• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I am an atheist but...

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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:

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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]
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
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:

antireconciler

it's a nuclear device
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
866
MBTI Type
Intj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so
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.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

Laurie

Was E.laur
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
6,072
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
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?
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
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.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
If your goal is to make those whose theology you're debunking happy then I would agree with you that a case by case assessment is necessary.

The many different circumstances that people come to accept religion through along with the many different ways people integrate religious beliefs into their lives mean that the benefits of religious belief so far as happiness is concerned have more to do with the individual than the dogma.

Personally I find the support and development of the consistent idea against the inconsistent popular idea to be more gratifying than a combination of pussyfooting and back rubbing in an attempt to keep a mass of perceived inferiors happy.

And to keep information you hold as true away from others due to your belief that they would lack the ability to properly manage it is absolutely a stance of superiority.

Would you rather treat others with respect or kindness?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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?

There is no conclusive proof about religions, however, some arguments on the subject are better than others. Those proposed by the scientists and the philosophers do not guarantee us the knowledge of the truth, though they give us much more clear indicators of what the truth is than those that are almost completely unfounded.

In one sentence, no argument about religion or many popular myth has all the evidence on its side, yet some arguments have more evidence than others. A rational person will believe in the one that is more supported by evidence.


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.

It is true that religion offers insights by inspiring people to believe in things they have no reason to believe in, such as immortality of the soul. This is a deeply positive influence on many people. However, if philosophical and scientific arguments were clearly and thoroughly expounded upon, it would become clear that the reason why people believe in the immortality of the soul is just because they want to. In other words, there is simply no reason to believe in such things. This will make even the most ardent and self-disciplined of believers question their faith. As a result, they may lose the benefits of false beliefs espoused by religion. My question is, do we truly want it?

Correct me if I am wrong, your position is that we do not want it. In some cases, like medicine for example, the scientific truth is useful as it has practical applications. In religion, such applications are much less pronounced, therefore they are less desirable.

If your goal is to make those whose theology you're debunking happy then I would agree with you that a case by case assessment is necessary.

The many different circumstances that people come to accept religion through along with the many different ways people integrate religious beliefs into their lives mean that the benefits of religious belief so far as happiness is concerned have more to do with the individual than the dogma.

Personally I find the support and development of the consistent idea against the inconsistent popular idea to be more gratifying than a combination of pussyfooting and back rubbing in an attempt to keep a mass of perceived inferiors happy.

And to keep information you hold as true away from others due to your belief that they would lack the ability to properly manage it is absolutely a stance of superiority.

Would you rather treat others with respect or kindness?

I agree that keeping the truth away from a certain group is disrespectful because to do so means to implicitly regard yourself as superior to others. However, what if those people that you are disrespectful towards are so obtuse that they do not understand that they are being disrespected? More importantly, what if they are truly better off living a lie as opposed to knowing the truth? Would it not be the case that in this instance they would benefit from your attitude of disrespect towards them? Simply put, they would be better off knowing the truth rather than not.

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 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.

Your position is in favor of mitigated disclosure. Or only partially revealing the truth. This way people who are better off not knowing the truth still have a chance to avoid being significantly influenced by the truth. People who are not better off living a lie and do wish to know the truth are free to be influenced by it. All they have to do is simply ask you to explain your views more thoroughly. Let me know if I have correctly interpreted your position.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
The positive effects of the religious experience come about in extreme inefficiency.

Taking Christianity as the example, the goal of Christianity is service to God. In other words, Christianity most efficiently benefits God, and the benefits to it's followers are secondary.

Since our goal seems to be the benefiting of human beings directly, taking the indirect approach of benefiting God would seem a waste.

Of course Christianity has it's mechanisms to prevent this sort of rational, The service of God is put forth as the only true path to calm.

This mechanism can be easily criticized by comparison to other forms of establishing calm, even allowing for the rare situation where true peace of mind is achievable through Christianity, there are some ever present disadvantages to the religious man over the holder of a self developed calm.

The Christian must necessarily possess an inability to fully communicate with others the specifics of his enlightenment. He relies heavily on a subjective relationship he has with an idea he holds as objective, because of this he is only able to communicate his calm using the same terms as a trouble Christian would communicate their unrest.

When a man is in full possession of the source of his calm, he is able to more effectively communicate its mechanics and more easily provide aid to those who seek a similar state. While the Christian can only point you to another when you envy his lot (namely God, the Bible or the Church), the secularist who finds himself in an enviable position is the absolute best source of knowledge relating to the acquisition of his position.

The reason Christianity is able to survive is that it is designed to serve itself, to propagate the message of Christ. If the goal is to provide as much peace of mind to as many human beings as possible (future generations included) then Christianity is a mistaken cause.

I agree that keeping the truth away from a certain group is disrespectful because to do so means to implicitly regard yourself as superior to others. However, what if those people that you are disrespectful towards are so obtuse that they do not understand that they are being disrespected? More importantly, what if they are truly better off living a lie as opposed to knowing the truth? Would it not be the case that in this instance they would benefit from your attitude of disrespect towards them? Simply put, they would be better off knowing the truth rather than not.

Consider it a service to their children. More happiness will be provided to the extended humanity if a single obtuse man experiences a crisis of faith. Also I doubt the depth of anguish that such people are capable of experiencing.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...Your position is in favor of mitigated disclosure. Or only partially revealing the truth. This way people who are better off not knowing the truth still have a chance to avoid being significantly influenced by the truth. People who are not better off living a lie and do wish to know the truth are free to be influenced by it. All they have to do is simply ask you to explain your views more thoroughly. Let me know if I have correctly interpreted your position.

While I don't have enough vested interest to defend a position right now, the latter part of your paragraph seems to resonate with me...

I'm entirely open to discussion and investing in people who will seem to benefit from deeper discussion of truth... and they show this readiness by engaging me on their own initiative regarding it, if I've put just enough of myself out there ("hanging out my spiritual/psychological shingle" I suppose) for them to know they can engage me.

And that's actually how I have been pursuing engagement at this point in my life, I see now. I have no agenda to "change the world," I'm just out there and open so that others can engage me if interested. I make myself accessible.

If I disagree with someone but they're stable and making their lives work without screwing up other people's, and I don't have some sort of vested interest in them, I'm content to let them find their own way. If I topple someone's world, it entrenches me in helping them pick up the pieces and that can take a long time.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
Where does the assumption that truth = happiness come from? There are many truths that are shattering to people, and cause a decline in the quality of their lives. Surely there are people who fancy themselves rationals who hold the unearthing of the truth as the highest possible calling, but some would rather live with emotional and spiritual security even if some of their beliefs are unsubstantiated.

I think that the exposing of an unsought truth can be at least as harmful as the belief in something that may be myth. In other words, reason can be quite unreasonable. Until it is recognized that reason is best leavened with humanity, I prefer to keep decisions such as these out of the hands of churches, either those of gods or those of reason.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think that the exposing of an unsought truth can be at least as harmful as the belief in something that may be myth. In other words, reason can be quite unreasonable. Until it is recognized that reason is best leavened with humanity, I prefer to keep decisions such as these out of the hands of churches, either those of gods or those of reason.

Do you take an aggressive stance in breaking the influence of those churches?
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
Do you take an aggressive stance in breaking the influence of those churches?

If I thought they were poor influences, perhaps I would. I'm not a churchgoer, but I find the net impact of churches to be negligible. People are fond of asserting that "the church" as an entity is a negative or unwelcome influence, but those churches, at street level, are largely made up of caring people who are striving to improve the lot of those around them.

Besides, influence is just another name for the popularity of a movement. It's a factor of the number of people who subscribe. There's a democracy of ideas, and if my candidate loses 80% to 20%, who am I to tell that 80% that they've made the wrong choice for themselves?
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
If their choices are truly justified, then they shouldn't be bothered by a challenge to them.

A democracy of ideas? Well that democracy has room for politicians.

Also that 80% certainly doesn't hold back from trying to indoctrinate people susceptible to their influence.
 
Top