Most of us are familiar with the ills of faith, whether one speaks of the narrow-mindedness it often creates, or its pseudo-solutions to difficult problems, the discouragement of curiosity it entails when overlapping with matters of speculation (metaphysics, ethics, physical anomalies, etc.); the zeal, sometimes dogmatical and violent, that pervade the holy texts and which people inevitably interpret in accordance with their temperament; the bloody theological wars that are waged, and so on.  Many of us have felt the harm of indoctrination and religious intolerance at one point or another in our personal lives, and I cannot conceive that anybody, believer or infidel, could dispute that many faiths bring more harm than good into the world -- a problem that strikes at the center of this notion of religious faith.  Not to set aside the harm, but are there any benefits to religious faith that are unique to its exercise, and do any of them offset the costs in such a way as to justify faith even to the extent of accepting certain of its propositions as "noble lies," that is, claims that are probably false but beneficial to society?  I do not have in mind mere charity or the promulgation of a particular ethic, or a magnificent work of art, for these are wholly distinct from the mythologies that comprise my conception of religious faith (wherein one confuses these mythologies with factual knowledge).  I rather mean possible benefits such as the optimism it bestows upon one's view of the world, that all injustices will at some time be made right, that death is the not permanent annihilation of everything that has ever been good or lovable about life, that each individual has an integral role which they are under obligation to fulfill given the circumstances in which they have been placed, and that the endless humiliations that some wretched souls have been subjected to carry some sort of merit.  These are ideas that don't much register on my worldview, or if they do it is in a context that largely changes their import, but I can certainly conceive of scenarios in which it might be nice to believe that they did.  Is there any form of genuine piety that is rational given the existential situation in which human beings find themselves, or is there an underlying irrationality to our existence that at least makes religious faith justifiable?   It seems that any analysis must weigh the pros against the cons.  I'm inclined to think that -- and it appears that recorded history confirms this at the turn of every century -- the costs outweigh the benefits, and moreover, that the redemption promised to the faithful is in some sense based on an erroneous idea that our beliefs about otherwordly events determines the facticity of said events.  Suppose the benefits I suggested are all true; or even that the ideas from which the benefits are derived contain something of the truth; can my doubts about them change that? If I die and find out that I was wrong about some metaphysical claim, is it reasonable to suspect that my life or future life is liable to suffer because of such doubt, even if at the moment I feel more sincere and generally more content given my suspension of belief?

The follow-up question is this: Is it better to live as if the fundamental concepts of religion are true or false, irrespective of whether they actually are true or false?

Thoughts?

If you're really that bothered by the idea of ceasing to exist when your body gives out, or that really bad people don't suffer enough in this life to your satisfaction, then it can be a useful tool to get you through life. As long as people don't start trying to force others to follow the same belief, then there's no real harm in it. Still, at best it's more of a placebo than anything else.

The iconography of mythologies can tune-in a persons perceptions of the world around them to highlight particular aspects of it that may be significant though not easy to communicate to younger members of a society;
eg. The importance of ravens to caribou hunters, highlighted in Norse iconography and indicating a carcass on the ground or possible predators in the area.
I don't hold much hope of finding anything similar in the Abrahamics however.

It seems obvious to me that faith is comforting, especially in times of stress and death. I have at times been a little jealous of that.

No.

Kierkegaard touched on this, I think, right? (Albeit from a very different perspective)

(September 10, 2016 at 11:51 am)Mr Greene Wrote: The iconography of mythologies can tune-in a persons perceptions of the world around them to highlight particular aspects of it that may be significant though not easy to communicate to younger members of a society;
eg. The importance of ravens to caribou hunters, highlighted in Norse iconography and indicating a carcass on the ground or possible predators in the area.
I don't hold much hope of finding anything similar in the Abrahamics however.

What about the Deism of someone like Thomas Paine or Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which basically simply asserts that there is a Creator and that our actions will be rewarded or punished as is truly consistent with his benevolent character? Might some adults not benefit no less than some children?

The title of the thread is a loaded question. Or not the right way to put it.

Evolution explains how bad conclusions can lead to group success. It is as simple as considering the 3,000 years of the Ancient Egyptians being successful centering their lives around very false claims of their polytheism that was never true.

Dawkins explains god claims as a result of our evolutionary gap filling. As he put it in "The God Delusion" it is the moth mistaking the light bulb for the natural moon light. It is why a dog will bark a reflection of itself in the mirror. In the case of humans we simply project our own qualities in that of fear, insecurities, desires and narcissism on non human events and falsely assume that nature around us has a human like cognition pulling the strings.

The "benefits" are a placebo at best and may bring real group survival, but there is no need in reality to insert the god of the gaps in as an answer. Our species was around long before any written religion, and biological life has existed long before humans came into the picture. It may bring individuals comfort but it is a illusion in the grand scope of the age of the universe. But religion far too often, for all the good people claims it does, slows progress and is a horrible way of conducting diplomacy. It isn't that you can force it out of existence, no, but in this day an age when we have knowledge of scientific reality, it gets way too much of a priority and causes even conflicts under the same umbrella labels.

(September 10, 2016 at 12:05 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: Kierkegaard touched on this, I think, right? (Albeit from a very different perspective)

Yeah, that sounds right. You could probably throw Pascal's wager, Kierkegaard's leap of faith, and James' will to believe into the same category of "intellectual fideism."

I would act the same way regardless so it makes no difference to me. I'd find life a lot less meaningful if I really thought this was all just a game for some bored skydaddy. But as long as I have a brain, I'll use it, regardless of the intended purpose (if any) of our reality.