What the author is proposing is known in philosophy as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, which says, essentially, something is true if it is useful to believe that it is true.
This is in contrast to the more widespread Correspondence Theory of Truth, which says that something is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are. This is a classical theory of truth held by both Aristotle and Aquinas.
Personally, I think the Correspondence Theory is far superior to the Pragmatic Theory. I don't want to believe in a religion because it feels good to believe in it. I want to believe in it because it's actually telling us true things about the way things actually are.
By the way, there are many other theories of truth, some quite out there. This entry on truth in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a good overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
I'm a christian (protestant, for what it matters) but I am also very down-to-earth. I know why I believe in God : that's how my parents educated me, and when I was old enough to think by myself, I chose to keep believing.
But I believe mostly in science, and I know there is not a single proof from science on the existence (or not) of God. Yet, I also choose to believe in a religion because it reassures me to say "Please help me, please be with me" when I'm in a dangerous or stressing situation, or when I'm depressed, or when I mourn, while fully knowing that it very might be just bullshit.
In a way, I make believe that God exists and is as described in the Bible, but I don't see why I should try to enforce my make believe onto others (and I don't plan on enforcing it on my children).
I'm not versed in philosophy, but reading your comment, I think I adhere to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, in the way that science IS true, science is THE truth. But religion is useful to me, it reassures me, so it is true TO ME, it is MY truth, so I might also adhere to the Pragmatic Theory of Truth.
In the end, I know full well how to differentiate between those two aspects of my beliefs system, and I think both have their uses and both could live together in the human mind, as long as you know which one to use in which situation.
Aristotle also recognized that there are a wide variety of people and what works for one group might not work for another. The Sivers piece reminds me of a phenomenon I see all the time: people assuming that what works for them will work for everyone. People are really different in a lot of important ways and that makes advice hard to generalize unless it is pretty banal (spend less than you earn, do the things you need to get done, etc.)
I think you're addressing a different topic, though. The first topic is, "What determines whether something is true?" The second is, "Are all things that are perceived as helpful by one group universally helpful?"
If you hold to a pragmatic theory of truth, these two questions might be related.
But if you instead hold to a correspondence theory of truth (as Aristotle did), you can still acknowledge that what is helpful to one person might not be helpful to another. But you would assert that it has nothing fundamental to do with whether something is true or not.
In ancient Indian philosophy, the Charvakas (materialists) considered the world to be real because it is seen whereas the Advaitins (nondualists) considered the world to be an illusion because it is seen.
I can't convince myself a religion is true no matter if it makes me feel good to believe in it. So effectively I end up with the correspondence theory of truth whether I like it or not.
I missed the bit where belief in "anybody" was justified by the facts regarding "Jones" getting the job. Given that all sorts of smart people have looked at this before, I'll plead to being dumb and hopefully someone will help me understand.
[For me] All that seems to reinforce the need for the 'correspondence' variety of truth. Smith is free to believe all sorts of non-sense, and this in fact happens in real life all the time. People around us have all sorts of funny theories about the world and reality. We all have them. That sort of 'knowledge' -- actionable and informative theories about the world regardless of completeness or factuality -- serves its purpose in every day life. The degree to which it is false and contextually relevant determines the probability of a collision between actual reality and one's theories about reality modulo 'chance' events. This is basically how human society operates and has operated for ever. We have (hopefully) learning agents navigating a partially error tolerant environment. "Live and learn". So this is a practical sort of knowledge that can be well served by a pragmatic take on truth.
The only question really is more fundamental and this asks if philosophy is itself a sort of mental appendix, a part that really serves no purpose :_, for every day conduct of life. To wit, this 'unassailable' sort of knowledge, who needs it? And if we can't answer that, why ask the question?
> Following a religion improves your daily actions, feels wonderful, and connects you to a worldwide community. These are better reasons than insisting it’s absolutely true.
Religion terrifies me, I don't feel wonderful thinking about eternal existence in the afterlife. Even if there was some proof that the afterlife did exist, I would most likely pretend it doesn't exist.
You can get a sense of community doing many other things.
> Same with philosophies, nationalities, norms, and concepts like loyalty, destiny, and identity. None of these are true. But they are useful.
I don't know what this means. How can nationalities not be true? Philosophies do not claim to be true, they are just a logically consistent framework.
Nationalities are a social construct, a bit of a shared delusion we all believe in. If we all stopped believing in them at the same time, they would cease to exist. That’s how they can not be “true”. Whether or not it’s useful or relevant to think that way depends on the situation. And that doesn’t mean they don’t have real consequences.
As for philosophies, he’s referring to living your life by any particular philosophy, whether or not it’s “objectively” the best way to live.
Edit: the definition I had for "nation" in my head was incorrect. My comment is based on an incorrect understanding, leaving it up since there are replies that won't make sense if I remove it.
I find it very hard to make the mental leap between religion and nationalities. I think the correct thing to actually discuss is if "nations" are true. Nationality just means you belong to a nation, by definition.
If we stopped believing in nations, people would still form groups. Groups would organise and govern, nations are reborn again.
I think as long as humans are social creatures, nations are about as "true" as you can get. They are inevitable in my opinion.
Religion on the other hand, if people stop believing in it, it ceases to exist.
> As for philosophies, he’s referring to living your life by any particular philosophy, whether or not it’s “objectively” the best way to live.
Okay, I misunderstood that part. I thought they were talking about the study of philosophy. I agree that living your life by a philosophy does not make it true. But I suspect most people that follow a particular philosophy would not claim it is "true", but maybe I'm in a bit of a bubble.
The definition of true is a rabit hole and spelunking its depths is not especially productive. It is more productive to replace the word with what is actually meant.
Is something part of objective material reality. Is something a valid logical inference. Is something an action which had the desired result even if the result was not caused, even indirectly, by the action itself.
I’ve lived in areas where religion is prevalent. Plenty of unhappy people who feel trapped in religion due to peer pressure, but there are also plenty of people who seem to benefit greatly from the sense of belonging, structure, and order that their religion provides.
The primary benefits seem to be the sense of belonging, support, purpose, and convenient explanations that difficult circumstances in their lives have a higher meaning.
It’s not for me, probably not for a lot of people in this comment section, but it’s clear to me from my experience that a lot of people do derive significant benefit from their religion. If you can’t understand why that might be the case for other people, you might be projecting too much of your own personality and circumstances on to others.
Another fun example is that allergy drugs, which clinical trials have shown are effective in double-blind studies, are less effective if you watch an ad saying that drug is bad right before taking it. Nocebo effect. If you have a strong belief the drug works, it will work better. Placebo effect is strong even in drugs we know are not placebo. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-placebo-effect-for-r...
And then you have the whole field of management and business books. Very close to a sort of federated decentralized religion.
You underrate the value of belonging to a community.
As an entrenched atheist (and by definition an atheist is also an individualist), by love, I attended mass most sundays for several years. I understood that I underrated the community part and that to belong I didn’t need to believe only respect. I didn’t convert (and most likely never will) but it softened my views.
No? By definition an atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural or divinity. Nothing about that proscribes individualism, nor does community presuppose religion or "softening one's views" on the existence of the supernatural, as you have. Plenty of atheists are also social people who enjoy the benefits of community, while remaining perfectly comfortable in their skin.
There’s no direct cause and effect between believing in a religion and living a longer, happier life.
However, religious people are more likely to attend regular religious services, where they are likely to develop social connections. As social animals, social connections are great for our physical and mental well being. This is probably one of the factors that leads to religious people living longer, happier lives (Association of Religious Service Attendance With Mortality Among Women https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...)
Expect citations to come from religion user's manuals and promotional material. We need trusted reviews and real life long-term comparatives for religions.
It probably depends somewhat on the religion one follows.
That said, I have always been fascinated by the fictional religion of Bokononism, which is centered around "Foma". Foma are beliefs that are acknowledged to be untrue, but which will make your life better if you believe them (or act as if you believed them) anyway. I find the metacognitive aspect intriguing.
Counter examples also abound in history books. And day-to-day life.
Edit: what OP may have wanted to say is that « following a religion is a make-believe that also makes you believe what you do is good ». Which is not much more reassuring either (but an apt « mise en abyme » observation of what religion without a sane self-criticism can become)
Good non-religious people exist, and bad religious people exist. Religion might help a lot of people stay good or become better, but lack of religion is almost never a plausible cause for badness.
Comments like this confirm the stereotype that engineers have a one-track mind. Imagine crapping on billions of people for believing something that they cannot prove, but that you also cannot disprove. How arrogant.
“ Same with philosophies, nationalities, norms, and concepts like loyalty, destiny, and identity. None of these are true. But they are useful.”
His use of the word ‘useful’ implies he classifies things as ‘useful’ and ‘useless’ according to some absolute value system that he considers evidently true but that in reality is no more or less valid that those things he lists as merely useful.
All models are wrong is a common aphorism in statistics; it is often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The aphorism acknowledges that statistical models always fall short of the complexities of reality but can still be useful nonetheless. The aphorism originally referred just to statistical models, but it is now sometimes used for scientific models in general.
I struggle to understand what the point of this comment is.
Yes, we know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You don't have to believe him or agree with anything he says. That's ... how it works.
I generally find his posts quite helpful and useful. Even ones where I might not agree with him.
Your comment is noise. It's just blind criticism without actually saying anything. I don't find it helpful or useful. "His value system could be valid or not valid". Also, water is wet and British food sucks.
Huh? No. As I understand it, GP is making the point that implicit in Sivers' idea is that there actually is, at bottom, a notion of objective truth that is more than merely this sort of utilitarian notion of useful. Because in order to even judge whether something is useful or helps to achieve some beneficial end in any way that we'd care about, one must have some axiological conception in mind.
Also, I really don't understand why your comment is so biting and aggressive and how you finding his posts helpful and useful is responsive to GP's point? Did GP offer some general critique of his posts? Maybe GP also finds them generally helpful and useful, but had a point to make about this specific post? Your entire response is generally strange and the rudeness is unwarranted.
He may as well say "join a cult, it feels great!".
Religion is like the OG social network - designed to hook its members and extract value from them.
"But I get value from my Instafeed" its users decry.
Yeah, but it's also a lot of non productive doom scrolling, causes social issues and can be used as a political tool to manipulate the masses. The people running the platforms can buy themselves a nice boat though, so there's always that.
Some Hogfather vibes. Believing small lies make you ready to believe the big ones. Yes, they are useful, till they are not, when following the lie instead of the truth is really harmful. Will we face that kind of situations? or we will prefer to believe that it won't happen?
On nationalities and religions, I'd like to live by Thomas Paine's famous quote (which, incidentally, was set to music by Dan Barker), "The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." Of course, to take that seriously, I'd have to care about bad things that happen to others far away that benefit me, that it would be easier to just ignore because they're happening to other people somewhere far away. So believing in an in-group and an out-group may allow us to remain blissfully ignorant of uncomfortable realities. But I suppose that's not the best way to live.
I don’t want to be too mean here, but this comes off as idiotic nonsense. Well-intentioned bullshit is still bullshit. I think most religions were initially well-intentioned but because they added a layer of supernatural bullshit to it people decided to weaponize it and justify basically anything horrible.
When you base your belief on bullshit, you have the ability to justify anything, because nonsense can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Obviously not all religious people are homophobes or racists or bigots but it does seem like a lot of demagogues have an easy time using religion to justify homophobia or racism or bigotry.
Readit News
This is in contrast to the more widespread Correspondence Theory of Truth, which says that something is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are. This is a classical theory of truth held by both Aristotle and Aquinas.
Personally, I think the Correspondence Theory is far superior to the Pragmatic Theory. I don't want to believe in a religion because it feels good to believe in it. I want to believe in it because it's actually telling us true things about the way things actually are.
By the way, there are many other theories of truth, some quite out there. This entry on truth in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a good overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
I'm not versed in philosophy, but reading your comment, I think I adhere to the Correspondence Theory of Truth, in the way that science IS true, science is THE truth. But religion is useful to me, it reassures me, so it is true TO ME, it is MY truth, so I might also adhere to the Pragmatic Theory of Truth.
In the end, I know full well how to differentiate between those two aspects of my beliefs system, and I think both have their uses and both could live together in the human mind, as long as you know which one to use in which situation.
There can never be evidence from science on God, but there are logical proofs for the existence of God:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
If you hold to a pragmatic theory of truth, these two questions might be related.
But if you instead hold to a correspondence theory of truth (as Aristotle did), you can still acknowledge that what is helpful to one person might not be helpful to another. But you would assert that it has nothing fundamental to do with whether something is true or not.
I've read a dozen comments and, except one by some adolph about models, all of you seem to have read a different article.
>>> "None of these statements are true." <<<
>>> "while knowing they are make believe" <<<
That doesn't sound like some alternative theory of truth. To me, at least.
1 https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/
[For me] All that seems to reinforce the need for the 'correspondence' variety of truth. Smith is free to believe all sorts of non-sense, and this in fact happens in real life all the time. People around us have all sorts of funny theories about the world and reality. We all have them. That sort of 'knowledge' -- actionable and informative theories about the world regardless of completeness or factuality -- serves its purpose in every day life. The degree to which it is false and contextually relevant determines the probability of a collision between actual reality and one's theories about reality modulo 'chance' events. This is basically how human society operates and has operated for ever. We have (hopefully) learning agents navigating a partially error tolerant environment. "Live and learn". So this is a practical sort of knowledge that can be well served by a pragmatic take on truth.
The only question really is more fundamental and this asks if philosophy is itself a sort of mental appendix, a part that really serves no purpose :_, for every day conduct of life. To wit, this 'unassailable' sort of knowledge, who needs it? And if we can't answer that, why ask the question?
Religion terrifies me, I don't feel wonderful thinking about eternal existence in the afterlife. Even if there was some proof that the afterlife did exist, I would most likely pretend it doesn't exist.
You can get a sense of community doing many other things.
> Same with philosophies, nationalities, norms, and concepts like loyalty, destiny, and identity. None of these are true. But they are useful.
I don't know what this means. How can nationalities not be true? Philosophies do not claim to be true, they are just a logically consistent framework.
No idea how it applies to concepts either.
As for philosophies, he’s referring to living your life by any particular philosophy, whether or not it’s “objectively” the best way to live.
I find it very hard to make the mental leap between religion and nationalities. I think the correct thing to actually discuss is if "nations" are true. Nationality just means you belong to a nation, by definition.
If we stopped believing in nations, people would still form groups. Groups would organise and govern, nations are reborn again.
I think as long as humans are social creatures, nations are about as "true" as you can get. They are inevitable in my opinion.
Religion on the other hand, if people stop believing in it, it ceases to exist.
> As for philosophies, he’s referring to living your life by any particular philosophy, whether or not it’s “objectively” the best way to live.
Okay, I misunderstood that part. I thought they were talking about the study of philosophy. I agree that living your life by a philosophy does not make it true. But I suspect most people that follow a particular philosophy would not claim it is "true", but maybe I'm in a bit of a bubble.
Deleted Comment
Is something part of objective material reality. Is something a valid logical inference. Is something an action which had the desired result even if the result was not caused, even indirectly, by the action itself.
I've had a university course where Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" was taught: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_Communities
It's been most interesting. I highly recommend it.
Do you have a strong sense of community yourself -- and what other things have you found most gives you community?
Citation needed.
Edit: the fact that this is being downvoted is hilarious. Religion is a helluva drug.
The primary benefits seem to be the sense of belonging, support, purpose, and convenient explanations that difficult circumstances in their lives have a higher meaning.
It’s not for me, probably not for a lot of people in this comment section, but it’s clear to me from my experience that a lot of people do derive significant benefit from their religion. If you can’t understand why that might be the case for other people, you might be projecting too much of your own personality and circumstances on to others.
For example: New-ish research is showing that some surgeries are no better than placebo. https://www.painscience.com/biblio/four-orthopedic-surgeries...
Another fun example is that allergy drugs, which clinical trials have shown are effective in double-blind studies, are less effective if you watch an ad saying that drug is bad right before taking it. Nocebo effect. If you have a strong belief the drug works, it will work better. Placebo effect is strong even in drugs we know are not placebo. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-placebo-effect-for-r...
And then you have the whole field of management and business books. Very close to a sort of federated decentralized religion.
With religion, "god did it" and "god works in mysterious ways" is always the answer and behaviors can't be adjusted.
Why do we do these needless surgeries? God works in mysterious ways.
As an entrenched atheist (and by definition an atheist is also an individualist), by love, I attended mass most sundays for several years. I understood that I underrated the community part and that to belong I didn’t need to believe only respect. I didn’t convert (and most likely never will) but it softened my views.
No? By definition an atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural or divinity. Nothing about that proscribes individualism, nor does community presuppose religion or "softening one's views" on the existence of the supernatural, as you have. Plenty of atheists are also social people who enjoy the benefits of community, while remaining perfectly comfortable in their skin.
However, religious people are more likely to attend regular religious services, where they are likely to develop social connections. As social animals, social connections are great for our physical and mental well being. This is probably one of the factors that leads to religious people living longer, happier lives (Association of Religious Service Attendance With Mortality Among Women https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...)
You got the citation you wanted?
Deleted Comment
That said, I have always been fascinated by the fictional religion of Bokononism, which is centered around "Foma". Foma are beliefs that are acknowledged to be untrue, but which will make your life better if you believe them (or act as if you believed them) anyway. I find the metacognitive aspect intriguing.
Edit: what OP may have wanted to say is that « following a religion is a make-believe that also makes you believe what you do is good ». Which is not much more reassuring either (but an apt « mise en abyme » observation of what religion without a sane self-criticism can become)
His use of the word ‘useful’ implies he classifies things as ‘useful’ and ‘useless’ according to some absolute value system that he considers evidently true but that in reality is no more or less valid that those things he lists as merely useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Yes, we know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You don't have to believe him or agree with anything he says. That's ... how it works.
I generally find his posts quite helpful and useful. Even ones where I might not agree with him.
Your comment is noise. It's just blind criticism without actually saying anything. I don't find it helpful or useful. "His value system could be valid or not valid". Also, water is wet and British food sucks.
Also, I really don't understand why your comment is so biting and aggressive and how you finding his posts helpful and useful is responsive to GP's point? Did GP offer some general critique of his posts? Maybe GP also finds them generally helpful and useful, but had a point to make about this specific post? Your entire response is generally strange and the rudeness is unwarranted.
Religion is like the OG social network - designed to hook its members and extract value from them.
"But I get value from my Instafeed" its users decry.
Yeah, but it's also a lot of non productive doom scrolling, causes social issues and can be used as a political tool to manipulate the masses. The people running the platforms can buy themselves a nice boat though, so there's always that.
When you base your belief on bullshit, you have the ability to justify anything, because nonsense can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Obviously not all religious people are homophobes or racists or bigots but it does seem like a lot of demagogues have an easy time using religion to justify homophobia or racism or bigotry.