quote:

---

if dismissing the Book of Mormon on such grounds, you're really missing out on some good stuff -- whether it's historicity is valid or not.

---

This got me to thinking: what is the positive value of a religion if it is not based on truth but if its secular principles and practices are, for whatever reason, ultimately beneficial? C.S. Lewis famously argued that a religion based on untruth could not be valid or worthwhile in any way; was he right?

In the same vein, what about less world-shaking untruths? If your wife does not look good in her new hairdo, do you do her a favor by saying she does? Should young children be told about Santa Claus?

At what point does truth become an objective value, independent of the results of the lie?
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
I think what he was saying is that if a person refuses to read the Book of Mormon simply because it may be historically inacturate, they are missing out on some very good information. I honestly thing you missed his point, and are arguing for the heck of it. But then, that's just my opinion
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Interesting question. As a journeyman scientist in an almost totally non-practical field, I like to think I've devoted my working life to finding truth. Hence, of course, I am bound to regard truth as a value in itself. But I do think there is a difference between truths about how nature works, and feelings about your wife's hairdo. If nothing else, tastes differ where physics does not.

Lewis, I think, was trying to set up a circular argument : No false religion can be good; Christianity is good; therefore Christianity cannot be false. The circularity comes from his assuming Christianity true in the first place, and only then looking for arguments. Clearly, though, the argument does not hold. Islam arguably has better internal (and worse external) effects than Christianity, what with charity being a pillar of the faith. Yet they cannot both be true.
 

---

Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
 
That's probably why he made a separate thread out of it. (response to Borris)

[ December 13, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Acutally, that argument's not a circular argument, its that the steps don't follow from the premises. Specifically, a implies b does mean b implies a. Or, ((A->B) -> (B->A)) is not a tautology.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

No false religion can be good; Christianity is good; therefore Christianity cannot be false.

---

quote:

---

That's not what he's saying at all. He's rather trying to set up a dichotomy: Christianity is either true and therefore good, or false and therefore bad. Of course Lewis believes the former, but he is not advancing this as a reason for believing it to be true. Rather, he's advancing it as a reason for rejecting a partial acceptance of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

At what point does truth become an objective value, independent of the results of the lie?

---

I think it's when the consequences of a statement cease to apply only to the inside of a persons head and actually spill over into the real world.

Wife's hair for instance, as long as you think she's not going to run around bragging about her totally awesome new hair-do and enter 38 beauty pageants, and that your affirmation will only result in a temporary peace of mind for both you and her, then yeah it's worth it.

Kids and Santa Claus: as long as kids don't have access to airplanes and try to fly to the North Pole to say hi to Santa, I say let them be happy while they still have a chance.

Now other questions, like "What's this button do?" can result in global catastrophes and should be answered honestly.

The bigger point is that the "little" lies are true in a broader scope. Your wife always looks good, no matter what. For kids, Santa really does exist, its just in the form of your parents and TV Christmas specials. Works of fiction can be "true" in this same sense.

[ December 13, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Clarifying my "it depends" answer above: I think you have to answer the question "Is my un-truth going to hurt the person when they find out it's not the truth?"

If I had a kid who was extremely literal-minded and would, in my best estimation, be very unhappy about discovering that Santa wasn't real, then I would tell him it was a game most American kids his age play, but that that's all Santa is.

If my brother asked me about his new hairdo that I hated (like when he shaved his head), I might very well fib about it, largely because he would think it was funny that I lied. That's the way he is.

It's mostly about intent to harm, and whether or not revelation of the truth would result in unnecessary pain.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I don't know yet, Tom. I'll have to pray about this whole Santa Claus thing and get back to you.

While I'm at it, I should ask about what kind of car to get next. I'm pretty sure God wants me to get a Hummer, though.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Yes, then you won't care what kind of car you end up in.

ba-dum/cheeeeeehhhh.



Anyway, my thought on convenient fiction is that it is not a description that applies to most religion-based explanations. If anything, the explanations are darned inconvenient.

What I'm wondering is if Tom really just means when is a fiction good in the case of religion.

Well...Jesus told parables. I think his listeners knew they were stories. They didn't go asking "what was the Samaratin's name?" a la Monty Python's Life of Brian. At least we have no record of it happening. The challenges, if any, were on the theological level, thus indicating that the listener "got it."

Here's what I think, then, fictions are useful when the listener knows it is intended as fiction. I think children have a hazy understanding of Santa's reality, you know. It's not like they think of Santa as REALLY the guy in the mall, is it?

I dunno.

But still, I think when you get down to truth, also, you have to think about truth and TRUTH. There's a truth that's found in stories like a parable and a truth that's there because it really happened and you can prove it.

Sorry...gotta go. Dinner is served!

Truth is like a salad...

[ December 13, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm torn between and

Edit: This aimed solely at Bob's Hummer joke above the , not his thoughtful post he added below it after I posted just to make me look dumb.

Dagonee

[ December 13, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
It isn't a choppy argument, that's for sure. Leaf well enough alone, Dag.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

Truth is like a salad...

---

Good with ranch dressing?
Wilts if you leave it out too long?
Best when eaten fresh?
Can come with or without croutons?


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Anyway, my thought on convenient fiction is that it is not a description that applies to most religion-based explanations. If anything, the explanations are darned inconvenient."

But that actually brings us back to the original question: in the case of a religion with restrictive dogma and/or strange practices, does any secular benefit make up for these inconveniences even if the religion is untrue?

By way of example, many people here have said that they've had to struggle to come to grips with their religion's position on homosexuality. Others have said that they have difficulty with their religion's attitude towards the rights and responsibilities of women. And so on. But they work to overcome their resistance to these concepts precisely because they believe their religion to be divinely inspired.

Clearly, not all the religions represented on Hatrack can be so inspired. So there are some people here, then, who have repressed their natural inclinations out of respect for a divine commandment which was not, in fact, legitimate. Is this worth it? If they were happy in the other elements of their life, and their religion was otherwise fulfilling, are they worse off in this life (which is the only life we ultimately know anything about) for believing in something that was ultimately untrue?

The same question can be applied, with much lower stakes, to the little sacrifices we make on behalf of myths. Is it worth it to stay up for Santa Claus? What value does a belief in the Easter Bunny have that exceeds, say, a liking for colored eggs?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I think believing in big lies will, sooner or later, lead you off a cliff. They might help in the short run, but as more and more decisions are derived from that belief, an untruth will eventually mess things up.

As for the hypothetical "circular" argument:

quote:

---

Lewis, I think, was trying to set up a circular argument : No false religion can be good; Christianity is good; therefore Christianity cannot be false.

---

quote:

---

Acutally, that argument's not a circular argument, its that the steps don't follow from the premises. Specifically, a implies b does mean b implies a. Or, ((A->B) -> (B->A)) is not a tautology.

---

Actually, I think in this case the arugment's steps DO follow from the premises AND it is not circular.

A = Christianity is good
B = Christianity is false

Premise 1: A -> not B ("no false religion can be good" means that if it is good then it is not false)
Premise 2: A ("Christianity is good)
Conclusion: Therefore not B ("Christianity cannot be false")

The only real problem with the argument is that both premises might be false. I like the first premise, but the second premise is really really hard to determine.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Xap, I agree that the conclusion is valid (although the premises are false), but I still maintain that it is circular, because Lewis assumed the truth of Christianity before setting out on the syllogism. Hence the conclusion leads back to the second premise, since no-one not a Christian could consider Christianity as a positive influence.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Read KoM's post again, Xap. The argument as he presented it didn't include no false religion is good.

And yes, as we all know, !A -> !B is equivalent to B -> A.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I think I did, actually :

quote:

---

No false religion can be good; Christianity is good; therefore Christianity cannot be false

---

quote:

---

Well, congratulations. You've successfully refuted an argument you made up in your own head

---

 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

since no-one not a Christian could consider Christianity as a positive influence.

---

quote:

---

Xap, I agree that the conclusion is valid (although the premises are false), but I still maintain that it is circular, because Lewis assumed the truth of Christianity before setting out on the syllogism.

---

quote:

---

Islam arguably has better internal (and worse external) effects than Christianity, what with charity being a pillar of the faith. Yet they cannot both be true.

---

quote:

---

Since Jesus took all our sins on himself, all sin is forgiven.

---

quote:

---

. . . but I'm profoundly aspiritual.

---

*snort*
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
Tom: I fail to see why motive is important. Being good to others because God says it's good, and that's how you respect God, then Awesome. Being good to others because you want to be is even better... and I think the next step. If you have kids and you tell them millions of times to do this because, and then one day the go OH, no wonder you wanted me to do this, because X happens. Coming to the realization of what is important and doing it because you want to is the 'higher' law to me, not because my dad told me to.

I think of altruism and spirituality as twin brothers, they look a lot alike and may do the same things, but they do them for different reasons. Hopefully the other one will eventually come around, or understand why they do the things they've been told to do a million times.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I may be about to brand myself a heretic here, but why can't both Islam and Christianity be true?"

Because they both say the other one isn't. So they're at least false in that particular.

[ December 14, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
I guess the question then becomes where do we draw the line between the religion and the things its followers say? After all, only God knows everything. Plenty of people mean well but just don't know what they're talking about.

I'm not familiar with the Koran so I can't comment on it, but the Bible is going to come down to interpretation. If I'm right, then the passage about none reaching the Father without going through the Son would still be true regardless of religion. But then, how could any of us know for sure?
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
AvidReader: If you believe in the bible, it all comes down to 2 laws. Everything else was setup to help you understand those two laws.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Good call, raventh1.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 

quote:

---

And when I started thinking about it, I got to wondering whether this wasn't, in its own way, kind of a reverse Pascal: if a religion is good for believers and society even if it's bunk, aren't we better off encouraging bunk?

---

quote:

---

They both worship the same God.

---

quote:

---

does this mean that there is value in a religion that is True without being Factual?

---

Value, yes. In the same way that OSC's 'Xenocide' has value for the way it examines relationships.

That said, I believe that the tenets of Mormonism are both true and factual.

And I dislike the modern mythology of Santa Claus. Just wanted to drop that out there. Harrumph!
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Me too, I dislike the idea that it's cute and morally acceptable for all parents to systematically lie to their children.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

There is something wrong when we mention value in and religion in the same breath, too. What do they have to do with each other?

---

quote:

---

Anyone who cannot understand how a useful religion can be based on lies will not understand this book either.

---

The book has made me doubt, but it has also made me a positivist, even comapassionate, in that doubt, in the sense that there are likely (not certainly, but likely) metaphysical aspects that I'll never have confirmed, in this lifetime, but the fruits of religious actions in this life can be good, can be meaningful, can be profound, and that should not be squelched regardless of the truth of the underlying beliefs.

I've looked with awe at the Mormon Temple here in Boston (actually Belmont ). I've felt extremely touched by Reform Jewish High Holiday services (guitar and all!). I've admired greatly a Muslim co-worker who fasted at Ramadan, and I've felt serenity at my home church's Christmas Eve service. My doubt isn't solely negative. I am hopeful that there is good emergent from all these faiths, and I hope that whoever is right that their deity looks on me helper, if not a follower.

I think that if religion didn't exist, we'd invent it anyway.

"Live by the foma [harmless untruths] that make you brave, and kind, and healthy, and happy. "

My addendum: And if your foma happens to be True, well, kudos to you!

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
Kwea-

C.S. Lewis' work and my study of it are actually a big part of my current disaffection for organized religion. I couldn't reasonably justify some of the crap that happened in churches I was part of... *shrug*

Love CS Lewis, though.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
(I already wrote this post and then my computer crashed. Gar. Second time today, too!)

Regarding the Father Christmas Issue: I never was led to believe Father Christmas was an actual man. Oh, sure, my parents told me he was real, but to me he was always the white-bearded symbol of what, to me, Christmas was. Similar, in fact, to how the Greeks percieved their pantheon of Gods. Real, but not literal.

Regarding God/Allah: I was bowled over when it became apparant to me that the stories that were told were the same. And not only were Christianty, Judaism and Islam the same, the same themes went, in various forms, as far back as religion was recorded and probably to the caveman who suddenly woke up with a fantastic idea.

I think the virtue of religion lies not in the fact but the lessons that are taught. They are great themes, great ideas about the world and life and living and the meaning of everything. The stories do not have to be real.

This is why people can live life without religion; because the ideas, ideals and theories can be seperated from the religion's stories.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
My belief in Santa was a strange thing -- I was completely immersed in it, staying up late, listening for sleigh bells, etc...and yet, from about 7-10 yrs old (the age i found out!) i was constantly asking "Tell me the truth, Mom, I want to know if he's real" and having her say "When your older." Which, to any logical child, means "He's not real, but i'm not ready to tell you that yet."

I was not a logical child.

So Santa for me, during that time, was just this really cool thing I believed in that I was just waiting to be disillusioned about. Yet it didn't spoil it for me, somehow. When she finally told me, I was a little disappointed (as if I thought: maybe there's a slight chance...) but essentially I was just bowled over by what amazing liars my parents were. That even though they as much ADMITTED that there was no Santa years earlier, I still continued to believe despite evidence (Hey, what's Santa's wrapping paper doing under the bed?) to the contrary.

Or maybe I just believed because I trusted them so much. That still shows what great liars they were, though.

I even considered, briefly, that when I had children I would continue the tradition. Some serious consideration on the subject has made me change my mind...even if my initial reaction was mild to the revelation, I *still* don't really trust what my parents tell me. At face value, I mean. I'm always thinking "What do they really mean by that, what could they be concealing if this were a lie, etc..." And it's sad, because they both are good people who love me and here I am being doubtful of their sincerity because of a fat man in a red suit that they used to tell me was real.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I heard something on NPR years ago about a kid who believed in Santa until he was 15 because his uncle would stomp on the roof above his bedroom every Christmas Eve.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
My oldest two children knew the truth about Santa, the Easter bunny (which we really don't focus on, I like to keep Easter focused on the resurrection, so the bunny was never "big" at my house) the tooth fairy, etc. before the started school. Emily is my extremely logical, practical child and I don't think she ever really did believe.

I don't think, once kids are old enough to really ask questions, it should be perpetuated. We treat it like a game, it's fun to pretend things, but the truth is much more important. That's why Christmas and Easter at our home have always been focused on Jesus, and we take great care in reinforcing what the true meaning of the holidays are.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I think we may be missing the point of Santa here....

If a child has an invisible dinosaur friend and is talking to you about him, how do you respond? Do you tell him there's no way such a thing as an invisible dinosaur friend could exist, or do you play along? Playing along is, in essence, lying to him or at least pretending you believe what he does. But people often do it - why?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Because trying to make them them give it up may make an insecure child cling more tightly? I don't know, just an idea.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
You play along when they are telling your stories because it's a way of stretching the imagination and having fun. I tell my kids stories all the time, they aren't all 100% factual.

I do not, however, allow my kids to blame things on imaginary friends and get away with it. I tell them that there is no way the dinosaur could have broken the lamp, and that they need to tell me the truth about what happened.

There is a line between real and imaginary, and part of the process of growing up is understanding that line. It takes kids a while to get to that point, you can help them along without stifling their creative instincts. It takes patience and understanding, which are two pretty essential ingredients of parenting.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"we take great care in reinforcing what the true meaning of the holidays are"

Christy and I had a conversation about this in the car yesterday. What IS the true meaning of Christmas?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Here's a good take on the true meaning of Christmas:

quote:

---

"...And there were in the same country
shepherds abiding in the field,
keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them,
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them:
and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy,
which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour,
which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you;
Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes,
lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel
a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Luke 2:8-14

---

quote:

---

But I know what you’re thinking. “The spirit of Christmas isn’t about what the retail stores get out of it. It’s about the attitudes of the people celebrating it.”

So let me ask this question of Christians. If you take Christ out of Christmas, what do you have left? You might be tempted to answer, “Nothing,” but look at it again. Removing Christ from the “Christmas” will leave you with exactly what you have now. Exorbitant giving. Tree-trimming. Stocking-stuffing. Waiting for Santa. “Jingle Bells,” “Here Comes Santa Claus,” and “All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth.” Craft stores. Good golly, I can’t believe I haven’t mentioned the craft stores yet. There are only two things I can think of that might be missed on Christmas if people would finally own up to what “Christmas” really is and leave Christ out all together, and that’s spiritually-themed music and Christmas Eve services. “Maybe,” you say, “Maybe it’s still possible to feel the special feeling that is the ‘magic of Christmas’ without all the spending and presents.” That “special feeling” is called anticipation, and it melts away, just like magic tends to do, when the last present is unwrapped and the paper is thrown in the trash. It may linger a moment as you rifle through your gifts one more time, but it’s likely because you’ve already forgotten what you unwrapped so it’s still sorta new and exciting.

---

I quoted myself.

[ December 15, 2004, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Nah, that's the reason for whatever pagan celebration preceeded it.

Maybe it's like my view on gay marriage. There's secular Christmas, and then there's spiritual Christmas.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Hobbes, I really like you, always have, but I found your post to be pretty offensive.

I don't "systematically lie" to my kids when I play the Santa game. The Santa mythos is part of our culture. They're going to hear about Santa regardless of whether I bring it up. It's no worse or better than wishing on a shooting star, picking a four leaf clover for good luck, knocking on wood, throwing split salt over one shoulder, etc. These are myths, they are part of the culture, and it is not *lying* to play the game any more than it is perversely superstitious to do any of the things on the list above. It *could* be perversely superstitious if taken to extremes, just as playing the Santa game could be lying if taken to extremes. But simply upholding the cultural tradition of Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy does not mean you are "systematically lying" to your children. Sheesh.
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
You know what's funny? That people equate "X-mas" with "materializing Christmas" when in fact, X-mas is not sacrilegious and/or indicative of the anti-Christ at all!
True meaning of "X-mas"

[ December 15, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Shared culture, shared rituals, any excuse for a party.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I never thought X-mas was anti-Christ or anything. It's just something my husband and I use when talking about it to differentiate. It's semi-whimsical.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

C.S. Lewis' work and my study of it are actually a big part of my current disaffection for organized religion. I couldn't reasonably justify some of the crap that happened in churches I was part of... *shrug*

---

Olivetta, do you mean that reading Lewis made you realize that there is something present or absent in the organized religions you've experienced?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Jeniwren, sorry! Very poor phrasing on my part, I'll try to clear it up. If I told my children about Santa Clause, I would be systematically lieing to them. Telling you kids about the fable, "perpetuating the mythos" is al well and good, but if I were telling them about Santa that's not what I would be doing, I would be lieing. Not the continual use of the word (or letter ) 'I', because I wouldn't be able to focus on anything else, from me it would be systematic lieing.

Sorry, I offended you! Does that help at all?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I think there's nothing wrong with teasingly telling your kids Santa brought them a present. Going out of your way to make sure they believe it, especially when they have doubts, is harmful, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

What IS the true meaning of Christmas?

---

The meaning of Christmas is hope, and the blind faith that things will turn out well for all of us, despite the terrible things in the world. That is the main theme behind the birth of Christ - the idea that inspite of all that was going wrong, even with Joseph's inability to find home and shelter for his pregnant wife, there was still hope because Christ came into the world. That is why we celebrate children, because it is children who excel at this faith. This is why we have Santa, a character who embodies faith and hope. That is why we have all these Christmas movies and tales celebrating a Christmas spirit of happiness and joy in the midst of supposed suffering. And what better time to celebrate such an idea than the middle of winter, when traditional harvests are done and we only have months of cold, dark day ahead of us. It is the time of year when we need that sort of hope, and Christmas is the celebration of it, because Christ is our savior from spiritual winter.

[ December 16, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Hobbes,

but no, it doesn't clear it up for me, not really. It would be lying because you feel it would be lying? (In other words, that you would feel like it was lying, so to you it is a lie? If so, how is perpetuating the mythos any different?)Or it would be lying because something about you wouldn't be able to play the game in a lighthearted way, taking it to the extreme of insisting that Santa's real?

And I was only offended for about 15 minutes. Then the Santa side of me got a grip.

Psi, I agree. It's a game only as long as it's a game. Once the child is very serious about it, either in doubts or firm belief, it's time to stop playing.
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
Any reason to be kind to someone else is a good reason.

If you don't want to 'lie' then don't, but you can still promote good without spoiling the purpose of the event.
 

---