I'm not convinced that this post actually says anything. If seeking the truth is useful for any specific reason, then people who see some benefit from it will do so and if it isn't useful then they won't. Actually writing this out has made me think both this post and my comment haven't really said much, but I think that's because this discussion is too abstract to have any real use/meaning. Ideas which are true/work will work, ideas that aren't won't, and that's all that needs to be said, never mind this business about rationality and truth and curiosity.
Comment author:CephasAtheos
22 December 2012 11:09:35PM
*
0 points
[-]
Ah, but the seeker needs to find out if the answer - the truth - is beneficial. You can't not know the truth and make a decision without knowing the answer. That's just guessing.
My friend argues that believing in an afterlife (i.e. religion) is beneficial for some people because it gives them a (patently false!) sense of "security". So why tell them it's wrong to believe such a thing?
My answer is a) the fact that there's no afterlife is the truth, as far as humans know (i.e. as far as the evidence - or lack of evidence - shows); and b) it's wrong to believe in such a falsehood - in the sense that most people with such a belief tend to be either less ethical/moral (because they'll fix up the imbalance 'later'), or irrationally over-moral or hyper-ethical because they don't want to risk their slot in eternity's gravy train. Either way, they act irrationally and abnormally, and for the wrong reasons!
I can't think of much in life that could be worse than that. What a horrible life!
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
I'm not convinced that this post actually says anything. If seeking the truth is useful for any specific reason, then people who see some benefit from it will do so and if it isn't useful then they won't. Actually writing this out has made me think both this post and my comment haven't really said much, but I think that's because this discussion is too abstract to have any real use/meaning. Ideas which are true/work will work, ideas that aren't won't, and that's all that needs to be said, never mind this business about rationality and truth and curiosity.
Ah, but the seeker needs to find out if the answer - the truth - is beneficial. You can't not know the truth and make a decision without knowing the answer. That's just guessing.
My friend argues that believing in an afterlife (i.e. religion) is beneficial for some people because it gives them a (patently false!) sense of "security". So why tell them it's wrong to believe such a thing?
My answer is a) the fact that there's no afterlife is the truth, as far as humans know (i.e. as far as the evidence - or lack of evidence - shows); and b) it's wrong to believe in such a falsehood - in the sense that most people with such a belief tend to be either less ethical/moral (because they'll fix up the imbalance 'later'), or irrationally over-moral or hyper-ethical because they don't want to risk their slot in eternity's gravy train. Either way, they act irrationally and abnormally, and for the wrong reasons!
I can't think of much in life that could be worse than that. What a horrible life!