Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bold · 11-05-2003, 08:17 AM

Or perhaps, is it good for other people?

While I see no reason whatever to consider revelation of any kind a source of knowledge of any kind, and I believe there is no deity, I struggle to find a wholly convincing argument that it is inappropriate to advance religion as a "noble lie", to trick people into behaving virtuously - or that this lie might not be useful or even necessary for the functioning of a civilised society.

Of course raising this question implicitly means questioning the liberal principles that knowledge sets us free and that freedom is good. I actually hold those principles, but it would be too easy to end this discussion by invoking them. I want an argument that works with non-liberals.

Here in the UK (a far more secular country than the US in practise although not in law) it is mandatory for schools to hold a daily act of broadly christian worship. When I have discussed this, I get the impression that below the surface it is held that although religion might not be true, it is good for the children to believe it. People don't advocate this openly for obvious reasons, which means it is difficult to argue against.

There are two possible aspects to this. Firstly there is, I suspect, a belief that getting religion might help a child through the dangerous teenage years of sex and drugs with minimal self-harm. I can see how this might appeal to atheist parents.

Secondly there is the idea that a functioning society requires a large number of people to behave honestly and virtuously, and the way to do this is to make them believe in religion (any religion), and that the instigators of this policy may find opportunities to exploit these good people to their own enrichment. (This is part of the neo-con agenda, right?)

I don't happen to think that there is an awful lot going for either of these ideas. The first is saying that people should remain children when they are grown up. While I agree that growing up is difficult, it is not actually such a bad thing. The second is a simple attempt to oppress us and is overdue exposure as such. But having said that I am still some distance from refuting either. I could do with some help on that.

Jamie_L · 11-05-2003, 09:37 AM

Douglas Adams gave an interesting speech at a conference called "Biota 2", wherein he talked about an "artificial god" created by man, and how it might be useful. I wanted to link to the article, but it appears that the old Biota site that housed it has disappeared. I have a copy of the article to reference, but I hesitate to post the whole thing lest I get old II troubled with copyright problems. But I think I can safely excerpt a couple of interesting bits.

In this first bit, Adams talks about the potential usefulness of a fictitious idea:

Quote:

Let me explain what I mean by this. We have created in the world in which we live... all kinds of fictitious entities that are enormously powerful. So do we say, �That�s a bad idea; it�s stupid�we should simply get rid of it?� Well, here�s another fictitious entity�money. Money is a completely fictitious entity, but it�s very powerful in our world;... because it�s a fiction that we�ve all subscribed to. We don�t think this is wrong or right, good or bad; but the thing is that if money vanished the entire co-operative structure that we have would implode, but if we were all to vanish, money would simply vanish too. Money has no meaning outside ourselves, it is something that we have created that has a powerful shaping effect on the world, because its something we all subscribe to.

So, Adams illustrates a "fictional" idea can have powerful functionality in the real world. But we understand the purpose of money. Douglas further goes on to say some fictional ideas may not be well-understood, but may still be useful:

Quote:

I want to talk about Feng Shui, which is something I know very little about... Apparently, we need to think about the building being inhabited by dragons and look at it in terms of how a dragon would move around it. So, if a dragon wouldn�t be happy in the house, you have to put a red fish bowl here or a window there. This sounds like complete and utter nonsense... there aren�t any dragons, so any theory based on how dragons behave is nonsense.... Nevertheless, it occurs to me if you disregard for a moment the explanation that�s actually offered for it, it may be there is something interesting going on that goes like this: we all know from buildings that we�ve lived in, worked in, been in or stayed in, that some are more comfortable, more pleasant and more agreeable to live in than others.... An awful lot of theory has been poured into this... when you are trying to figure out how a room should work you�re trying to integrate all kinds of things about lighting, about angles, about how people move and how people live�and an awful lot of other things you don�t know about that get left out....

There are all sorts of things we know how to do, but don�t necessarily know what we do, we just do them. Go back to the issue of how you figure out how a room or a house should be designed and instead of going through all the business of trying to work out the angles and... just ask yourself, �how would a dragon live here?� We are used to thinking in terms of organic creatures;... we know how organic creatures live. We�ve never seen a dragon but we�ve all got an idea of what a dragon is like, so we can say, �Well if a dragon went through here, he�d get stuck just here and a little bit cross over there because he couldn�t see that and he�d wave his tail and knock that vase over�. You figure out how the dragon�s going to be happy here and lo and behold! you�ve suddenly got a place that makes sense for other organic creatures, such as ourselves, to live in.

The notion is that God may be a fiction, but somehow the God fiction may make life easy to manage in a way that absorbs a lot of the complexity of life without forcing people to deal explicitly with all that complexity.

But, just because this fiction is useful, doesn't make it the only way to deal with these issues, or even the best way (though it may be the best way that the masses have put into use so far).

Personally, I find some aspects of religion troubling. The suppression of skepticism and critical thinking bothers me. Teaching the importance of blind submission to authority bothers me. These are the things that can lead people to get sucked into multi-level marketing scams and dangerous cults. Or, of course, flying airplanes into buildings.

It's tempting for some to say religion is all bad and for others to say religion is all good. I think neither is true. The more relevant question, I think, is: "Is there a better way?" What works for us minority secularists may not work for the masses. I don't know.

Jamie

McNamara · 11-05-2003, 11:16 AM

I don't like the idea that nontheists are the only people who can live good lives and be happy without belief in God. It smacks of elitism. There is no good argument for belief in a fiction that I can think of. Better to teach people ethics from a secular viewpoint than to scare them into behaving with superstitions.

I think personal emotions (the "safety blanket" of faith) are a bigger factor in religion than order and cohesion in society. Especially since I've never seen a correlation between belief and morality. If someone needs to believe to make their life more comfortable, fine. But I don't see any need to teach people superstition for the purpose of encouraging moral behavior, because (a) in the past, superstition has done more harm than good to society (persecution, holy wars, divisiveness, etc.) and (b) one can live an ethical life without superstition.

disgracian · 11-06-2003, 04:36 AM

here is the article jamie_l mentioned:

http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html

Bold · 11-06-2003, 05:03 AM

Thanks for the link.

I take the point that irrational belief can promote useful, good behaviour. That it is tempting as a rationalist to say let's sweep away all this tradition that has no rational basis, but that would be a mistake - and Karl Popper argues this case well in Conjectures and Refutations.

I don't quite agree with the analysis of money. It is rational to believe in the value of money because other people believe in it and therefore accept it in payment. And the belief of those other people is rational for the same reason. Only if you consider everybody's belief at once in some sense, is there no rational basis. But this would be missing the point. Belief in money makes money valuable but belief in god does not make god real.

Jamie_L · 11-06-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bold
I don't quite agree with the analysis of money.

I don't think the money comparisson was intended as a direct analogy, nor was he implying that belief in the value of money was irrational. I think it was just a very general statement to show that just because a concept exists only in the heads of humans, it wasn't necessarily a useless concept. It was also to show that just because something only exists in the minds of humans doesn't mean it can't have significant impact on and power in the real world.

The dragons in your house (is that really how Feng Shui is done?) thing is more analagous to a religion.

Jamie

Bold · 11-06-2003, 06:14 AM

Yes, OK. But are we closer to an answer? We may agree that traditions tend to have some value (for 'evolutionary' reasons - societies with useful traditions are more likely to survive). It is even quite likely that there is something useful in the predictability of behaviour that makes seemingly pointless tradition useful.

But this leaves open the question of whether it is good or useful to believe the beliefs that go with that tradition. Surely if a tradition is or may be useful, we can say that we will adopt that tradition because it is useful. Going forward, traditions will change, and we should try to guide this process with reason, and experience, ready to step back if our changes have unintended consequences. But this relies on us not believing the superstition on which the traditions are founded.

So this is an advantage of knowledge over ignorance, particularly if we are seeking progress democratically, rather than through a vanguard elite of communists or neo-cons. But the original question was about the possible disadvantages of knowledge, and I don't think we've addressed that yet.

Jamie_L · 11-06-2003, 06:30 AM

Well, a lot of the things people used to need religion for - to explain a physical world they didn't understand - can be explained by other means now. I definitely think the world would be no worse off if everyone believed in all the modern, scientific explanations for natural phenomenon.

Religion's main functions now seem to be:
1) Providing a moral framework in which to live
2) Providing comfort and a sense of order in a chotic world full of pain and suffering
3) Providing a system of authority/control

So, the qestion becomes will the general population of the world be worse off with respect to these points if they do not believe in a god/religion?

Even now, we see many populations drifting away from a 1 and 3. The Western world seems to be moving easily to a system of personal morality rather than a system of authoritarian religious morality. Even in the U.S., where religious belief is strong, there are many subtle variations in morality that appear to be the result of people choosing their own personal morality (whatever it's source) over that of their church - if they even have a church. While religious leaders may seek to maintain their authorities, there are plenty of functioning, secular institutions keeping social order these days.

The sticking point, I think, would be 2. This is where religious people seem to have the greatest hurdle in trying to understand the non-religious. This is the area where I'm not sure all humans are really suited to living with the worldview of a finite existence in a cold, uncaring universe. Not because they are "inferior" or "weak", but just because that seems to be part of human nature. Sometimes I think I'm the freak because I'm unable to live the opposite way. Who knows.

Anyone else?

Jamie

LittleGuy · 11-06-2003, 06:49 AM

The problem is that religion, at the same time as it promotes conventional "virtues" can also have a negative effect- for people who become to obsessed by the idol and not the ideal.

What then results is that people fight over their idols and forget the ideals. They become pre-occupied with validating their religion and start propagating it in name instead of propagating its ideals.

The ideals of society should rest on a sound foundation based on reason and logic, with an overall positive, optimistic spirit focusing on bettering the lives of individuals.

I think that this is what they call "Secular Humanism"

11-05-2003, 08:17 AM	#1
Bold Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 536	But is it good for you? Or perhaps, is it good for other people? While I see no reason whatever to consider revelation of any kind a source of knowledge of any kind, and I believe there is no deity, I struggle to find a wholly convincing argument that it is inappropriate to advance religion as a "noble lie", to trick people into behaving virtuously - or that this lie might not be useful or even necessary for the functioning of a civilised society. Of course raising this question implicitly means questioning the liberal principles that knowledge sets us free and that freedom is good. I actually hold those principles, but it would be too easy to end this discussion by invoking them. I want an argument that works with non-liberals. Here in the UK (a far more secular country than the US in practise although not in law) it is mandatory for schools to hold a daily act of broadly christian worship. When I have discussed this, I get the impression that below the surface it is held that although religion might not be true, it is good for the children to believe it. People don't advocate this openly for obvious reasons, which means it is difficult to argue against. There are two possible aspects to this. Firstly there is, I suspect, a belief that getting religion might help a child through the dangerous teenage years of sex and drugs with minimal self-harm. I can see how this might appeal to atheist parents. Secondly there is the idea that a functioning society requires a large number of people to behave honestly and virtuously, and the way to do this is to make them believe in religion (any religion), and that the instigators of this policy may find opportunities to exploit these good people to their own enrichment. (This is part of the neo-con agenda, right?) I don't happen to think that there is an awful lot going for either of these ideas. The first is saying that people should remain children when they are grown up. While I agree that growing up is difficult, it is not actually such a bad thing. The second is a simple attempt to oppress us and is overdue exposure as such. But having said that I am still some distance from refuting either. I could do with some help on that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-05-2003, 11:16 AM	#3
McNamara Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: United States Posts: 1,167	I don't like the idea that nontheists are the only people who can live good lives and be happy without belief in God. It smacks of elitism. There is no good argument for belief in a fiction that I can think of. Better to teach people ethics from a secular viewpoint than to scare them into behaving with superstitions. I think personal emotions (the "safety blanket" of faith) are a bigger factor in religion than order and cohesion in society. Especially since I've never seen a correlation between belief and morality. If someone needs to believe to make their life more comfortable, fine. But I don't see any need to teach people superstition for the purpose of encouraging moral behavior, because (a) in the past, superstition has done more harm than good to society (persecution, holy wars, divisiveness, etc.) and (b) one can live an ethical life without superstition.

11-06-2003, 04:36 AM	#4
disgracian Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: happyland Posts: 583	here is the article jamie_l mentioned: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html

11-06-2003, 05:03 AM	#5
Bold Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 536	Thanks for the link. I take the point that irrational belief can promote useful, good behaviour. That it is tempting as a rationalist to say let's sweep away all this tradition that has no rational basis, but that would be a mistake - and Karl Popper argues this case well in Conjectures and Refutations. I don't quite agree with the analysis of money. It is rational to believe in the value of money because other people believe in it and therefore accept it in payment. And the belief of those other people is rational for the same reason. Only if you consider everybody's belief at once in some sense, is there no rational basis. But this would be missing the point. Belief in money makes money valuable but belief in god does not make god real.

11-06-2003, 06:14 AM	#7
Bold Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 536	Yes, OK. But are we closer to an answer? We may agree that traditions tend to have some value (for 'evolutionary' reasons - societies with useful traditions are more likely to survive). It is even quite likely that there is something useful in the predictability of behaviour that makes seemingly pointless tradition useful. But this leaves open the question of whether it is good or useful to believe the beliefs that go with that tradition. Surely if a tradition is or may be useful, we can say that we will adopt that tradition because it is useful. Going forward, traditions will change, and we should try to guide this process with reason, and experience, ready to step back if our changes have unintended consequences. But this relies on us not believing the superstition on which the traditions are founded. So this is an advantage of knowledge over ignorance, particularly if we are seeking progress democratically, rather than through a vanguard elite of communists or neo-cons. But the original question was about the possible disadvantages of knowledge, and I don't think we've addressed that yet.

11-06-2003, 06:30 AM	#8
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Well, a lot of the things people used to need religion for - to explain a physical world they didn't understand - can be explained by other means now. I definitely think the world would be no worse off if everyone believed in all the modern, scientific explanations for natural phenomenon. Religion's main functions now seem to be: 1) Providing a moral framework in which to live 2) Providing comfort and a sense of order in a chotic world full of pain and suffering 3) Providing a system of authority/control So, the qestion becomes will the general population of the world be worse off with respect to these points if they do not believe in a god/religion? Even now, we see many populations drifting away from a 1 and 3. The Western world seems to be moving easily to a system of personal morality rather than a system of authoritarian religious morality. Even in the U.S., where religious belief is strong, there are many subtle variations in morality that appear to be the result of people choosing their own personal morality (whatever it's source) over that of their church - if they even have a church. While religious leaders may seek to maintain their authorities, there are plenty of functioning, secular institutions keeping social order these days. The sticking point, I think, would be 2. This is where religious people seem to have the greatest hurdle in trying to understand the non-religious. This is the area where I'm not sure all humans are really suited to living with the worldview of a finite existence in a cold, uncaring universe. Not because they are "inferior" or "weak", but just because that seems to be part of human nature. Sometimes I think I'm the freak because I'm unable to live the opposite way. Who knows. Anyone else? Jamie

11-06-2003, 06:49 AM	#9
LittleGuy Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Sydney,Australia Posts: 280	The problem is that religion, at the same time as it promotes conventional "virtues" can also have a negative effect- for people who become to obsessed by the idol and not the ideal. What then results is that people fight over their idols and forget the ideals. They become pre-occupied with validating their religion and start propagating it in name instead of propagating its ideals. The ideals of society should rest on a sound foundation based on reason and logic, with an overall positive, optimistic spirit focusing on bettering the lives of individuals. I think that this is what they call "Secular Humanism"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.