posted
On another thread about the historicity of the Mormon faith, Zal had this to say:
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No false religion can be good; Christianity is good; therefore Christianity cannot be false.
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.
posted
Tom, on the less earth-shaking truths, I think the answer is "it depends". I don't think of telling fairy tales as "lying to my children". It's a game of pretend. Santa and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are like that. For one, they are a fun device to draw closer over a time that is either somewhat painful (losing teeth) or religiously complex.
I don't try to snow them on these myths if they ask -- my son knows that he is to pretend Santa is real for the sake of his sister. My Dad *still* pretends that Santa is real. It's a game and I get something from Santa every year. No harm done, and much love goes into it. It's Dad's way of telling me he loves me.
OTOH, I would not like my husband to tell me he liked my hairdo when he, in fact, hated it. I try to look nice not only for myself, but for him as well. I can't do that if he fibs to me to spare my feelings. When I ask, I really do want to know his real opinion. If I dn't want to know, I don't ask.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
To be blunt, that may be his stated aim, but I believe he is lying.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And here I thought this thread was going to be about handy novels. You know, like the airports that are going to sell you a book and then buy it back for half price at the next airport.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
And once again, a clear reading of the text shows this is expressly NOT what he is trying to say. The syllogism was never presented by Lewis, defended by Lewis, or even acknowledged by Lewis.
posted
Dag, I laughed out loud and got a funny look from my husband when I read that quote that mack quoted, too.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, part of the reason I made this thread is that I consider Christianity to have been a positive influence on humanity, even though I believe it is built almost entirely on a pack of lies and half-truths. I think the secular products of the faith have been, on the whole, good ones, even if the superstitions underlying them are meaningless.
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? And that brings us right into Bokonon territory, I realize.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that KoM's conclusion there isn't saying that nobody other than Christians thinks that Christianity is good, it's saying that under the rules of whatever logic puzzle you guys are discussing, it's impossible for someone who doesn't think Christianity is valid to think that Christianity is good.
posted
Nope - based on his examination of the premises and his contention that Lewis was being circular, I'm pretty sure he meant what said in the general sense.
posted
Tom: It all depends on how you look at religion. Recently I've had to leave the 'general' populous, in what they think about religion. Personally I find that religion can and does lead some if not most people to spirituality, no matter your religious beliefs. If it makes you a better person, then in some ways you are more spiritual. What I mean by a better person: Someone that can give of themselves and not expect anything in return. (Even I have problems with this on many levels, I am not perfect. However I have found that going to church all of my young life, I learned how to be kind and caring, among many other things that I learned about people.) I think of Spirituality as an endpoint or an end area of the road (or possibly a fork) How you get there doesn't matter, but getting there matters.
posted
Why do you conflate altruism with spirituality? I mean, I'm a reasonably altruistic person, but I'm profoundly aspiritual.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
It should suprise no one that I'm interested in a different part of the discussion. I may be about to brand myself a heretic here, but why can't both Islam and Christianity be true?
They both worship the same God. Since Jesus took all our sins on himself, all sin is forgiven. My view then is that everyone is forgiven and welcome, all they have to do is want it. If Muslims are worshiping God and trying to follow his laws, why wouldn't their religion be just as true?
The Judeo-Christian God is omniscient. Why would he create a one size fits all truth? If he made all of us different with unique gifts and faults, why wouldn't he provide us with different ways of worshipping Him?
But then I was influenced strongly by The Last Battle by C S Lewis. Aslan told the kid there was only one source of good. Anyone who did good must be doing it for and through Aslan since it could come from no where else. I feel there are tons of people who claim to be Christian but only worship their own self-importance. Why shouldn't I believe then that there are plenty of people who worship Him under a different name?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
That's making a museum piece out of religion-- posing as religious-- and that's not fair to religion or us, in addition, there is no humility in knowingly following a lie. There is no awe or wonder, and instead, when we choose to follow a religion we think to be false, we are making a profound statement that the guiding principle of our life is a matter of our choice.
By following a religion out of convenience, you are claiming that convenience is more important than religion. That may be fine if you believe that there are no ties which bind us together as people, but with anything less than that sincere atomistic understanding of people as severely autonomous agents, positing convenience over religion neglects those ties.
And this neglect is distinctly unreligious. If a religion is not based in a sincere understanding of truth in the world as it presents itself to us, going through the motions of a dead religion is an exercise in incredible gall and implied mastery.
posted
I think if one views religion's purpose as making people into a better sort of person, or making people act well, or giving people hope in a desperate situation, or any other worldly purpose, then the worth of a religion based on lies can be judged solely on efficacy grounds.
But, if one views religion's purpose as revealing essential truths about the world, and that the effects it can have of making people into a better sort of person, or making people act well, or giving people hope in a desperate situation, or any other worldly purpose are simply the natural result of taking that knowledge to heart and doing (or attempting to do) as the knowledge directs, then the worth of a religion as religion based on lies is nil.
posted
So is the consensus, then, that the historicity of a religion DOES matter?
And, on a smaller scale, that lies like Santa Claus cheapen the truth? Is it impossible for good to come from a known fiction?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never believed in Santa Claus. I guess there was never a concerted effort try to foist it off as the truth. I like a good story, though.
I think it's a leap to say that historicity matters, unless it is a historical religion. I'm not so sure that religion is about celebrating events from the past any more the history is about memorizing of a sequence of wars and presidents.
posted
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?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does, actually, Scott -- but does this mean that there is value in a religion that is True without being Factual? Other people on this thread would disagree, apparently.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I see this a lot and I must say I disagree. The Christian God is not the same as Allah. The Christian belief of God includes the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Islam rejects the Trinity. I don't think they are the same.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone ever read Lewis? His religious book, Mere Christianity, that is...
He was explaining his own trip through disbelief and doubt, not assuming anything. It is possibly one of the most honest works I have ever read. Not that I agree with everthing he says, but there is no doubt to me that he was seeking, not preaching in the bad sense.
Believe what you want....that is really what he was saying...lol...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
and ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
