Believing in a consequential claim with no evidence is a great way to believe in harmful lies.
It’s an equally good way to believe in beneficial lies. Whether the lies are helpful or not depends on the intention and competence of those who made them up. I fully support believing in lies that help society and make our lives happier.
I view religions as ways to make ideas easier to understand. They’re a form of data compression for human thoughts, that makes them easier to remember and to transmit. A JPEG is a “lie” because it’s lossy compression. It creates visual artefacts that aren’t in the original. But those artefacts are byproducts of a process that makes images smaller and easier to store on old hardware.
So if you want a culture that practices complex systems of politics and ethics and science for many many generations, you better have a great compression algorithm. Like a religion. With intelligent design of faith, religion can be a “lie” that makes a society healthy, strong, and nice to live in.
So that’s My critique of the philosophy being espoused here, that objective truth is a moral good. I don’t believe in objective truth, I think everything humans have yet gained the ability to know is some flavour of inaccurate. Best to choose helpful inaccuracies instead of harmful ones.
It’s an equally good way to believe in beneficial lies
That was addressed in my other comment. And if you believe that the reasons for doing good things in the world are “beneficial lies”, I’d say that’s another issue with theism warping your view of reality. You don’t need “beneficial lies” to do good in the world. You merely need the desire and ability to do good – neither of which require theism. But the lies that people are influenced by will contribute to harmful beliefs and actions, which is the main problem with theism.
So that’s My critique of the philosophy being espoused here, that objective truth is a moral good.
I am not appealing to an “objective truth”. I’m appealing against the solopsism and nihilism required to believe something you know is unfalsifiable. If you can’t know something is true, be honest with yourself and others. Your position on the matter should be “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”. Not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”.
You don’t need to believe in an “absolute truth”. But you shouldn’t adopt an affirmative belief in things that you know cannot be proven or disproven. The only honest answer to such a matter – a belief in god(s) – is: “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”; not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”. The latter is harmful.
The existence of an external world beyond our senses can’t be proven or disproven. You could have been deceived by an evil demon’s illusions. You can’t verify the accuracy of your senses using your senses, because that’s circular reasoning.
You and I both have no choice but to believe in an unfalsifiable external world. Because the only alternative is solipsism, and neither of us is considering that one.
Thus, everything we can ever know is built on a foundation of lies.
You and I both have no choice but to believe in an unfalsifiable external world. Because the only alternative is solipsism, and neither of us is considering that one.
What you’re doing is solopsism. You’re adopting affirmative beliefs in things you know can’t be proven true out of the fear that if you don’t, nothing but your own experience can be real. God(s) do not need to exist for things outside your own experience to be real. If you believe otherwise, you are being solopsistic.
I’m a soulist, not a solipsist. Solipsism is passive. Solipsists can’t do anything with faith that it will make the world a better place. Soulists can do more than realists can, because of our faith. https://soulism.net/
And what you’re doing is ignorant, unintentional faith. The worst characteristics of religion. You can’t see past this all-powerful “real world” you’ve been taught to believe in, because you’ve built your entire identity around it.
It’s an equally good way to believe in beneficial lies. Whether the lies are helpful or not depends on the intention and competence of those who made them up. I fully support believing in lies that help society and make our lives happier.
I view religions as ways to make ideas easier to understand. They’re a form of data compression for human thoughts, that makes them easier to remember and to transmit. A JPEG is a “lie” because it’s lossy compression. It creates visual artefacts that aren’t in the original. But those artefacts are byproducts of a process that makes images smaller and easier to store on old hardware.
So if you want a culture that practices complex systems of politics and ethics and science for many many generations, you better have a great compression algorithm. Like a religion. With intelligent design of faith, religion can be a “lie” that makes a society healthy, strong, and nice to live in.
So that’s My critique of the philosophy being espoused here, that objective truth is a moral good. I don’t believe in objective truth, I think everything humans have yet gained the ability to know is some flavour of inaccurate. Best to choose helpful inaccuracies instead of harmful ones.
That was addressed in my other comment. And if you believe that the reasons for doing good things in the world are “beneficial lies”, I’d say that’s another issue with theism warping your view of reality. You don’t need “beneficial lies” to do good in the world. You merely need the desire and ability to do good – neither of which require theism. But the lies that people are influenced by will contribute to harmful beliefs and actions, which is the main problem with theism.
I am not appealing to an “objective truth”. I’m appealing against the solopsism and nihilism required to believe something you know is unfalsifiable. If you can’t know something is true, be honest with yourself and others. Your position on the matter should be “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”. Not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”.
I think I do. I don’t believe in absolute truth. I think we can only ever choose which lies to believe in.
Good lies, designed competently by well-meaning leaders, will make the world better.
You don’t need to believe in an “absolute truth”. But you shouldn’t adopt an affirmative belief in things that you know cannot be proven or disproven. The only honest answer to such a matter – a belief in god(s) – is: “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”; not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”. The latter is harmful.
The existence of an external world beyond our senses can’t be proven or disproven. You could have been deceived by an evil demon’s illusions. You can’t verify the accuracy of your senses using your senses, because that’s circular reasoning.
You and I both have no choice but to believe in an unfalsifiable external world. Because the only alternative is solipsism, and neither of us is considering that one.
Thus, everything we can ever know is built on a foundation of lies.
What you’re doing is solopsism. You’re adopting affirmative beliefs in things you know can’t be proven true out of the fear that if you don’t, nothing but your own experience can be real. God(s) do not need to exist for things outside your own experience to be real. If you believe otherwise, you are being solopsistic.
I’m a soulist, not a solipsist. Solipsism is passive. Solipsists can’t do anything with faith that it will make the world a better place. Soulists can do more than realists can, because of our faith. https://soulism.net/
You can call yourself whatever you like, but what you are doing is solopsistic.
And what you’re doing is ignorant, unintentional faith. The worst characteristics of religion. You can’t see past this all-powerful “real world” you’ve been taught to believe in, because you’ve built your entire identity around it.