Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a Street Epistemology video on you tube that poses the question
Does something have to be true to be useful?
Besides each one of us having to define "true" in our own terms, We have to ask at what point does our accepted philosophical view fit within provable or demonstrable realities of nature and the universe. The definition is subjective, based on one's experiences, insights, explorations.
I thought of this in terms of religion, there is an episode of the Simpsons (which I often watch to unwind after spending a day helping people solve their problems) in which the family races home from church, rips off the church clothes and comments "I am glad that is over for the week"
Marge tells the family that "Church is supposed to be helpful in life" to which all reply "Well, It isn't"
Which I can relate to growing up. Church was NOT helpful, it was harmful. And in spite of certain people who swore to the next week that it was "True" it was far from useful to me. And it was harmful to those around me as well, even though many of them could not see it. It instilled a fear of the world, a sense of self-hate, bigotry, prejudice, self loathing and therefore a hatred of the world as well. This repeated week after week, and I watched my parents, as they became involved in different churches, move from being hateful and abusive to being calm and loving.
But, I have many who maintain that the Bible, for example, is the "truth" (Even though it obviously is not) And I have told people that I will not follow or accept their definition of "truth" because I simply do not want to be like them.
But back to the video which is posted below. We often do not think about why we believe what we believe. I have read on this forum, that certain people say they believe that something ids true because of something in the Bible, for example. While I do not agree with their thinking, I am still interested in how and why they chose that particular belief. And more importantly, does it help them in life? For Example, Does it help them foster Love peace and Harmony, or dies it separate and divide them from others? Does it promote self love and self care, being a positive example to others, or does it alienate others through living as a bad example of health and well-being? Does it promote honest gain that doe not harm others, or infringe in the rights of others?
These are the questions which we need to be asking. These are the conversations we need to be having.
Watch the video, if you are interested, when you have time, we can talk here or send me a message if you prefer.
Thanks
I've met plenty of useful idiots in my time. Turn on c-span and you'll see plenty.
And we have plenty of people arguing for emotional-based systems of morals here. They attack God because they don't like him, and say that he's not what they want, so they disbelieve. To them, they don't care if their system of believe is "true". It's useful to them.
I don't have half an hour to watch the video, but in answer to the title question, I'd say No.
This comes back to something I've mentioned on here once before. In his part-autobiography book On Writing, Stephen King admonishes writers that above all else, you must tell the truth.
On the surface that might sound contradictory. King writes about vampires and other aspects of the supernatural that we know are not true. But he tells the truth as far as the actions of human nature go.
One example would be Pet Sematary. The idea there's a place where you could bury a pet and then it comes back to life and returns to you is obviously not the truth. But the idea that if there were such a place, and your own toddler was killed in the road by a truck, that a parent might indeed be tempted to dig him up and rebury him in that cemetery contains truth. The truth lies in the fact that a grieving parent might do anything to try to bring back their lost child and is what makes the passage where the father digs his baby son up in the cemetery where he is buried to retrieve his body so horrible and yet the reader can put themselves in that parent's place.
I am not against love, peace, and harmony and think they are worthwhile goals to pursue, which includes deciding whether or not what we are doing achieves these things. But are they true? This question isn't really meant for you, LargeKingCat, but for those who push to goal down further when it comes to belief in God.
I also did not find religion to be helpful. Then a believer may tell me next, "well, you have to believe or you won't enter Heaven" (I guess we have progressed enough to no longer threaten with hell.). So the goal is no longer having love, peace, and harmony on Earth, but maybe in Heaven now. The goal has been moved.
I don't need the truth. I prefer that people talk and then I can judge if what they are saying works for me or not.
I've met plenty of useful idiots in my time. Turn on c-span and you'll see plenty.
And we have plenty of people arguing for emotional-based systems of morals here. They attack God because they don't like him, and say that he's not what they want, so they disbelieve. To them, they don't care if their system of believe is "true". It's useful to them.
Says the person whose morals rest on the crutch of a religion from 2,000 years ago (plus).
I've met plenty of useful idiots in my time. Turn on c-span and you'll see plenty.
And we have plenty of people arguing for emotional-based systems of morals here. They attack God because they don't like him, and say that he's not what they want, so they disbelieve. To them, they don't care if their system of believe is "true". It's useful to them.
I care very much if my beliefs are grounded in reality. I left my faith because IT was not grounded in reality. I knew this to be the case experientially because it failed, utterly, to explain or predict outcomes in my lived experience. I knew it to be true epistemologically because its core assertions were not falsifiable through simple observation, and so could be neither proven nor disproven.
I did not find leaving my faith 100% "useful". It was "useful" in the sense that life presented fewer surprises to me and made far more sense. It wasn't in the sense that I now lacked the superficial comfort of an invisible friend who had my back in life -- that's the flip side, although, that was mostly a matter of unlearning a thought-habit; it wasn't something I ever had in the first place, except in between my ears.
Moral codes / morality arise from empathy, which is not emotional (though it is an input to emotions). Empathy is simply the ability to imagine how something will effect others (or your future self) as if it were impacting your present self. It is enabled by mirror neurons plus a recognition of the need for healthy interdependence with others. Something is immoral if it is a net harm to others or to the civil society most of us choose for ourselves. It isn't a black and white calculus always, because competing concerns often have to be weighed. But it's a far better framework than an arbitrary immutable and externally delivered ruleset.
Someone not bound by your (interpretation of your) religious ruleset is not therefore an indiscriminate libertine seeking personal freedom at everyone else's expense. They are not even more likely to be one. It is just a question of whether the best course is assessing harms and benefits asserted in a fixed ruleset or actual observable harms and benefits.
I care very much if my beliefs are grounded in reality. I left my faith because IT was not grounded in reality. I knew this to be the case experientially because it failed, utterly, to explain or predict outcomes in my lived experience. I knew it to be true epistemologically because its core assertions were not falsifiable through simple observation, and so could be neither proven nor disproven.
I did not find leaving my faith 100% "useful". It was "useful" in the sense that life presented fewer surprises to me and made far more sense. It wasn't in the sense that I now lacked the superficial comfort of an invisible friend who had my back in life -- that's the flip side, although, that was mostly a matter of unlearning a thought-habit; it wasn't something I ever had in the first place, except in between my ears.
Moral codes / morality arise from empathy, which is not emotional (though it is an input to emotions). Empathy is simply the ability to imagine how something will effect others (or your future self) as if it were impacting your present self. It is enabled by mirror neurons plus a recognition of the need for healthy interdependence with others. Something is immoral if it is a net harm to others or to the civil society most of us choose for ourselves. It isn't a black and white calculus always, because competing concerns often have to be weighed. But it's a far better framework than an arbitrary immutable and externally delivered ruleset.
Someone not bound by your (interpretation of your) religious ruleset is not therefore an indiscriminate libertine seeking personal freedom at everyone else's expense. They are not even more likely to be one. It is just a question of whether the best course is assessing harms and benefits asserted in a fixed ruleset or actual observable harms and benefits.
I left my faith because IT was not grounded in reality. I knew this to be the case experientially because it failed, utterly, to explain or predict outcomes in my lived experience. I knew it to be true epistemologically because its core assertions were not falsifiable through simple observation, and so could be neither proven nor disproven.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mordant again.
I have to agree. I came to this understanding that Theism, specifically religions as a lifestyle simply does not work for me.
Sadly, I know way too many people who are still in it, and it does not work for them either, but they do not see it. And the Prime Directive prohibits my interference until they are ready.
Star Trek? Fiction? really? The Prime Directive, a foundational idea? Yes....
YODA? A fictional character? His teachings at the core of enlightening philosophy? YES!!!!!
Theism has no monopoly on good ideas. Other Fictions are just as good.
Keats once said "Beauty is truth, truth beauty That is all you know on earth, and all you need to know" (ode on a Grecian Urn 1819) Harkening back to Plato we see a lasting foundation of that which is true...being the inner beauty of Truth, which though it may be relative and purely subjective at time, the universal object of truth lies in what each person can realize and appreciate.
Baptist's truth is not the same as my truth. He may maintain that his beliefs are true, I say they are not.
The fact that so many of us see that something is not true, not provable, demonstrable, testable pretty much assures the reality of something NOT being true.
Not what we like or dislike. But what functions and works, what is useful.
The Bible for example, is not a useful book. it is not a healthy book. It is not a true book. But many people read it and profess to live by it, some to the letter. (Slavery included)
Some find one or two useful ideas in it, and pretty much little other than that. While not "true" in the logical or scientific sense, it has a few good useful ideas.
Same thing with Aesop's Fables. Not true stories, but useful, and by that point, teaching of what one may consider "true" in the beauty of the philosophy.
I lived the lie about Jesus for forty years, and I had no use for a god who may live millions of miles out in space and is not coming back ..... Even though I did not view people of Christianity as bigot and thugs, actually they were decent people who choose to live a peaceful life ...... People I did not trust were the lying politician and corrupt bosses on the job, as they were not useful. ..... Today I know Jesus Christ through His spirit and His spirit is directly the same as the character of Jesus Christ in the bible
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We attack your idea of your god because it is an evil idea. That is NOT why we do not believe in Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, etc.
