Faith and "Truth vs Utility"

[Mister Agenda]

I have often heard people say that the only good reason to believe something is if it is shown as likely to be true.  What if, however, you have a proposition for which it is impossible to show evidence either for or against it's truth value, but also for which there is great utility in adopting?  Is adopting this kind of proposition as if it's true just as good as (if not even better than) adopting a proposition that is demonstrably true?  If the proposition is "God exists", I think many theists might answer yes to the question, but I'm not sure.

There's utility in taking people at their word for things that are believable, unless there is some particular reason to think they're lying; else you'd be calling people out on almost anything they say, which is not conducive to harmonious coexistence. If you don't believe your spouse is faithful, for instance, you should take their word for it unless you have evidence that they're not, that's just smart spousing. That's why most Western atheists 'espouse' reasonable skepticism, not over-the-top skepticism.

Leaving God aside for a moment, though, adopting beliefs isn't based on utility. We believe those things of which we are convinced are true. It doesn't even make sense to believe something on the basis of the usefulness of believing it if you don't already believe it's true. What you actually see is people who know that they don't have evidence to convince someone of the truth of a proposition so they try an appeal to usefulness.

Like if I'm trying to sell nutritional supplements, even if I can't show the science that says they work, you've heard of the placebo effect, right? Even if it doesn't really work you might feel better so you should buy them in any case, especially since they're so much cheaper than the pills the medical establishment wants you to take!

As far as God goes, what's the utility? Atheists do fine without believing in God, our main problem as atheists is having to live in a world where so many people are convinced that belief in God is necessary. What is the utility that you're claiming? What does belief in God get me that I'm really better off with, even if God isn't actually real?

[Minimalist]

What if, however, you have a proposition for which it is impossible to show evidence either for or against it's truth value, but also for which there is great utility in adopting?

So........ you think that if you believe hard enough in a goose that shits gold nuggets you'll get one?

[Valyza1]

Leaving God aside for a moment, though, adopting beliefs isn't based on utility. We believe those things of which we are convinced are true. It doesn't even make sense to believe something on the basis of the usefulness of believing it if you don't already believe it's true.

It's possible (and seems to be common in the case of God) for people to assume something is true, and because the rituals and activities that make use of it become such great utilities in their lives, they eventually just accept it as a given. Is that significantly different than believing something?

Like if I'm trying to sell nutritional supplements, even if I can't show the science that says they work, you've heard of the placebo effect, right? Even if it doesn't really work you might feel better so you should buy them in any case, especially since they're so much cheaper than the pills the medical establishment wants you to take!

The relevant difference between a pill and certain abstract concepts such as a God is that the nutritional value of a pill could at least conceivably be testable. If it makes sense at all to know something's truth value in some possible world, then there's no value in automatically acting as though it were true, at least on a consistent basis, because the mind will automatically know that at any moment, some contrary aspect of reality could disprove it, and the believer would either have to tear down everything they've built up or slip into cognitive dissonance. Concepts such as God, however, are not even conceivably testable. No one could ever justifiably assign the proposition "God exists" a truth value. One can either act as though it's true, or act as though it isn't.

As far as God goes, what's the utility? Atheists do fine without believing in God, our main problem as atheists is having to live in a world where so many people are convinced that belief in God is necessary. What is the utility that you're claiming? What does belief in God get me that I'm really better off with, even if God isn't actually real?

Without going into religion-specific benefits and just keeping it to the benefits of the belief in some god, here's a few off the top of my head:

It provides a sense of purpose, when one is lacking in drive. It provides a platform for adjudication of actions both public and private, when one is compelled to shrug off responsibility. In times when being virtuous seems almost impossible, acting as though there is a god who wants one to be strong is itself strengthening and could be the difference between one falling into failure and succeeding at an important task. And finally, but not necessarily completely, it is an absolute, and the value of all absolutes is to adjudicate direction. An asymptote adjudicates the direction of a curve. True North adjudicates the direction of something traveling towards a pole. God adjudicates the direction a human makes morally.

What if, however, you have a proposition for which it is impossible to show evidence either for or against it's truth value, but also for which there is great utility in adopting?

So........ you think that if you believe hard enough in a goose that shits gold nuggets you'll get one?

1)that's a proposition for which evidence for is possible, so it falls afoul of the conditions.
2)I'm not talking about utility from implications of the believed proposition, but utility from having the belief itself.

[Edwardo Piet]

Dude... you don't seem to understand what a belief is. It doesn't matter how useful having a particular belief might be... beliefs are a state of certainty towards something considered the truth not a state of certainty towards something considered useful.

[Valyza1]

Dude... you don't seem to understand what a belief is. It doesn't matter how useful having a particular belief might be... beliefs are a state of certainty towards something considered the truth not a state of certainty towards something considered useful.

So if I'm constantly acting as if proposition X is true, and I know it could never actually be shown to be true or false, that would be different than believing it?

[Zenith]

I have often heard people say that the only good reason to believe something is if it is shown as likely to be true.  What if, however, you have a proposition for which it is impossible to show evidence either for or against it's truth value, but also for which there is great utility in adopting?  Is adopting this kind of proposition as if it's true just as good as (if not even better than) adopting a proposition that is demonstrably true?  If the proposition is "God exists", I think many theists might answer yes to the question, but I'm not sure.

Assuming we're not talking about whether believing in god makes people better or not...

I'm thinking like this: If there was a truth which if learned it would start WW3, and if not learned it wouldn't start it, then I'd go with the lie.
... And assuming that we know how the future would unfold, whereas in the real world it's just a guess.

[Mister Agenda]

Dude... you don't seem to understand what a belief is. It doesn't matter how useful having a particular belief might be... beliefs are a state of certainty towards something considered the truth not a state of certainty towards something considered useful.

So if I'm constantly acting as if proposition X is true, and I know it could never actually be shown to be true or false, that would be different than believing it?

No, it would not be different from believing it. You can believe something is true, even if you know that you can't demonstrate it to the satisfaction of skeptics. Thinking that something is actually the case, is actually true, is what belief means.

It's not about whether you can show it to be true. It's about whether you believe it's true. Not useful, true.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well said.

[Neo-Scholastic]

On an existential level every belief rests on “as-if” pre-commitments. My personal opinion is that those atheists who consider atheism rational in contrast to theism, which they consider irrational, do so because they adhere to Enlightenment-era classical foundationalism. Their position is that knowledge is warranted only if it traces back to either self-evident principles or incorrigible experiences. Generally they believe that these two basics exhaust all possible options. That may or may not be the case. Either way, there are strains of skepticism that will deny one or both of those propositions to one degree or another. Even before someone can apply the methodology of classical foundationalism, each person must make private and pre-rational existential choices about: 1) whether or not reason is effective and 2) whether or not the world is intelligible. Again, you will find that there are strains of skepticism that will deny one or both of those propositions to one degree or another.

[Astreja]

{belief in a god} provides a sense of purpose...

For me the idea of a god has the exact opposite effect, total negation of purpose because some purported invisible, intangible being of unknown motives is pulling the strings.