A question for the faithful.

[Max S Cherry]

Hypothetically-If you were given a proof that religion was false, would you abandon it?

It seems to me that most people really don't care to answer the question. It is merely hypothetical thinking that is requested.

The only sensible answer is, "Yes." Reading the responses to the question, leads me to have to ask a question of my own.

Why would one be hesitant to abandon a false religion?

 

[madaz]

First you thank me for answering your question (post #36), then you tell me that I shouldn't take part in the discussion?

You have taken what I said out of context, I said...

AlexBP-If you can not imagine a hypothetical scenario of your religion being false for the purposes of answering the question in this thread then it is pointless taking part in the discussion.

I apologise to you for assuming you had not answered the question.

What I said was: "Yes, I would.

Thank you again for answering.

However, I've never been given any convincing argument that my religion was false.

Yes you have already told us that, did you miss the word hypothetical or do you just insist on repeating yourself?

Most of the arguments that atheists toss at me are so absurd and illogical that they tend to strengthen my conviction that Christianity is true."

Yes you have already told us that in Post#32 and when I asked you post an example to justify that assertion in Post#36 you failed to respond.

AlexBP- If you want to share your opinions about atheists please start your own thread.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why would one be hesitant to abandon a false religion?

Attatchmernt and secular utility. What are the alternatives for a Muslim for instance who finds guidance and structure in their beliefs and practices, and has invested a lifetime of prychological energy in expressing and developing their faith. I say Muslim because it is a demanding religion, and so if change is stressful (old habits die hard etc) then change and readaptation may be a lot to ask. Especially in a social vaccuum of sophisticated alternatives. Outside of the faith community there may be no arranged marriage, not t-totality, no "salam alay cum" etc. Instead the percieved alternative may be a decadent secular hedonism. So there may for some be a rational and strong urge to resist change. Perhaps the ethics of belief might be overwhelmed by orhter practical concerns.

But maybe Im projecting there. For me faith may be unlikely, or difficult to rationalise, but I get so much out of it.

 

[Elioenai26]

Attatchmernt and secular utility. What are the alternatives for a Muslim for instance who finds guidance and structure in their beliefs and practices, and has invested a lifetime of prychological energy in expressing and developing their faith. I say Muslim because it is a demanding religion, and so if change is stressful (old habits die hard etc) then change and readaptation may be a lot to ask. Especially in a social vaccuum of sophisticated alternatives. Outside of the faith community there may be no arranged marriage, not t-totality, no "salam alay cum" etc. Instead the percieved alternative may be a decadent secular hedonism. So there may for some be a rational and strong urge to resist change. Perhaps the ethics of belief might be overwhelmed by orhter practical concerns.

But maybe Im projecting there. For me faith may be unlikely, or difficult to rationalise, but I get so much out of it.

There can be no true utility in anything that is false. Only deception.

This is the import of what both Mr. Cherry and myself are trying to convey.

Christianity is true or it is false. It is "either or", not "both and".

Attachment is definently a reason why one may hold to a view even after it has been shown to be false, but is not justification for holding to such view. It is an excuse justified by the mind of its proponent at the behest of the heart in the face of truth and despite of the truth. This clearly is demonstrative of one's disregard for truth in favor of a lie constructed to coalesce with one's own fancy.

You do quite well in your presentation of a case to support your view, but upon closer inspection, we see it fails to convince. For if a Muslim is presented with evidence that Islam is false, he would not be truly rational at all in seeking to resist the abandonment of his faith in pursuit of truth. In his mind he may be convinced that grasping to a lie is rational or expedient for him, but it is merely a matter of self-deception.

There is no true utility in that which is false because that which is false does not correspond to the actual reality in which said proponent of that which is false resides.

Jesus echoes this sentiment when He states: "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

 

[madaz]

There can be no true utility in anything that is false. Only deception.

This is the import of what both Mr. Cherry and myself are trying to convey.

Christianity is true or it is false. It is "either or", not "both and".

Attachment is definently a reason why one may hold to a view even after it has been shown to be false, but is not justification for holding to such view. It is an excuse justified by the mind of its proponent at the behest of the heart in the face of truth and despite of the truth. This clearly is demonstrative of one's disregard for truth in favor of a lie constructed to coalesce with one's own fancy.

You do quite well in your presentation of a case to support your view, but upon closer inspection, we see it fails to convince. For if a Muslim is presented with evidence that Islam is false, he would not be truly rational at all in seeking to resist the abandonment of his faith in pursuit of truth. In his mind he may be convinced that grasping to a lie is rational or expedient for him, but it is merely a matter of self-deception.

There is no true utility in that which is false because that which is false does not correspond to the actual reality in which said proponent of that which is false resides.

I would agree with most of that.

Jesus echoes this sentiment when He states: "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

And Islam also echoes this sentiment:

Verily, We have sent you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسل&#1605 with the truth (Islam), a bringer of glad tidings (for those who believe in what you brought, that they will enter Paradise) and a warner (for those who disbelieve in what you brought, that they will enter the Hell-fire). And you will not be asked about the dwellers of the blazing Fire.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #119)

 

[toLiJC]

Hypothetically-If you were given a proof that religion was false, would you abandon it?

it needs be, otherwise the human would violate the good principles, let alone the fact that God can punish all humans who follow(practise) the "beastly(666)" religion, e.g. without vaunt (myself), before years i was a guest in many different denominations, and when at one point i understood that the most vain work is to follow them, i forsook them all and began to seek That One Who really is the true God, and so i has met the only true Lord - Jesus Christ Himself

Blessings

 

[Max S Cherry]

But maybe Im projecting there. For me faith may be unlikely, or difficult to rationalise, but I get so much out of it.

I could not agree with you more. In my life, faith is paramount, but it is anchored in the fact that I have no proof that it is false. If faced with proof that Christianity was false, I think I would have no option other than laying it aside. I am not saying that laying it aside would be my choice, but I do not think I could ever divorce my faith from the fact that I would then know it to be untrue.

There can be no true utility in anything that is false. Only deception.

Considering the examples he gave, I think the deception may be what GrowingSmaller is pointing towards. In a society, or religious subgroup of a society, that gains much of its direction and norms from a religion, that religion might continue to provide the methods through which that particular society operates even if it was known to be false. There would almost certainly be no belief, as I cannot understand belief in the face of falsity, and it would be reduced to tradition only. I could be wrong about his meaning, but it is what I took from his post.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It is only when the alternative overall is more promising that rational calculation would entail (all things considered) abandonning the faith. Because we are dealing with something like coherent or cohering instrumental and utilitarian complexes/networks, not individual beliefs to be pruned whilst the rest of the bush remains unharmed. No one prune and a whole bush may die, that is to be condidered. And if the bush produces good fruit, why abandon it to the crows?

It is not the case that the bad apple would spoil the bunch, but that a bunch with a bad apple may be better than no bunch at all (or a inferior crop so to speak). Of course if you want to pursue the truth ruthlessly ...come what may, so be it - but I do not think ruthlessness is a particularly nice trait. If fact its probably as bad as or in fact worse than metaphysical credulity and /or self deception.

Religious people often complain about tha alternative: secular hedonism and indulgence. You might say "It doesnt have to be that way" but neither does the price of goods in the supermarket. When you offer goods on a scale and quility at that price then perhaps you can offer a viable (instead of fantasy object) alternative that cannot be so easily dismissed. I am not trying to wound you but explain the predicament.

 

[AlexBP]

Yes you have already told us that in Post#32 and when I asked you post an example to justify that assertion in Post#36 you failed to respond.

I did respond; see post #87.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is no true utility in that which is false because that which is false does not correspond to the actual reality in which said proponent of that which is false resides.

I disagree, I think there is unity in many things that are false. Of coures those united are unaware that which they believe is actually false, but still; they are united in their belief.

K

 

[Elioenai26]

I disagree, I think there is unity in many things that are false. Of coures those united are unaware that which they believe is actually false, but still; they are united in their belief.

K

We are talking about utility not unity Ken-1122.

 

[madaz]

Originally Posted by madaz
Yes you have already told us that in Post#32 and when I asked you post an example to justify that assertion in Post#36 you failed to respond.

I did respond; see post #87.

Your response in #87 does not address my question in #36.

 

[Davian]

...
There is no true utility in that which is false because that which is false does not correspond to the actual reality in which said proponent of that which is false resides.
...

Unless you (and those around you) have been deceived into thinking what is false is actually real. From that perspective, those that see through the deception are a "problem".

 

[ErminlindaRika]

You mean a proof that my particular religion (Christianity) is false? Because I consider all other religions false beside Christianity. If it were false I definitely would abandon it. I would prob still uphold the morals though. But it's very difficult for me to abandon it after I've encountered so much evidence for God & Jesus' deity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You mean a proof that my particular religion (Christianity) is false? Because I consider all other religions false beside Christianity.

On what basis do you consider other religions false, but Christianity true?

If it were false I definitely would abandon it. I would prob still uphold the morals though. But it's very difficult for me to abandon it after I've encountered so much evidence for God & Jesus' deity.

What evidence are you referring to?

 

[madaz]

You mean a proof that my particular religion (Christianity) is false?

With regards to authenticity I do not recognize any distinction between any of the worlds major religion's so my question is specifically for the faithful regardless of their religion.

 

[Elioenai26]

Unless you (and those around you) have been deceived into thinking what is false is actually real. From that perspective, those that see through the deception are a "problem".

Your use of hypothetical scenarios on what "might be if so and so were this and not that" when my post was centered on why there is no utility or usefulness in that which is false, is indicative of your inability to provide some substantiated counter-perspective to what I have written. At the risk of being presumptuous, I dare to even say you agree with me, no?

Falsehoods and lies always have been and always will be without true utility, especially, and I do repeat especially when it comes to matters of particular worldviews, all of which claim to be true. If one comes to the knowledge that their particular worldview is false and does not correspond to the actual nature of those things which it claims to, and still maintains their position because it is "useful" then this is only evidence that said person is at best dishonest, and at worst, self-deceived.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

On what basis do you consider other religions false, but Christianity true?

Only speaking for myself, but:
Because the other religions are contrary to Christianity, and therefore, from a Christian POV, must be false.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Only speaking for myself, but:
Because the other religions are contrary to Christianity, and therefore, from a Christian POV, must be false.

That doesn't even come close to addressing the question...

 

[LionofJudahDK]

That doesn't even come close to addressing the question...

Howso?
If you believe that something is true, then you must also believe that anything contrary to what you believe to be true, is false. Tertium non datur.