Can False Beliefs Be Good?

Imagine there was a religion in which most if not all of the "factual" claims it made were false, even ridiculous, but most if not all of the behavior it in encouraged in its followers was good.

I've been deliberately vague in that description so that, for the sake of this discussion, you can fill in the "ridiculous" and "good" parts with your own views.

Assuming that you really think the practices of the followers are genuinely good and worth adopting, and you know that these practices are motivated, in the case of the religions followers, by their false belief. Would it be better, do you think, to adopt the beliefs of this religion (imagining for the sake of argument you had the miraculous power to do this sincerely), or to simply take up the practice and not the beliefs of the religion?

I'm interested in people's thoughts. Going for a discussion, really, rather than a debate, but I've posted it here so that people can be relaxed about disagreeing with one another.

If it is factually inaccurate, than the "good" that it encourages its followers to do would be built on a flimsy foundation and will probably collapse. People should be encouraged to do good because it is the right thing to do and not because it says so in a book.

I think the quote "if you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities" illistrates this perfectly. And history is filled with good people doing horrible, grotesque things to other people, and I think this is because they don't have a solid foundation for what is truly good. Their beliefs aren't rooted in reality, so there morality has nothing real to back it up.

Freethinker44 makes a good point. It is also worth considering that this foundation is not as "flimsy" to the people who believe in it as it may appear to outsiders and that the believers require this foundation to support particular modes of "good" behavior even if an outsider would not. For this reason, simply taking up the practice is not necessarily enough.

I also think the first half of Freethinker44 quote in the second paragraph is unnecessary. People can be "made" to commit atrocity regardless of beliefs being based in "reality" or what someone else considers a lie. By and large, I tend to be someone who cares more about the tangible outcomes of a belief than the beliefs themselves. Otherwise identical beliefs can have very different practical outcomes depending on the individual. Truth is relative to the eye of the beholder. Truths are deemed more or less "true" based on particular cultural norms and standards for evaluating their validity, but in the end these are still human constructs limited by the human minds beholding them. What is a "solid foundation" or "reality" for one culture is rubbish to another. Thus, beliefs that appear to not be "rooted in reality" from some person's perspective actually are rooted in reality as understood from a particular worldview. The outsider just happens to disagree with that worldview. *shrug*

Sometimes nonsensical religions provides a venue that helps people cope with individual problems and issues, and may offer strength and meaning in crisis and day to day living . If nothing else was available by way of resolution or solution I could see adopting such things in the interim until something better arises.

.Frame. said:

Imagine there was a religion in which most if not all of the "factual" claims it made were false, even ridiculous, but most if not all of the behavior it in encouraged in its followers was good.

I've been deliberately vague in that description so that, for the sake of this discussion, you can fill in the "ridiculous" and "good" parts with your own views.

Assuming that you really think the practices of the followers are genuinely good and worth adopting, and you know that these practices are motivated, in the case of the religions followers, by their false belief. Would it be better, do you think, to adopt the beliefs of this religion (imagining for the sake of argument you had the miraculous power to do this sincerely), or to simply take up the practice and not the beliefs of the religion?

I'm interested in people's thoughts. Going for a discussion, really, rather than a debate, but I've posted it here so that people can be relaxed about disagreeing with one another.

Click to expand...

I suspect this was the original purpose of the Catholic religion. It gave people something to believe in. It gave them hope (probably without reason) and encourage what was taken at that time as good moral behavior.

Religion gives something that many people want. Unfortunately that gives organized religion a power and control over people that can easily be corrupted.

Are lies helpful or useful? Perhaps in some cases but it is a lot easier to to think of ways lies are harmful and hurtful. As someone mentioned you need solid foundation.

Quintessence said:

I also think the first half of Freethinker44 quote in the second paragraph is unnecessary. People can be "made" to commit atrocity regardless of beliefs being based in "reality" or what someone else considers a lie. By and large, I tend to be someone who cares more about the tangible outcomes of a belief than the beliefs themselves. Otherwise identical beliefs can have very different practical outcomes depending on the individual. Truth is relative to the eye of the beholder. Truths are deemed more or less "true" based on particular cultural norms and standards for evaluating their validity, but in the end these are still human constructs limited by the human minds beholding them. What is a "solid foundation" or "reality" for one culture is rubbish to another. Thus, beliefs that appear to not be "rooted in reality" from some person's perspective actually are rooted in reality as understood from a particular worldview. The outsider just happens to disagree with that worldview. *shrug*

Click to expand...

What you say is true. Who decides which belief is true and which is false? I would say all beliefs are subjective. But the belief in question was hypothetical as implied in the OP. It was already known in the OP that the belief was not factual. The question was, is it OK to believe something that is wrong if it encourages you to be good. And to that I say no. If your beliefs are wrong, you have nothing real/solid to back up your morality. But, you are right. It is hard to decide which beliefs are true, and sometimes, and sadly, it is sometimes only through hindsight that we realize we were wrong, but then it is too late.

Nowhere Man said:

Sometimes nonsensical religions provides a venue that helps people cope with individual problems and issues, and may offer strength and meaning in crisis and day to day living . If nothing else was available by way of resolution or solution I could see adopting such things in the interim until something better arises.

Click to expand...

Yes, as some have done in great suffering, like during the holocaust.
I love how the father saves his son's mental health in this clip from Life is Beautiful...

[youtube]0Y9aKqawdUQ[/youtube]
favorite scene from Life is Beautiful - YouTube

I like Aesop's Fables. Yes, the stories are "false", but there is a lot of wisdom in those words. Does anyone think we should ban it because none of the stories are entirely true?

While false beliefs are a foundation to behaviors that respond to them. It is only in the application of them that dictates if they will be called upon by others to follow them.
God gave us free will. We form beliefs and opinions in how we "see".
At 1 time men thought the world was flat. As they clung to the belief it left sea going a fearful thing. To venture to bare witness to the "ends of the earth" was left to the brave.
I fail to see false beliefs. -"a good thing".
If water has been poisoned and 1 believes it is not you could get sick or die.
Good should be left in a classification where positive things are found in the out come of the belief!

.Frame. said:

Imagine there was a religion in which most if not all of the "factual" claims it made were false, even ridiculous, but most if not all of the behavior it in encouraged in its followers was good.

Click to expand...

Sounds fragile.

Road Warrior said:

I like Aesop's Fables. Yes, the stories are "false", but there is a lot of wisdom in those words. Does anyone think we should ban it because none of the stories are entirely true?

Click to expand...

The difference is that Aesop's Fables are not claimed to have actually occurred. They are only used as an easy-to-comprehend instructive story.

It has been made a case that this is how a lot of early religious myths were portrayed. They were not meant to be taken literally, but were believed to illustrate truths about human life and how one should act.

I think the religion in the OP would benefit from this sort of shift in viewpoint. Use the "stage props" to remind and encourage, but remember that at the end of the day, they are only stage props.

Falvlun said:

It has been made a case that this is how a lot of early religious myths were portrayed. They were not meant to be taken literally, but were believed to illustrate truths about human life and how one should act.

Click to expand...

Not everyone takes the Bible literally. I certainly don't.

Road Warrior said:

Not everyone takes the Bible literally. I certainly don't.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they did. Though, Christians in general take their religion much more literally than what I was describing. For instance, the belief that Jesus was actually God and actually was sacrificed in order to actually atone for the sins of humanity. This is not viewed as a myth that illustrates some esoteric truth, but as what actually happened. Heck, the belief that God is actually a person with desires and emotions is a literal portrayal of an earlier belief in something that was more akin to the buddhist concept of transcendence, perfection, and one-ness.

"I didn't say they did but....."

Sorry, man, but I'll stick with the stats. It's more scientific than merely expressing my opinion.

Road Warrior said:

"I didn't say they did but....."

Sorry, man, but I'll stick with the stats. It's more scientific than merely expressing my opinion.

Click to expand...

The fact is that I never said anything about Christianity or the Bible before you brought it up.

And your stats don't even address what I was talking about. Do you believe that Jesus was an actual person who actually died to atone for your sins? Or do you think he was a myth, a metaphor? I am sure there are a very small minority of Christians who view Jesus in the latter light, but the vast majority would consider that blasphemy.

It's not about my opinion. It's about what people actually believe. And in general, for religions like Christianity, they take their "myths" to be literal, and not as moral tales, like Aesop's Fables.

Many people already follow a religion that has a talking snake (serpant) and do both good works and evil works from following it. So it really depends on the mindset of the follower...

Falvlun said:

The difference is that Aesop's Fables are not claimed to have actually occurred. They are only used as an easy-to-comprehend instructive story.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's interesting you mention Aesop's fables, but the point could apply more generally to fiction. I can recall several instances of having my whole life changed (or appearing to have been changed) by the power of a work of fiction, but then I do still wonder if there are certain stories which carry the most profound meaning only if they are believed to be factually true.

It also might be that false belief always carries the potential to lead to evil. By that I mean that whenever there is a property of the real world that is being denied or distorted, there is always at least the possibility that actions that appear quite reasonable within the framework of the belief will be incredibly destructive in reality. With that said, it must surely be that certain beliefs are more prone to it than others, and so perhaps still in some cases the potential for good outweighs the risk of evil.

Perhaps an interesting way to reflect on this dilemma would be to try thinking of an example of a belief that is false that would only (or mostly) lead to good.

At the minute, I can't think of anything, so my hunch is that false beliefs are generally a bad idea. Perhaps, though, a good example of the aforementioned may change my mind.

.Frame. said:

Imagine there was a religion in which most if not all of the "factual" claims it made were false, even ridiculous, but most if not all of the behavior it in encouraged in its followers was good.

I've been deliberately vague in that description so that, for the sake of this discussion, you can fill in the "ridiculous" and "good" parts with your own views.

Assuming that you really think the practices of the followers are genuinely good and worth adopting, and you know that these practices are motivated, in the case of the religions followers, by their false belief. Would it be better, do you think, to adopt the beliefs of this religion (imagining for the sake of argument you had the miraculous power to do this sincerely), or to simply take up the practice and not the beliefs of the religion?

I'm interested in people's thoughts. Going for a discussion, really, rather than a debate, but I've posted it here so that people can be relaxed about disagreeing with one another.

Click to expand...

In one way or another, this is a question raising issues on morality as well. So it depends whether their practice, with regard to morality, is subjective or objective. I think?

Falvlun said:

The fact is that I never said anything about Christianity or the Bible before you brought it up.

Click to expand...

So? It's the dominant religion of my country yet, as the stats provided point out, two-thirds don't take it literally. Using factual examples is better than using hypotheticals IMO, but obviously you are free to do as you please.