• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Different beliefs. What sets one above, better, more acceptable/believable than the other

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
They still get indoctrinated into the faith of their parents long before they even know what the internet is.

Yes, it surely exposes adolescents a lot easier and faster to other worldviews then it used to be.
Nevertheless, the extremely vast majority sticks to the religion they were brought up with.
Not in the UK. 70% of our young folks are atheists.
 
It's not a belief.
It's a self evident fact.

When it comes to determine how accurate a certain belief is, one has to necessarily verify its accuracy with respect to observable reality. Since "accurate" in this case means how well it reflects reality.

The data that shows how well a claim reflects reality, which can come in many different forms, is called "evidence".

So when there is no evidence, when there is no way to verify a claim against observable reality, then right of the bat - pretty much by definition of these words - believing said claim (which means: to accept as accurate), can not be reasonable / good.

How do you conclude which belief is better (in reflecting actual reality), if not by comparing and evaluating the supporting evidence? And how do you do that, if there is no evidence?

Why should 'accurate' be synonymous with 'better' when it comes to religions/worldviews/belief systems/etc.?

These are systems of meaning and value, not scientific theories or design blueprints.

Our senseless existence in an world without meaning is only given value because we create at least some fictions and deviations from 'accuracy'.

False equivocation.
We're talking about religions. The belief that (supernatural) entities and / or forces exist. These are beliefs about reality, how it works, what actually exists and doesn't exist... Whereas secular humanism are worldviews concerning on how best to organize society and to provide a moral framework.

Nope. They are both worldviews/systems of meaning grounded in fictions.

Give we evolved by accident in an uncaring and meaningless world, I'm not even sure what an 'accurate' worldview would even look like. I'm even less certain that it would be 'better' than a fiction such as Secular Humanism (or the Protestantism it is derivative of).

There is also no real robust way to differentiate religions from 'secular' belief systems other than using a modern western concept of what a religion is 'supposed' to look like that ignores cultural and historical diversity.

Again, humanism has no part in this.

Only because you make a false distinction between 'religious' and 'non-religious' worldviews.

In general, would you prefer someone to hold:

a) a false belief that provides social utility (however you want to define net good)
b) an more factually accurate belief that provides no utility or causes harm
 
Really? Do you think all beliefs are equally reasonable, regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) there is in support of them?

I was really focusing on the term 'better' in the context of belief systems.

I do not believe 'factual accuracy' is a robust metric for deciding what belief systems are 'better' than others. A belief system that was based on being as factually accurate as possible certainly wouldn't resemble liberal humanism.

Factual accuracy matters sometimes (building a plane, is it safe to cross the road, etc.) but worldviews as a whole are not really about factual reality but making meaning via mythos in a world which has no intrinsic meaning.

They map onto reality in the sense that they produce favourable outcomes for adherents, not that they meet some abstract criteria of 'objective truth'.

I'd say the evidence supports this view :D
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I do not believe 'factual accuracy' is a robust metric for deciding what belief systems are 'better' than others.

What more robust metric is there that you think we should use?

A belief system that was based on being as factually accurate as possible certainly wouldn't resemble liberal humanism.

Really? How would it differ?

Factual accuracy matters sometimes (building a plane, is it safe to cross the road, etc.) but worldviews as a whole are not really about factual reality but making meaning via mythos in a world which has no intrinsic meaning.

They map onto reality in the sense that they produce favourable outcomes for adherents, not that they meet some abstract criteria of 'objective truth'.

I'd say the evidence supports this view :D

Depends what we mean by "produce favorable outcomes." A white supremacists worldview might be "favorable" to him personally, but that does not indicate it's a better or more accurate worldview - in fact it's demonstrably not so.

So you're right that for some people, perhaps they don't care about factual accuracy in their views and care more about what makes them feel good or is "favorable" to them personally. But I don't think that's a terribly wise outlook for the long-term or for society as a whole.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Whether your belief is....
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Etc

It all goes back and starts from one person. What sets your belief apart from the others? Was it just a personal choice, understanding, etc. or something else.
Jesus Christ rose from the dead, paid the penalty for the sins of humanity, conquered death and offers eternal life to all who trust Him as their Savior; only possible because He is God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all life.
All others who started a religion died like anyone else and never left the grave.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Jesus Christ rose from the dead, paid the penalty for the sins of humanity, conquered death and offers eternal life to all who trust Him as their Savior; only possible because He is God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all life.
All others who started a religion died like anyone else and never left the grave.

Why do you believe in your god but not,,, say Zeus or Hera?

Is your god a male, female, or does it have no gender?

What race is your god?(presuming it has a race).

Why did your god create life only on earth and not the other planets. Why did it create other planets?

Why did it create other galaxy's?

Etc etc etc.
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
Why do you believe in your god but not,,, say Zeus or Hera?

Is your god a male, female, or does it have no gender?

What race is your god?(presuming it has a race).

Why did your god create life only on earth and not the other planets. Why did it create other planets?

Why did it create other galaxy's?

Etc etc etc.

I don’t believe in Zeus or Hera because they do not exist. The Creator God I believe in is Spirit and therefore does not have gender or race.
I assume God created planets and galaxies because God is a creative Being and enjoys creating.


What does it mean that God is spirit? | GotQuestions.org
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Wouldn't a belief be a better candidate for acceptance if were true in contrast to another belief which is false?
Yes, and that is why the ones listed are all equivalent.

CIao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I think Christianity and Judaism is basically the same, if Christianity means believing what the Bible tells.
I cannot imagine that. Judaism rejects Christ (which Christians base all their theology from), and does not partition their God in three parts. Those two Gods are totally different.

I would say that, ontologically, the Jewish God is much closer to the Muslim God, instead.

Ciao

- viole
 
What more robust metric is there that you think we should use?

For me, better is what produces more of what you judge are favourable outcomes.

If factual accuracy was important to human well being, we wouldn't have evolved so many cognitive functions that severely limit our ability to perceive things in a factually accurate manner.

We evolved to be significantly irrational in our cognition, or if you prefer only partly and intermittently rational.

Really? How would it differ?

Human rights aren't based on factual accuracy. They are as made up as goblins and unicorns.

They developed out of religious principles in the first place and when you remove these religious roots it is basically someone just pointing to something and saying 'we all have a right to that'.

That doesn't mean human rights aren't a good thing, but it's nonsense to consider they have any more grounding in factual reality than religious myths.

Depends what we mean by "produce favorable outcomes." A white supremacists worldview might be "favorable" to him personally, but that does not indicate it's a better or more accurate worldview - in fact it's demonstrably not so.

Saying 'my ideology is better than white supremacism' may be true, but it is true because you perceive it produces better outcomes, not because it is any more 'true' or 'accurate'. Humans, just like all other species of animal, don't exist in any real sense as an abstract common group such as 'Humanity'.

There is no factual reason to prefer a larger inclusive grouping over a smaller inclusive grouping. Any group that exists beyond the personal level is just a fictional construct anyway.

So you're right that for some people, perhaps they don't care about factual accuracy in their views and care more about what makes them feel good or is "favorable" to them personally. But I don't think that's a terribly wise outlook for the long-term or for society as a whole.

None of care that much for factual accuracy, some people just think they do because they mistake their ideological preferences for objective rationality.

We all care about what makes us feel good and that we find emotionally satisfying, a world without myths would be a most miserable place indeed.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
For me, better is what produces more of what you judge are favourable outcomes.

How do you determine if outcomes are more favorable without factual analysis?

If factual accuracy was important to human well being, we wouldn't have evolved so many cognitive functions that severely limit our ability to perceive things in a factually accurate manner.

We evolved to be significantly irrational in our cognition, or if you prefer only partly and intermittently rational.

That is a rather strange argument. That we are not creatures of pure Vulcan intellect is not a reason to abandon a goal of being as factually accurate in our understanding of the world as possible.

Human rights aren't based on factual accuracy. They are as made up as goblins and unicorns.

They are "made up" in the sense that all ideological constructs are "made up," sure. Numbers are "made up" in that sense. Logic is "made up" in that sense. Language is "made up" in that sense. That's rather obviously different, though, than the assertion that a magical equine exists that has a horn with supernatural healing powers.

That value preferences are subjective is not a demonstration that liberalism is contrary to factual accuracy. Every political ideology on earth contains value judgments. Your statement was that a political ideology premise on being as factually accurate as possible would "not at all" resemble liberalism. A discussion of values doesn't demonstrate this.

They developed out of religious principles in the first place and when you remove these religious roots it is basically someone just pointing to something and saying 'we all have a right to that'.

Your initial premise is highly questionable: human rights in the modern sense are a product of our steady loosening of religion from its hold over society. They are products of secularism.

And even if you were correct, just because we slap a religious pretext over some value doesn't give it any more intellectual or moral weight. We are still talking about people, "pointing to something and saying 'we have a right to that'." (Cf. the divine right of kings). And at the end of the day it is still up to us humans to decide whether we want a society based on xyz principles or not. And frankly, I'm quite glad I live in a secular society.

Saying 'my ideology is better than white supremacism' may be true, but it is true because you perceive it produces better outcomes, not because it is any more 'true' or 'accurate'.

Incorrect. White supremacy is based on manifestly false claims that the white race is actually superior to others- genetically, intellectually, and so forth. So from my perspective, it is a faulty worldview as a result. And because it is based on bull****, it leads to unnecessary suffering (ie "unfavorable outcomes").

Humans, just like all other species of animal, don't exist in any real sense as an abstract common group such as 'Humanity'.

Another odd claim. Do you suppose you and I have nothing more biologically in common than my cat and I do? If we do in fact have more in common, then it's perfectly factual to give our commonalities a label. The label is simply a description of the underlying fact of our commonality.

There is no factual reason to prefer a larger inclusive grouping over a smaller inclusive grouping.

Are you joking? There are millenia-worth of reasons to prefer such a thing. Tribalism has led to endless war, competition over resources, and so forth. Engaging in broader-scale cooperation with larger groups of people is a demonstrably, obviously good (ie beneficial) thing.

Any group that exists beyond the personal level is just a fictional construct anyway.

This is a weird use of the word "fictional." If I have a bunch of apples in my basket, and I describe that bunch as, you know, a bunch, that description isn't "fictional." Yes, technically the word and the concept are human inventions, but the inventions are simply ways to describe the reality of what is actually there, ie the apples in my basket. So describing a human group as a group is not "fictional," any more than describing you as an individual is.

None of care that much for factual accuracy, some people just think they do because they mistake their ideological preferences for objective rationality.

Strange, I never knew you claimed to be a psychic. What number am I thinking of?

We all care about what makes us feel good and that we find emotionally satisfying, a world without myths would be a most miserable place indeed.

Some of us recognize that what makes us feel good is not always what is true, and comforting falsehoods are dangerous things that can lead us to make profoundly stupid, selfish decisions that do not actually benefit us or other people in the long-term.
 
Incorrect. White supremacy is based on manifestly false claims that the white race is actually superior to others- genetically, intellectually, and so forth. So from my perspective, it is a faulty worldview as a result. And because it is based on bull****, it leads to unnecessary suffering (ie "unfavorable outcomes").

I'm quite interested in your response to this.

This was once a belief supported by a consensus of scientists. Now we know it is nonsense, but in the past it was 'fact' for most Western Rationalists.

Without the benefit of hindsight, when Scientific Racialism was considered factually accurate it was a good thing as it was trying to be as factually accurate as possible?

Ditto eugenics, which was a Progressive view based on science.

This is the problem of fetishising 'factual accuracy' it makes your belief system necessarily faddish.

(another recent example would be COVID and how the ''fact based' WHO were wrong about literally everything at first - nothing to worry about, don't limit travel, no evidence masks work, etc.)
 
How do you determine if outcomes are more favorable without factual analysis?

As I said, a belief system should be judged on the results it produces, not whether the stories that underpin the belief system itself is 'factually true'.

That value preferences are subjective is not a demonstration that liberalism is contrary to factual accuracy. Every political ideology on earth contains value judgments. Your statement was that a political ideology premise on being as factually accurate as possible would "not at all" resemble liberalism. A discussion of values doesn't demonstrate this.

Creating larger communities relies on creating ties, obligations and loyalties between members that do not naturally exist. Once you scale the size up, these ties, obligations and loyalties are narrative constructs. They usually contain some kind of origin myth, some kind of external other to make themselves feel superior, some kind of mythology that explains why their value system makes them righteous, on the 'right side of history', etc.

This is basically what religions also do. Yet these are dismissed as 'stupid' and 'not true'.

Being factually accurate as possible we would not create an abstract, universal system of meaning that aims to unite all of humanity under a common identity. We would recognise we are animals like any other, and we cannot escape our nature any more than monkeys and dogs can.

Strange, I never knew you claimed to be a psychic. What number am I thinking of?

Was really just a general point not actually directed at you.


human rights in the modern sense are a product of our steady loosening of religion from its hold over society. They are products of secularism.

This is nonsense of course, although nonsense that passes for common knowledge. Their roots far predate the 'Enlightenment' and were theological, not 'secular'.

Although it is one of the origin myths of secular humanist belief systems that clearly demonstrates they care little for factual accuracy, but plenty about what makes them feel good (see also the Conflict Thesis).

All Secular Humanist myths are basically godless Protestantism and half of them began specifically as sectarian anti-Catholic polemic.

Are you joking? There are millenia-worth of reasons to prefer such a thing. Tribalism has led to endless war, competition over resources, and so forth. Engaging in broader-scale cooperation with larger groups of people is a demonstrably, obviously good (ie beneficial) thing.

It is highly debatable that "broader-scale cooperation with larger groups of people is a demonstrably, obviously good (ie beneficial) thing"

Building ever larger communities also may be a "demonstrably, obviously bad (ie harmful) thing" it just depends which evidence we want to look at.

The whole liberal, globalist type ideology assumes that the key to reducing violence is to become closer to 'one big happy family' and tear down boundaries. There are however good reasons for believing that this is counterproductive and that peaceful coexistence is the product of mutual non-interference rather than integration where people fear their 'way of life' being affected by 'outsiders' (as you see in the political paralysis of America caused by the struggle for the central government. If power was more decentralised, you'd all get along much better)

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

Other issues with scale:

It may decrease frequency of conflict, but increases deadliness of conflicts that do occur. See 20th C Europe for example.

It may decrease volatility, but at the expense of fragility. More smaller crises are often better than a single massive crisis.

It decreases human relations in favour of abstract ideologies utilised to hold the communities together. The larger the community, the higher the abstraction required to bind it together.

Abstract ideologies tend to be much better at justifying the deaths of large numbers of people as they are detached from tangible realities. See Marxist Communism for example

I could go on, but it is pretty clear that it is certainly not a self-evident fact that a more inclusive group is 'better'.

Some of us recognize that what makes us feel good is not always what is true, and comforting falsehoods are dangerous things that can lead us to make profoundly stupid, selfish decisions that do not actually benefit us or other people in the long-term.

Why would you say your belief system is 'true' rather than being a 'comforting falsehood'?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm quite interested in your response to this.

This was once a belief supported by a consensus of scientists. Now we know it is nonsense, but in the past it was 'fact' for most Western Rationalists.

Without the benefit of hindsight, when Scientific Racialism was considered factually accurate it was a good thing as it was trying to be as factually accurate as possible?

Ditto eugenics, which was a Progressive view based on science.

This is the problem of fetishising 'factual accuracy' it makes your belief system necessarily faddish.

(another recent example would be COVID and how the ''fact based' WHO were wrong about literally everything at first - nothing to worry about, don't limit travel, no evidence masks work, etc.)

So hold on. The alternative is what? Just believe whatever makes you feel good, no matter what evidence does or doesn't support it? The fact that we can be wrong is not an excuse to just abandon factual analysis as a measure of reasonableness in terms of beliefs.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
I cannot imagine that. Judaism rejects Christ (which Christians base all their theology from), and does not partition their God in three parts. Those two Gods are totally different....

If we take only what the Bible tells, and not doctrines that some “Christians” have made, there is really no difference.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
As I said, a belief system should be judged on the results it produces, not whether the stories that underpin the belief system itself is 'factually true'.

Which results, and how do you analyze them (or the reason they "work") without analysis of facts?

Creating larger communities relies on creating ties, obligations and loyalties between members that do not naturally exist. Once you scale the size up, these ties, obligations and loyalties are narrative constructs. They usually contain some kind of origin myth, some kind of external other to make themselves feel superior, some kind of mythology that explains why their value system makes them righteous, on the 'right side of history', etc.

This is basically what religions also do. Yet these are dismissed as 'stupid' and 'not true'.

What's criticized as "stupid" and "not true" about religion by the typical atheist is that they assert things that are stupid and not true, like the belief that we should pray to heal our illnesses instead of seeking medical care, or that the universe is only 6,000 years old, or that I'm going to hell to be tortured for eternity because I've dared to have sex with a dude and don't feel bad about it.

I'm not one of those who thinks everything about religion is always universally awful. Most atheists I know aren't.

Being factually accurate as possible we would not create an abstract, universal system of meaning that aims to unite all of humanity under a common identity. We would recognise we are animals like any other, and we cannot escape our nature any more than monkeys and dogs can.

What's wrong with being an animal?

This is nonsense of course, although nonsense that passes for common knowledge. Their roots far predate the 'Enlightenment' and were theological, not 'secular'.

Your objection is nonsense of course, but I won't bother to provide any more evidence than you did for your claim. The fact is that while what we call "human rights" today in the West had some premodern precursors, their expression as we understand them today is demonstrably a product of the secularism of the modern era, enshrined in things like modern constitutions.

Although it is one of the origin myths of secular humanist belief systems that clearly demonstrates they care little for factual accuracy, but plenty about what makes them feel good (see also the Conflict Thesis).

All Secular Humanist myths are basically godless Protestantism and half of them began specifically as sectarian anti-Catholic polemic.

...So what?

There's an obvious reason why secularism followed Protestantism and began as anti-Catholic backlash. The Catholic Church was the dominant political and cultural institution that was the state religion in Europe for over a millennium. Protestantism's chief innovation was that the Catholic Church was a fallible institution and individual conscience should take precedence over tradition or ecclesiastical authority. That logic flowed downhill from the original Reformers to eventually question the infallibility of any/all Christian churches and the Bible itself.

It is highly debatable that "broader-scale cooperation with larger groups of people is a demonstrably, obviously good (ie beneficial) thing"

Building ever larger communities also may be a "demonstrably, obviously bad (ie harmful) thing" it just depends which evidence we want to look at.

The whole liberal, globalist type ideology assumes that the key to reducing violence is to become closer to 'one big happy family' and tear down boundaries. There are however good reasons for believing that this is counterproductive and that peaceful coexistence is the product of mutual non-interference rather than integration where people fear their 'way of life' being affected by 'outsiders' (as you see in the political paralysis of America caused by the struggle for the central government. If power was more decentralised, you'd all get along much better)

"Political paralysis" is not an inherently bad thing, depending in the context. Our government is at times "paralyzed" because we are not a dictatorship or one-party system, but rather a representative democracy with multiple layers of checks and balances. Again, that's a demonstrably good thing, and preferable if we care about things like human rights and democracy (if you don't, yikes).

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

Will read. It seems to me that the toothpaste is largely out of the tube when it comes to global interconnectivity and interdependence.

Other issues with scale:

It may decrease frequency of conflict, but increases deadliness of conflicts that do occur. See 20th C Europe for example.

20th century Europe is an example of groups of people NOT cooperating peacefully and thinking their tribe is better than another. So that's a reason to increase cooperation, not decrease it.

It decreases human relations in favour of abstract ideologies utilised to hold the communities together. The larger the community, the higher the abstraction required to bind it together.

Abstract ideologies tend to be much better at justifying the deaths of large numbers of people as they are detached from tangible realities. See Marxist Communism for example

You're treating all abstract ideas as though they're equally desirable or helpful or realistic. "Abstraction" is itself...abstract ;), and requires us to dial down to what abstraction we're talking about. It's functionally impossible to use our brains without employing some level of abstraction.

I could go on, but it is pretty clear that it is certainly not a self-evident fact that a more inclusive group is 'better'.

I don't think it's self-evident. I think the evidence indicates very clearly that when tribalism decreases, peace between tribes increases. We are better off in a society with freedom of religion and expression than one without. If you disagree, which country without those freedoms would you like to move to? North Korea may be taking applications, you could check.

Why would you say your belief system is 'true' rather than being a 'comforting falsehood'?

For purposes of this conversation, I'm not even defending "my belief system." We're having a more meta conversation about what beliefs or belief systems are reasonable, ie on what basis. And my point was that the reasonable position is the one that aligns with known fact, rather than one that is comforting to you but contradicts known fact.

Do you think it's reasonable for anyone in the West in 2021 to believe the world is flat?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
You don't believe in Zeus only because you are not born in Ancient Greece.

Ciao

- viole
So you presume, but what about all those who were born in Ancient Greece yet abandoned their worship of false pagan gods, such as Zeus or Hermès, to trust in Jesus Christ?

What about the millions and millions in China, India, Middle East, Africa or elsewhere in the world who have turned from the religions they were born into to trust and know Jesus Christ as their Savior and God?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I think Christianity and Judaism is basically the same, if Christianity means believing what the Bible tells. And to me Bible God is different in that, He seems to be the only God who has something to say to us, only one who tells correctly what happens in future and only one who cares what people do.
How can you know that the Bible God is the only one who has anything to say to us or the only God that cares what people do if you have never read any scriptures of any other religions?

The Bible does correctly tell us what will happen in the future because it was written during the Prophetic Age of religion.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Whether your belief is....
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Etc

It all goes back and starts from one person. What sets your belief apart from the others? Was it just a personal choice, understanding, etc. or something else.
I do not believe my religion is set apart from other religions in the sense of being better. I do not believe that any religion is better than any other religion, they are all just different.

What makes the Baha'i Faith different is that it is newer and more current, addressing the problems that humanity faces in this age. Thus I believe it is the religion that is suited for this age and the religion God wants everyone to adhere to, but it is not the best or the last religion, as God will reveal more religions in the future that will supersede it.

The very idea that any religion is the best or better than any other religion is extremely offensive to me. I see no reason for holding such a belief because no Messenger of God/Prophet ever taught any such a thing. It was the followers of the religions that taught that after they misinterpreted the scriptures. This applies specifically to Judaism and Christianity, as they both believe that they alone have the only true religion that is superior to all the other religions.
 
Top