happy and contented with your atheism, as one on the patio swing of his house in the countryside overlooking fields of grain crackling and waving in the summer heat and a light breeze (with maybe an ice-cream bar), or else refute yourself.
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  5. #5
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antireconciler View Post
    You suspect that ignorance is bliss, but you cannot believe in a truth you do not believe in, and if it makes you unhappy or appears saddening, then you do not believe in it wholly. How can you be saddened except by entertaining alternatives as true, and then claiming they are false? For no one can lose except by having once had. To admit to having had is to admit to the truth of it. So your emotions betray you here. It can be rightfully said to be shown that you do not even believe what you are saying, if you say that the ignorant should not be informed as a matter of their personal well-being. It follows.

    As a corollary, the truth can happiness can clearly not be separated. And again, ignorance is not bliss.
    I guess in that case, the truth couldn't really hurt people in the long run, no matter what it was. It would only help them, even if it didn't feel like it at first. Even accepting the truth that a person has died usually helps you, come to think of it.

    That's interesting to consider... that ignorance isn't bliss, anymore than denial is bliss.

  6. #6
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    hola! Good to hear from you again.

    It's better to inform them.

    Reason is the test for meaning first, then it's a test for truth. What we as rational animals first need is meaning, and then truth. A person can only believe a false proposition to be true if he hasn't meaning, and so his lesser need for sincerely believing that what he believes is true will be fulfilled, but his more basic need for meaning will not be sated.

    Oh, I'm hoping to respond to the "formal debate" in the near future. Still interested?

    Edit: How did we ever come to such radically different conclusions?
    How are you defining meaning? The most typical notion of meaning as significance something holds to a person. In other words, it is how important something is to someone. I do not see why something needs to be a true beleive to be important to a person. Imagine an ordinary non-educated person of 900. He finds meaning in the proposition that the Earth is flat because it makes him feel genuinely knowledgeable, and it is important for him to be knowledgeable.

    How is the person in question robbed of meaning by a belief in falsehoods. Yes, certainly interested in continuing the formal debate.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #7
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    The problem with this idea is that you will be unable to "prove" something about religion, either for or against. I would imagine that the atheists that aren't for this "proof" just acknowledge that no one actually knows for sure.

    Being determined that you know the "truth" is not any better than anyone else who says the same thing - how are you any different?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    I think that many people are more interested in living the truth most relevent to their interests, than the actual truth, for motivation and ethics.

    I've put this elsewhere but I'll resummarize here. Evolution is a good example of science butting heads with religion where the actual proofs and validity matters very little. Why? Because having confidence in evolution over creationism adds very little value to one's life, while maintaining ones faith holds a tremendous value in ways that science cannot replace. It takes little effort to turn a blind eye, make a little leap of logic, and maintain the comfortable positive points of ones religion. But there are other areas where science overwhelms with its practical application, the best examples being advancements in the medical field, and these tend to bend the truth of their faith. I find it very interesting how organic the thought process is.

    Back to the original point then, I'm not sure what the ultimate tradeoff is between the two. I'm heavily slanted towards the truth of science myself, but I don't entirely disregard the benefit of truth via faith given it addresses aspects that science does not or cannot, and I think that some people simply cannot function to their potential without that in their lives.

  9. #9
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    I think that many people are more interested in living the truth most relevent to their interests, than the actual truth, for motivation and ethics.

    I've put this elsewhere but I'll resummarize here. Evolution is a good example of science butting heads with religion where the actual proofs and validity matters very little. Why? Because having confidence in evolution over creationism adds very little value to one's life, while maintaining ones faith holds a tremendous value in ways that science cannot replace. It takes little effort to turn a blind eye, make a little leap of logic, and maintain the comfortable positive points of ones religion. But there are other areas where science overwhelms with its practical application, the best examples being advancements in the medical field, and these tend to bend the truth of their faith. I find it very interesting how organic the thought process is.

    Back to the original point then, I'm not sure what the ultimate tradeoff is between the two. I'm heavily slanted towards the truth of science myself, but I don't entirely disregard the benefit of truth via faith given it addresses aspects that science does not or cannot, and I think that some people simply cannot function to their potential without that in their lives.
    +1
    I basically agree with everything stated here.

  10. #10
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    I've put this elsewhere but I'll resummarize here. Evolution is a good example of science butting heads with religion where the actual proofs and validity matters very little. Why? Because having confidence in evolution over creationism adds very little value to one's life, while maintaining ones faith holds a tremendous value in ways that science cannot replace.
    Nice point.

    Also, the more "rational" worldview can probably also accept more a existential framework of existence -- nothing has eternal meaning except what people choose to invest in it, since we have no way to know what is true, 100% -- and therefore why does it really matter whether someone has their eyes opened or not, except perhaps in how it leads them to complicate and/or damage the lives of people with whom they happen to disagree?

    I'm heavily slanted towards the truth of science myself, but I don't entirely disregard the benefit of truth via faith given it addresses aspects that science does not or cannot, and I think that some people simply cannot function to their potential without that in their lives.
    I still think it worth engaging people, in a moderate way -- just to keep ideas out there so that people don't become entirely unaware -- but I don't usually see a point in tearing down someone's life and trying to force them to see something they don't want to see via argument, because it serves no real long-term positive purpose and because it usually doesn't work anyway.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-29-2015, 12:07 AM
  2. Am I an Atheist?
    By RandomINTP in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-09-2015, 06:43 AM
  3. [ENTP] Society, espeically as you age, tells you you should be an ISTJ, but I am an ENTP
    By EricHanson in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-06-2014, 11:58 PM
  4. Well i think i'm an INTJ but...
    By Fuent in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 06-19-2008, 11:44 AM
  5. [ENFP] A female ENFP, an atheist, and a part-time misanthrope...
    By SillySapienne in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-18-2008, 01:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO