if God doesn't exist....

[balanced]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

If not, why not?

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

[Keith&Co.]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

If not, why not?Phelps comes to mind.

[EmpiricalGod]

I don't know how it's possible to not believe in god, and say you are a christian. I guess if you apply some of the moral commands found in the New testament, a person can be a good citizen to some extent.

But what else could possibly be useful from christianity apart from that? without the belief in a god, the reassurance/belief in an afterlife goes out the window.

[Gamer4Fire]

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

[balanced]

I don't know how it's possible to not believe in god, and say you are a christian. I guess if you apply some of the moral commands found in the New testament, a person can be a good citizen to some extent.

But what else could possibly be useful from christianity apart from that? without the belief in a god, the reassurance/belief in an afterlife goes out the window.
I'm not saying you can't believe in God. I'm just saying that God actually doesn't exist -- whether we know it or not, or can know it or not, or believe it or not....

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not saying you can't believe in God. I'm just saying that God actually doesn't exist -- whether we know it or not, or can know it or not, or believe it or not....I think that what you mean to say is:

If God is real, and as described by at least one existing version of Christain theology, and we can correctly interpret His desires for how to live as a christain, and hew well enough to those rules, then the obvious benefit from belief is eternal life.

If God is not real, is there still a benefit to be gained from thinking that god is real, as described by at least one existing version of Christain theology, and we randomly choose an interpretation of His desires for how to live as a Christain, and we attempt to hew to those rules?

[balanced]

I'm not saying you can't believe in God. I'm just saying that God actually doesn't exist -- whether we know it or not, or can know it or not, or believe it or not....I think that what you mean to say is:

If God is real, and as described by at least one existing version of Christain theology, and we can correctly interpret His desires for how to live as a christain, and hew well enough to those rules, then the obvious benefit from belief is eternal life.

If God is not real, is there still a benefit to be gained from thinking that god is real, as described by at least one existing version of Christain theology, and we randomly choose an interpretation of His desires for how to live as a Christain, and we attempt to hew to those rules?
Well, not really. I'm not concerned for this thread on whether or not God is real. Just that if he isn't real, then is it at all possible, under any reasonable circumstances, in the past, present, or future, anywhere, that someone could be better off by believing in an un-real God? (For simplicity's sake, we can consider the Christian God if you like, but not necessarily according to any particular existing version of Christianity. And the belief need not be random; it could be driven by any any factors you like.)

[DancesWithCoffeeCups]

I think that what you mean to say is:

If God is real, and as described by at least one existing version of Christain theology, and we can correctly interpret His desires for how to live as a christain, and hew well enough to those rules, then the obvious benefit from belief is eternal life.

If God is not real, is there still a benefit to be gained from thinking that god is real, as described by at least one existing version of Christain theology, and we randomly choose an interpretation of His desires for how to live as a Christain, and we attempt to hew to those rules?
Well, not really. I'm not concerned for this thread on whether or not God is real. Just that if he isn't real, then is it at all possible, under any reasonable circumstances, in the past, present, or future, anywhere, that someone could be better off by believing in an un-real God? (For simplicity's sake, we can consider the Christian God if you like, but not necessarily according to any particular existing version of Christianity. And the belief need not be random; it could be driven by any any factors you like.)

No.

[couch_sloth]

Well, not really. I'm not concerned for this thread on whether or not God is real. Just that if he isn't real, then is it at all possible, under any reasonable circumstances, in the past, present, or future, anywhere, that someone could be better off by believing in an un-real God? (For simplicity's sake, we can consider the Christian God if you like, but not necessarily according to any particular existing version of Christianity. And the belief need not be random; it could be driven by any any factors you like.)
You could just boil down your question to: Could someone be better off by believing in a lie?
I suppose it's possible, depending on the exact circumstances.
But as a rule it seems a repugnant stance; at very best it might be a necessary evil for some (to believe in a lie).

[-Jay-]

Well, not really. I'm not concerned for this thread on whether or not God is real. Just that if he isn't real, then is it at all possible, under any reasonable circumstances, in the past, present, or future, anywhere, that someone could be better off by believing in an un-real God? (For simplicity's sake, we can consider the Christian God if you like, but not necessarily according to any particular existing version of Christianity. And the belief need not be random; it could be driven by any any factors you like.)

Generally speaking, I think that believing in an un-real god is, at best, neutral, and depends on how much that belief impacts the way you live your life and interact with others.

However, suppose you have a kook, and the only thing that keeps this particular kook from going completely beyond the pale and rampaging through the community with an assault rifle is the notion that God is watching and doesn't like that sort of thing. In a situation like that, both the kook and the community as a whole are probably better off if the kook keeps his God belief.

regards,

NinJay

[Keith&Co.]

Well, not really. I'm not concerned for this thread on whether or not God is real. Just that if he isn't real, then is it at all possible, under any reasonable circumstances, in the past, present, or future, anywhere, that someone could be better off by believing in an un-real God? Sure, there can be situations crafted where a lie is better than the truth.

But in general, I think it's not beneficial to follow a lie.

Or even to follow the truth, if it's for bad reasons.

The nature of religious belief tends to put a lot of one's decision making in the hands of another. That's why our founding fathers tried to limit the Church's influence on the government. It's why Stalin tried to stamp out any Church influence on his government.

If you're leading a virtuous life, happily, and allowing a hierophant to tell you waht is virtuous in terms of your politics, sex life, child rearing, education, and diet, you may identify benefits. But ultimately, if there is no afterlife to reward you for subjugating yourself to a tradition, would you really reflect on your life at the end and consider it well spent?

[-Jay-]

You could just boil down your question to: Could someone be better off by believing in a lie?


Not quite. Balanced has contrived a moderately interesting little system here (at least as it's evolved in the thread).

This post appears to establish a system wherein none of the internal actors can know whether any gods exist or not. We are outside of the system. We know that there is no god in this system, but since we are external to the system, we can't influence people one way or another.

It's a pretty restrictive situation as stated, and perhaps more restrictive than Balanced intended.

regards,

NinJay

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

If not, why not?

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Good question, Balanced!

Looks to me that the "followable" part of Christianity are (1) the golden rule (not exclusive to Christianity, this is more or less universal), (2) love God above everything, and (3) love your neighbor like yourself [including everything Jesus said about the good Samaritan, forgiving, etc].

So...


Saying you follow #(1) because of Christianity is risible.
As a disbeliever you cannot possible do #(2).
But #(3)... ohmygod #(3)! If everyone did this, what a very, very different world this would be! If this means being a Christian, please, everyone convert!

[Doug Shaver]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?
I can't answer that without knowing what you mean by "following Chrhstianity."

There are at least a couple of Christians of my acquaintance, who know I am an atheist, who have told me that in their opinion, I follow Christianity very well.

[couch_sloth]

You could just boil down your question to: Could someone be better off by believing in a lie?


Not quite. Balanced has contrived a moderately interesting little system here (at least as it's evolved in the thread).

This post appears to establish a system wherein none of the internal actors can know whether any gods exist or not. Where exactly does it say that they can't know that god doesn't exist?
We are outside of the system. We know that there is no god in this system, but since we are external to the system, we can't influence people one way or another.

It's a pretty restrictive situation as stated, and perhaps more restrictive than Balanced intended.
If you are right about the situation as stated then I would also doubt he meant for it to be so restrictive.
What you seem to be saying is that the internal actors can believe by faith but there is no way for them to come to a rational/objective conclusion that God does not exist. In which case it seems like a rather lame scenario, at least from the atheist's perspective (Since it isn't a matter of choosing a comforting lie over the apparent truth.)

[Hamlet]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

If not, why not?

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?
Choosing to be a Christian, even if you know that it is not true, could be a way of assigning or giving meaning to your life. I've found that a lot of people on this board have said, over the years, that there is no ultimate or objective meaning to our lives given atheism (the same people will often say that theism offers no ultimate meaning either), but that we give our lives the only meaning possible—we assign subjective meanings to our lives, such as family and friends or our career or what have you. So choosing Christianity could be just one way of giving your life meaning. An atheist could even choose it. How perversely Sartrean is that?

[balanced]

Thanks, all, for the replies!

No.

If not, why not?

You could just boil down your question to: Could someone be better off by believing in a lie?Yes, sort of. But they would believe it to be true.
I suppose it's possible, depending on the exact circumstances.
But as a rule it seems a repugnant stance; at very best it might be a necessary evil for some (to believe in a lie).Then do you think it's possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?
However, suppose you have a kook, and the only thing that keeps this particular kook from going completely beyond the pale and rampaging through the community with an assault rifle is the notion that God is watching and doesn't like that sort of thing. In a situation like that, both the kook and the community as a whole are probably better off if the kook keeps his God belief.That sounds like a 'yes'. So do you think it's possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

If you're leading a virtuous life, happily, and allowing a hierophant to tell you waht is virtuous in terms of your politics, sex life, child rearing, education, and diet, you may identify benefits. But ultimately, if there is no afterlife to reward you for subjugating yourself to a tradition, would you really reflect on your life at the end and consider it well spent?Well, presumably whoever follows Christianity would believe that God does exist. (But we know that they're wrong.)

This post appears to establish a system wherein none of the internal actors can know whether any gods exist or not. We are outside of the system. We know that there is no god in this system, but since we are external to the system, we can't influence people one way or another.Yes! That was my intent. Thank you for helping to clarify this.

I can't answer that without knowing what you mean by "following Chrhstianity."Fair enough. I mean to believe that God does exist, and try to follow what you believe he desires you to do. For Christianity, that would mean adherence to some interpretation of the Bible in the context of Christ as our savior, in some typical fashion as is done today. No need to be too specific here, I think this just helps put something concrete around the concept. As mentioned above, I think a more general case would be to believe in and live according to a something that is actually false.
If you[NinJay] are right about the situation as stated then I would also doubt he meant for it to be so restrictive.
What you seem to be saying is that the internal actors can believe by faith but there is no way for them to come to a rational/objective conclusion that God does not exist.I think rational and objective are different. So I'd say that they could be rational (logical), but not objective (without any bias).
In which case it seems like a rather lame scenario, at least from the atheist's perspective (Since it isn't a matter of choosing a comforting lie over the apparent truth.)Don't take it too personally! It's only hypothetical, and there is a point.

[DBT]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

If not, why not?

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

Christianity does have its positive elements, and many Christian groups do some very good work in the community. But as with religion in general, it is ultimately built on false premises -the existence of its God, untestable supernatural claims, etc - it therefore promotes self deception as a means to gain personal fulfilment and emotional comfort. And that, in the big picture, makes it a problem.

[firebug]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

If not, why not?

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

It's funny how you say "assuming there is no god..." Note that god's existence is an (unsubstantiated) assumption, not the other way around.

I don't know what you mean by "following christianity". Instructions left by jesus (if he ever existed) are open to interpretation, but that does not matter. Religion is based on false claims, and thus living by it is living a lie. If you consider that a good thing to do, fine.

[Doug Shaver]

I mean to believe that God does exist, and try to follow what you believe he desires you to do. For Christianity, that would mean adherence to some interpretation of the Bible in the context of Christ as our savior, in some typical fashion as is done today. . . . As mentioned above, I think a more general case would be to believe in and live according to a something that is actually false.
That's still not specific enough to allow me a yes or no answer.

As for the general case, I believe that there are situations where a person can be better off believing a falsehood than believing the truth, but it depends entirely on the particular individual.

[Lord_Terrible]

It depends on your definition of Christianity. If it was 'the Bible is literal fact' then no, if it was 'Christ's teachings of love and acceptance to fellow human beings were correct and I should do what he says' then yes.

It's all about sticks and carrots (punishment and reward) if some people require the stick of hell or the carrot of heaven to be good to one another (and it works) then why grumble?

[capsaicin67]

Relying upon and implicitly endorsing superstition promotes poor thinking---and potentially/eventually poor choices. There could be benefits to participation, but it is founded upon a lie.

I think it is optimal to try to root out the lie and get right down to choosing thinking/behavior chosen for the best conscious reasons.

[Unbeatable]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

No. It can't be a bad thing either.

If not, why not?

Because there is no such thing as "a good thing to do". That is, "goodness" is not a property of the "thing", or at least, not a knowable property. Rather, the "thing" is perceived/judged as "good" or "bad" by people, based upon subjective definitions of "good" and "bad"; i.e. opinion. Obviously, a great number of people are of the opinion that it's good to follow Xianity. I can't say for sure that they're incorrect, given their own concepts of "good". It is possible that they are incorrect, though, if their reasons for considering it good happen to hinge on claims which can be falsified (e.g. if they think that following Xianity is good because it prevents people from committing crime, we can look at statistics on religious affiliation of criminals to prove or disprove that rationale). i.e. it's possible that their reasoning is internally inconsistent. If it is, though, would that make following Xianity bad? No, it would just make it "bad" given the definition of "good" they had assumed. They're free to assume some other definition.

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

No and yes. If there exists a property of "goodness" or "badness", humans are blind to it, rendering it irrelevant. We have only subjectivity, so we can only judge another person's actions according to various subjective or intersubjective standards. There might be empirical claims to examine along the way to such a judgment. The more such claims that need to be examined, the more difficult it will be to reach a conclusive judgment. And there are varying degrees of certainty. Different people have different standards of how much certainty is enough for them to act on. So the question of whether it's possible for a person to judge with certainty is really a question of whether it's possible for a person to judge with enough certainty for their own personal taste. Obviously, given the wide range of possibilities in the world, the answer to that question would be yes, it's possible.

[George Oilwell]

Well, not really. I'm not concerned for this thread on whether or not God is real. Just that if he isn't real, then is it at all possible, under any reasonable circumstances, in the past, present, or future, anywhere, that someone could be better off by believing in an un-real God? (For simplicity's sake, we can consider the Christian God if you like, but not necessarily according to any particular existing version of Christianity. And the belief need not be random; it could be driven by any any factors you like.)

Generally speaking, I think that believing in an un-real god is, at best, neutral, and depends on how much that belief impacts the way you live your life and interact with others.

However, suppose you have a kook, and the only thing that keeps this particular kook from going completely beyond the pale and rampaging through the community with an assault rifle is the notion that God is watching and doesn't like that sort of thing. In a situation like that, both the kook and the community as a whole are probably better off if the kook keeps his God belief.

regards,

NinJay
If such a person were so unhinged that the only thing stopping them from going on a shooting rampage is their faith, they could very easily lose it altogether and go on a shooting rampage anyway with the delusion that it is 'God's will' and his victims are 'sinners who needed to die'.

Such an individual belongs in the nuthouse.

People who believe that 'God speaks to them' are a but schitzo IMO.

[Spytait]

Some morals in the bible that are needed to be respected for Christians are not bad values. You might be comforted by the though of God protecting you, or heaven, but I neveer was when I was a Christian.

[balanced]

Thanks for the activity, all. I've been away for the weekend, so haven't had a chance to respond until now.

But as with religion in general, it is ultimately built on false premises....

Religion is based on false claims, and thus living by it is living a lie.

but it is founded upon a lie.

This was all a given for the scenario. But the question was, can it still be considered "good" to follow it?

No. It can't be a bad thing either. ...the "thing" is perceived/judged as "good" or "bad" by people, based upon subjective definitions of "good" and "bad"; i.e. opinion.
But wouldn't that in fact mean that it can be either good or bad, not that it can't?

Different people have different standards of how much certainty is enough for them to act on. So the question of whether it's possible for a person to judge with certainty is really a question of whether it's possible for a person to judge with enough certainty for their own personal taste.No, in this case I mean absolute, objective certainty.

It depends on your definition of Christianity. If it was 'the Bible is literal fact' then no....
So why not?

[DBT]

Thanks for the activity, all. I've been away for the weekend, so haven't had a chance to respond until now.

But as with religion in general, it is ultimately built on false premises....


This was all a given for the scenario. But the question was, can it still be considered "good" to follow it?

No.
By supprting it you are giving an unfounded belief system a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve, and adding to our overall sorry state of division and conflict. That applies to all unfounded belief systems, religious and political.

[balanced]

No.
By supprting it you are giving an unfounded belief system a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve, and adding to our overall sorry state of division and conflict. That applies to all unfounded belief systems, religious and political.

What do you mean by "unfounded"? And why does that mean that it couldn't be considered good under any circumstances?

What if everyone adhered to the same belief, so that there was no division/conflict?

[balanced]

OK, here's a scenario to help illustrate the questions in my OP:

There's an isolated village somewhere, and the people there believe that The Great Comet God decrees that a comet will pass within 1 million miles of our solar system in the year 4950, and anyone who denies this must be put to death immediately.

100 years or so ago, an outside visitor came to the village, and tried to convince people that this was absurd. A few people accepted his arguments, and spent a lot of time speaking with him, while the rest of the village shunned him. A short time later, all of those who accepted his arguments died of some mysterious illness, which the rest of the village took to be a fullfillment of The Great Comet God's decree. Also, for the next 10 years, there was a drought and famine, and many others suffered and died. Ever since, anyone who shows the slightest hint of disbelief is quickly stoned to death by the rest of the village. The illness has never been seen again, and there hasn't since been a drought/famine nearly so severe.

So, for a citizen of this village today, who is otherwise content with his life and does not have any desire to leave home, could it be a good thing for him to believe in The Great Comet God and its decree?

[funinspace]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?
With the "Assuming" and the "possible", of course it "could be" a good thing to do. However, is the "good" coming from the nature of the person? And would the "good" have come anyways without such belief?

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?
I try not to judge others, unless I have been given repeated reason to not to. That goes for their faith as well, and it's good/bad affects. Not that I'm going to hand my wallet to a stranger... "Certainty" is for the realm of courts when dealing with physical actions that can be well documented; and even then they coach it in terms of "beyond reasonable doubt. Now you are talking about peoples reasons for their actions. In general unless you know a person real well, one will have far too little information by which to form an opinion of their motivations/reasons.

I have to agree with Lógos Sokratikós, in that there would certainly be more good in this world if Jesus second commandment were given more credence.

Your latest scenerio, doesn't do anything for me….

[DBT]

No.
By supprting it you are giving an unfounded belief system a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve, and adding to our overall sorry state of division and conflict. That applies to all unfounded belief systems, religious and political.

What do you mean by "unfounded"? And why does that mean that it couldn't be considered good under any circumstances?

Having a 'foundation' means that verifiable evidence is available for anyone to examine. The evidence should clearly support the conclusion.


What if everyone adhered to the same belief, so that there was no division/conflict?

When you say 'belief' I think you are actually referring to faith. Does anyone dispute the existence of any article of knowledge? How many web pages of debate are there on the existence of the sun, or the moon, the stars, plants, animals, mountains, oceans, rivers , etc, etc.....?
Of course not, the real division and conflict only comes with emotionally charged faith based beliefs.

[capsaicin67]

OK, here's a scenario to help illustrate the questions in my OP:

There's an isolated village somewhere, and the people there believe that The Great Comet God decrees that a comet will pass within 1 million miles of our solar system in the year 4950, and anyone who denies this must be put to death immediately.

100 years or so ago, an outside visitor came to the village, and tried to convince people that this was absurd. A few people accepted his arguments, and spent a lot of time speaking with him, while the rest of the village shunned him. A short time later, all of those who accepted his arguments died of some mysterious illness, which the rest of the village took to be a fullfillment of The Great Comet God's decree. Also, for the next 10 years, there was a drought and famine, and many others suffered and died. Ever since, anyone who shows the slightest hint of disbelief is quickly stoned to death by the rest of the village. The illness has never been seen again, and there hasn't since been a drought/famine nearly so severe.

So, for a citizen of this village today, who is otherwise content with his life and does not have any desire to leave home, could it be a good thing for him to believe in The Great Comet God and its decree?

Well, that's pretty much the case in many instances today isn't it? Might it be socially useful instance-to-instance to not challenge a lie? Yes. Does that mean that one privately needs to actually believe in its substance? No. Should one privately decide to believe it is true when one is intellectually capable of realizing that it is not? IMO, no---it is a matter of good mental hygiene and can become a bad mental habit or be hard to "undo" when the practical consequences of believing something that is NOT TRUE come into play.

The only cases that I'm unsure how to categorize are people devastated by poor coping skills or loss who seem so fragile and I can't tell if they are intellectually/emotionally sophisticated enough to make the jump to full self responsibility/reality/awareness. Now, I think that society/family/peers do a lot to load that baggage onto people early on, and they become ethical/philosophical/metaphysical "crack babies". But wtf to do for/with them?

And make no doubt about it---unless you are already a Vulcan/Asperger's or something, the air is thinner as an atheist, in large part because there aren't many railings/handholds going up the mountain on that trail/path. It's not evidence of it being an incorrect assessment of facts, just that it is not often socially supported, it is poorly developed as a coherent worldview for easy accessibility, requires a bit more intellectual grounding etc etc. It's like being a metaphysical raw foods purist---it is probably healthier, but damn, it's a lot more work in some ways until you have a system that works for you. And it's harder to eat out/with friends. Etc. (I'm not, but that's what I think when pondering "extreme" dietary protocols----even eating smaller portions)

[balanced]

Well, that's pretty much the case in many instances today isn't it? Might it be socially useful instance-to-instance to not challenge a lie? Yes. Does that mean that one privately needs to actually believe in its substance? No.

Well, what's of interest to me isn't the ones who "secretly" deny the belief, but those who actually believe it. Is it inherently all bad that they believe it? Or could it possibly be considered good?

There's no definitive proof either way of what's actually true, and there's clear evidence supporting the belief, from the perspective of the villagers.

[DBT]

The perspective of the villagers may be at fault.

[capsaicin67]

Well, that's pretty much the case in many instances today isn't it? Might it be socially useful instance-to-instance to not challenge a lie? Yes. Does that mean that one privately needs to actually believe in its substance? No.

Well, what's of interest to me isn't the ones who "secretly" deny the belief, but those who actually believe it. Is it inherently all bad that they believe it? Or could it possibly be considered good?

There's no definitive proof either way of what's actually true, and there's clear evidence supporting the belief, from the perspective of the villagers.

It may not be inherently all bad to belong to the NAZI party or the Klan. Just bad enough. When you're helping your affiliated community, looks pretty good. When you are hurting people it looks pretty bad.

[balanced]

Having a 'foundation' means that verifiable evidence is available for anyone to examine. The evidence should clearly support the conclusion.
Well, I never said that there wasn't verifiable evidence available, and I don't think it's true that just because something is false there isn't any verifiable evidence to support it. Just look at all of the innocent people convicted by well-meaning juries. (Heh. See my verifiable evidence that having verifiable evidence isn't enough to prove something is true!)

So if there is verifiable evidence (not proof, mind you, since that would imply that it was true, when in fact we know that it isn't), then could it be considered good to believe it?

The perspective of the villagers may be at fault.Of course it is. We know it's at fault. But all they see is the evidence that when some of the villagers disbelieved, great harm came to the village. Our sample citizen, being content with his life, has neither the means nor the desire to look further. So could it be good that he believe? Or is it objectively bad?

When you say 'belief' I think you are actually referring to faith.Well, I'm not sure what you think the difference is, so it's hard for me to say. But what I mean is that they actually believe the proposition to be true, based on the evidence they've seen/heard/experienced.

It may not be inherently all bad to belong to the NAZI party or the Klan. Just bad enough. When you're helping your affiliated community, looks pretty good. When you are hurting people it looks pretty bad.So you agree that it could be considered good? Then what do you think, is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

[DBT]

Having a 'foundation' means that verifiable evidence is available for anyone to examine. The evidence should clearly support the conclusion.
Well, I never said that there wasn't verifiable evidence available,

What is that evidence...just out of curiosity.


and I don't think it's true that just because something is false there isn't any verifiable evidence to support it.


Sure, there may be evidence but as I said above - in order to form a firm conviction of the facts (a justified belief) the evidence should clearly point to the conclusion.
[
Just look at all of the innocent people convicted by well-meaning juries. (Heh. See my verifiable evidence that having verifiable evidence isn't enough to prove something is true!)

Show me a particular case and we'll have a look at it. Perhaps the evidence was inconclusive, ambiguous, or it was unintentionally(or otherwise) misrepresented by the police, the prosecuter, etc. Without something specific to go on it's hard to say what went wrong.

So if there is verifiable evidence (not proof, mind you, since that would imply that it was true, when in fact we know that it isn't), then could it be considered good to believe it?

Again, it depends on the the evidence.

Of course it is. We know it's at fault. But all they see is the evidence that when some of the villagers disbelieved, great harm came to the village. Our sample citizen, being content with his life, has neither the means nor the desire to look further. So could it be good that he believe? Or is it objectively bad?

Look at the world in general. Even tribal conflict can be based purely on religious belief - and there is your answer.


Well, I'm not sure what you think the difference is, so it's hard for me to say. But what I mean is that they actually believe the proposition to be true, based on the evidence they've seen/heard/experienced.
?

It's not what I think, or you think. Faith is usually taken a belief held without the sufficient support of evidence.

Faith; (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)
(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

[capsaicin67]

It may not be inherently all bad to belong to the NAZI party or the Klan. Just bad enough. When you're helping your affiliated community, looks pretty good. When you are hurting people it looks pretty bad.So you agree that it could be considered good? Then what do you think, is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

Well, good like belonging to the Klan Community and celebrating whitetrash Southern Culture....if that's what you mean.

Aspects may be "not negative" or even useful. Other aspects may be harmful or wrongheaded or useless. That's hardly a sweeping endorsement or compelling justification for supporting poor thinking. I'm against poor thinking such as I can be.

[balanced]

Well, I never said that there wasn't verifiable evidence available,
What is that evidence...just out of curiosity.Well, for the question in the OP, the evidence is whatever you want it to be. The question was simply, could it be possible, under whatever circumstances you can image might be reasonble.

For my specific example, the evidence is the recent history, as told by trusted parents and village elders, of the drought/famine and death of those who challenged the belief; followed by the relative success of the village since then while the belief was "enforced".

I'm not trying to ask if it's possible for the villagers to form an objective conclusion. I'm simply asking if it's possible for it to be good for them to follow the belief, as opposed to any other reasonable alternatives, within some practical limits of their environment.

Sure, there may be evidence but as I said above - in order to form a firm conviction of the facts (a justified belief) the evidence should clearly point to the conclusion. OK. Then is it possible that such evidence exists? And who gets to decide if it's "justified"?


Show me a particular case and we'll have a look at it. Perhaps the evidence was inconclusive, ambiguous, or it was unintentionally(or otherwise) misrepresented by the police, the prosecuter, etc. Without something specific to go on it's hard to say what went wrong. Indeed, something obviously went wrong, since an innocent person was convicted. But the point is not to sort out what went wrong, but simply to demonstrate that reasonable people are routinely convinced that fiction is fact based on a biased understanding of the "verifiable evidence" they have available. Having verifiable evidence and reaching a justified conclusion are not enough to guarantee truth.

Look at the world in general. Even tribal conflict can be based purely on religious belief - and there is your answer.This doesn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask if it could be bad, or if it's commonly understood to be bad, or if we see a lot that's bad in the world in general. I asked if it could possibly, under some reasonable but undefined set of circumstances, be considered good.

It's not what I think, or you think. Faith is usually taken a belief held without the sufficient support of evidence.

Faith; (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)
(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Which, of course, just brings up two new questions: What do you mean by "sufficient", and what do you mean by "proof"? Only the 3rd definition adds anything to this discussion, and it says that faith is belief without proof. As far as I'm concerned, there's extremely little, if anything, for which we have proof (i.e., 100% certainty, absolutely no doubt). Which reduces the definition to, "faith = firm belief". So I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make.

In my example, the villagers have the evidence at hand, and have rationalized a justification that, as far as they can tell, matches reality. You and I know objectively that their conclusion is wrong, but for the villager in this setting, who:
- thinks he would risk bringing ruin on the village
- doesn't want to alienate his peers
- would get stoned to death
- is otherwise content with his life

couldn't it be considered good for him to believe? What evidence do you think he necessarily has that should cause him to doubt? Why do you think it is necessarily better for him to challenge the belief and die?

[Adonael]

Assuming there is no God, is it possible that following Christianity could be a good thing to do?

If not, why not?

And if so, then is it possible for a person to judge with certainty whether it's good or bad for some other person to follow Christianity today?

Assuming that:

One does not believe Christianity is false
There is pragmatic value in following Christianity
Pragmatic value has elements goodness and no overcoming or equal elements of badness


then there could be a case that it is good to follow Christianity

[balanced]

Well, good like belonging to the Klan Community and celebrating whitetrash Southern Culture....if that's what you mean.If those things could be considered good, then that's what I mean.

Aspects may be "not negative" or even useful. Other aspects may be harmful or wrongheaded or useless. That's hardly a sweeping endorsement or compelling justification for supporting poor thinking. I'm against poor thinking such as I can be.Indeed. And although, to use your example, it could be good for some white person if he belonged to the Klan, it would likely be bad for some black person.

But if it could be considered good, even if only by that white person, then is it possible to judge with certainty (objectively) that it's bad for that person to join the Klan? Is there an objective imperative to prevent the person from joining, or is that judgment based on a subjective assessment?

Going back to the question in the OP, if it could be considered good, under some circumstances, for a person to believe in Christianity, even if it really is false; then is it possible to judge with certainty that no-one should follow Christianity today? Or is that simply a subjective assessment based on a biased view of the evidence?

[Reason]

The OP seems like Pascal's Wager 2.0.

[balanced]

The OP seems like Pascal's Wager 2.0.

How's that? It was just a couple questions based on a hypothetical assumption. No assertions or conclusions.

[Reason]

The OP seems like Pascal's Wager 2.0.

How's that? It was just a couple questions based on a hypothetical assumption. No assertions or conclusions.

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

[DBT]

What is that evidence...just out of curiosity.Well, for the question in the OP, the evidence is whatever you want it to be. The question was simply, could it be possible, under whatever circumstances you can image might be reasonble.

Examples?


OK. Then is it possible that such evidence exists? And who gets to decide if it's "justified"?

The evidence should be verifiable, and the belief is justified by that evidence - a justified belief as opposed to a faith based belief.


Indeed, something obviously went wrong, since an innocent person was convicted. But the point is not to sort out what went wrong, but simply to demonstrate that reasonable people are routinely convinced that fiction is fact based on a biased understanding of the "verifiable evidence" they have available. Having verifiable evidence and reaching a justified conclusion are not enough to guarantee truth.

That's right, reasonable people are routinely convinced by what they perceive as being evidence, insufficient evidence, hearsay taken as being evidence...

Thats why there must be a high standard applied to the concept of 'evidence,' we can't just draw a favourite definition out the hat because it suits our needs, makes us feel good, provides us with 'faith,' a religion and a personal God.

Also keep in mind that evidential requirements may vary between disciplines -science, the law, philosophy, etc.

This doesn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask if it could be bad, or if it's commonly understood to be bad, or if we see a lot that's bad in the world in general. I asked if it could possibly, under some reasonable but undefined set of circumstances, be considered good.

Sure, faith does have benefits for the group and for the individual. And these benefits can be defined.

[balanced]

Well, for the question in the OP, the evidence is whatever you want it to be. The question was simply, could it be possible, under whatever circumstances you can image might be reasonble.Examples?It was my question. The examples, whether they exist or not, are for you to provide.

The evidence should be verifiable, and the belief is justified by that evidence - a justified belief as opposed to a faith based belief.Interesting. Does that mean that only repeatable, verifiable things should be considered evidence? What about things that are necessarily time-related, or are impractical to try to re-enact? (Can't think of any examples right now.... It's a bit late, and alcohol seems to dull the intellect somewhat.)

Thats why there must be a high standard applied to the concept of 'evidence,' we can't just draw a favourite definition out the hat because it suits our needs, makes us feel good, provides us with 'faith,' a religion and a personal God.What is that standard, and where did it come from?

Also keep in mind that evidential requirements may vary between disciplines -science, the law, philosophy, etc.Is this based on something objective, or simply a difference in what we humans are willing to accept?


This doesn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask if it could be bad, or if it's commonly understood to be bad, or if we see a lot that's bad in the world in general. I asked if it could possibly, under some reasonable but undefined set of circumstances, be considered good.

Sure, faith does have benefits for the group and for the individual. And these benefits can be defined.OK, great. Then what about my follow-up question: Is it possible to judge with certainty whether or not it's good for someone to follow Christianity today?

[DBT]

Interesting. Does that mean that only repeatable, verifiable things should be considered evidence? What about things that are necessarily time-related, or are impractical to try to re-enact? (Can't think of any examples right now.... It's a bit late, and alcohol seems to dull the intellect somewhat.)

Depends on the context. Evidence for the existence of something truly extraordinary - God/gods, the supernatural, extraterrestials, etc - needs to be verifiable, it must be relevant to the given proposition, and must be extremely convincing.


What is that standard, and where did it come from?

As I said earlier -'' Evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable. The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as policy, scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse.

''Scientific evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence)is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with the scientific method...''[/url]


Is this based on something objective, or simply a difference in what we humans are willing to accept?

It is based on what works, the results. And what does work best is verifiable, objective, empirical evidence. That's not to say that human error won't come into play.


Is it possible to judge with certainty whether or not it's good for someone to follow Christianity today?

What is good for an individual? Social acceptance among other believers? The promise of eternal life? The comfort of a promised heaven? An ultimate Justice? Easy answers to the question of the origin of the universe and life? Faith can certainly provides that. But is it the truth? Does it matter if it's not?