Are some people truly better off believing?

[Pyrrho]

...
I would go as far as to say that right now I wish I could believe it. Not because I want to go to heaven - I have no fear of non-existence - but for the hope that the suffering in the world that I can do nothing about will be compensated, and for the feelings I used to get when I imagined God being real and watching and making everything fair and alright in the end.  ...

What would adequately compensate someone for a long, drawn-out, agonizing death from bone cancer, or some other form of cancer?  What payment later on would be good enough?  Turn it around, and ask yourself this:  If you could get anything you wanted afterwards, would you agree to be in agony for a year first?  What would be good enough to you for that?

Frankly, the idea that there is a god watching over us is monstrous.  It must be a remarkably evil being, to allow all of the pain and suffering in the world.  It can't make up for this.  Nothing could.  I don't know how any thinking person could get comfort from the idea that this is all being watched by a being that could stop the pain at any time it chooses, but it does not choose to stop the pain.


As for the main question, I think the world would be better off if there were no religious beliefs at all.  Of course, this is a very hypothetical type of question, which requires us to imagine the world as being dramatically different from how it is.

[paulpablo]

Agree/disagree? Under what circumstances, if any, might you prefer that someone maintain their theistic beliefs?

If your overall point is that some people better off believing then I'd agree.  If believing helped a drug addict stop taking drugs then it might have saved his life and I think being alive is better off than being dead.  I can think of a few examples, some people just have things that fuck them over in life and sometimes an effective cure is an imaginary friend in the sky to talk to.

It can work both ways.  If someone is about to saw my head off with a knife because I've annoyed them, then they suddenly stop because they have been influenced by god to not cut my head off I'd like him to keep his theistic beliefs, if someone is about to saw my head off with a knife while shouting god is great then I'd rather they stop their theistic beliefs.

[Razzle]

I really really dislike the argument that 'some people' just need religion, as if one could possible test that hypothesis.  No, I don't think that there are 'some people' that just couldn't function in this world without their faith except in the sense that their faith is the thing that makes them think that in the first place.  

But then how do you explain people like me? I don't have a faith that's making me think I need it. I have a great range of coping mechanisms, including medication, having a job I like, a very regular sleep schedule, philosophy, nutrition, mindfulness meditation, hobbies and socialising with people I love and who love me. With all this I'm much improved but I'm still not the happy, carefree person I have been at times in the past, even though my life circumstances are definitely the best they've ever been. There are still certain things I want to do very much, but can''t and might never be able to again, like activism, volunteering for the homeless, watching the news or reading a newspaper, or even following freely the kind of Twitter accounts I'd like to follow. Avoidance of potential OCD triggers still lowers my quality of life and capacity to contribute to society, and because of the obsessions I still sometimes think about suicide. If even I think I'd feel better with certain types of religion, what about the many people with none of the advantages and resources that I have at my disposal? 

[AFTT47]

Some people would unquestionably be better off with some kind of non-rational (not necessarily irrational) belief to comfort them. The unfortunate thing is that the predominate religions are dogmatic in nature. Even those believers who are not dogmatic themselves help keep the beast alive by supporting it. I'm all in favor of non-dogmatic religious belief because it provides the crutch some people are better off with without the negative societal effects of an organized beast like Christianity or Islam.

[cocunningham]

It's very well possible. The atheist ideal is not to force everyone to disbelieve. The ideal is to have a society where people can grow up without the need to believe.

I agree. Since as an atheist we don't worry about saying another eternal soul because we don't believe in the soul. So if someone wants to believe something because it helps them then go for it. Some of the animosity towards religion from artists I assume is because of persecution at some level. If we are talking ideals I would like to remove persecution of another person just because they disagree.

[Longhorn]

I think there are other things to substitute religion in the case of people 'needing' it... they don't actually need supernatural claims, but comfort. And there are other, less totalitarian forms of it, without hell for infidels and other such shenanigans

[FatAndFaithless]

Here's something to think about - Atheists focus heavily, as demonstrated by your points A + B, on science and the truth...

Well, no, not me. I'm not interested in any sort of 'truth' claims, I'm interested in what can be justified by evidence. And there are plenty of atheists that are just as ignorant and dismissive of science as theists.

Here's the thing though - It is very easy for me, a middle class western man, to say science and what is verifiable is better and more desirable, but I can't possibly criticize people who are ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc.

I'm not criticizing people for being ignorant. I wouldn't call an african child stupid or somehow worse for believing in his cultural fairy tales. My statement is literally talking about the idea of faith and religion as a whole, not in any specific circumstance. Verifiable, testable, useful methods of investigating the world and solving problems are simply better than fairy tales that end discovery rather than stimulate it. Those people who are "ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc" can be helped by the verifiable reliable and effective methods that I support.

The problem with your reasoning is that it assumes that (1) Science can solve everything

Please do not make shit up. I have never, ever on this forum said explicitly or implicitly than I think science can/will solve everything. I've made it clear that I actually think there are issues that science will never solve. I do not assume that, thank you very much.

but it's mostly impossible for science to replace the effect religion brings

Well I never said science can replace all the effects of religion. I said that any (I'll soften the position to "most") positive effects of religion are not intrinsic to religion, and can be gotten in totally secular ways (sense of community, inclusiveness, support structures, etc).

- And no, science can't solve everything

never said it could, and in fact have said the opposite on several occasions, see above.

(2) You assume that the truth matters the most when sometimes I wonder if values like happiness aren't more important.

Again, I'm not really interested in any sort of transcendent or objective 'truth' concept. I care about what works to help people and progress society and technology and public health and ideas that actually help those people "ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc". And fairy tales don't do that except in the simplest, stopgap sense.

In theory, if I consider happiness superior to the truth and believing in god makes me happier then I could argue belief in god can be rational.

Only if you consider 'rational' to mean 'based on what makes me feel good', then yes. And if you're going to purport that 'what makes me feel good' is rational, then you've instantly given the most insane acts of barbarity and superstition the validation of being 'rational' because it made the participants 'happier'.

I'm not being a theist apologist, it's just something to think about. If I was born in another country I might not be an atheist posting here but a very devout believer. Nature and nurturing change everything. I happen to value the truth - But I don' see anything as absolute truth, just the most likely possibility.

I'll refer you to my previous comments about 'truth'. And as to your "nurturing change everything" idea...that's the point. And changing things in this world for the better, helping people, alleviating the ills of suffering, is only possible when people take an evidence-based, verifiable method of approaching these problems, not by fairy tales. Telling starving children in Africa that they're going to heaven and that they're part of God's master plan might make those specific children 'happier', but it does not stop the problem of starving children.

---

There are still certain things I want to do very much, but can''t and might never be able to again, like activism, volunteering for the homeless, watching the news or reading a newspaper, or even following freely the kind of Twitter accounts I'd like to follow. 

Why can't you do those things?

Avoidance of potential OCD triggers still lowers my quality of life and capacity to contribute to society, and because of the obsessions I still sometimes think about suicide. If even I think I'd feel better with certain types of religion, what about the many people with none of the advantages and resources that I have at my disposal? 

I've never said that people can't get some sort of personal happiness from religion. I've only stated that those ideas aren't in any way substantiated. And I for one would rather focus on real, effective ways of helping you (and the bigger thing, the many more people in the future that might experience something similar) instead of putting a religious finger in the dyke.

[Anomalocaris]

Under what circumstances, if any, might you prefer that someone maintain their theistic beliefs?

None.

Knowledge should always be preferable to ignorance.

Well, for the rest of society, straitjacket is some times preferable to freedom for some people.

[Iroscato]

Are some people better off believing? Probably.
Is society better off believing? Hellfuck no.

[Dystopia]

Well, no, not me.  I'm not interested in any sort of 'truth' claims, I'm interested in what can be justified by evidence.  And there are plenty of atheists that are just as ignorant and dismissive of science as theists.

Possibly, but as you have just said you value what can be verified by evidence - Obviously this isn't an absolute objective truth and I never argued for it, but it is something you can reasonably assume to be probable, correct, rational and truthful.

I'm not criticizing people for being ignorant.  I wouldn't call an african child stupid or somehow worse for believing in his cultural fairy tales.  My statement is literally talking about the idea of faith and religion as a whole, not in any specific circumstance.  Verifiable, testable, useful methods of investigating the world and solving problems are simply better than fairy tales that end discovery rather than stimulate it.  Those people who are "ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc" can be helped by the verifiable reliable and effective methods that I support.

I completely agree, but I don't think sane people would argue that religion can solve the world's problems - What do you mean by helped? Do you mean providing knowledge so that they stop believing, or solving their problems like hunger, poverty, etc? My idea here is that religion or just believing in higher forces can help people cope with pain, grief and anxiety - Sometimes it is inevitable and your brain doesn't stop believing.

Please do not make shit up.  I have never, ever on this forum said explicitly or implicitly than I think science can/will solve everything.  I've made it clear that I actually think there are issues that science will never solve.  I do not assume that, thank you very much.

Sorry

Well I never said science can replace all the effects of religion. I said that any (I'll soften the position to "most") positive effects of religion are not intrinsic to religion, and can be gotten in totally secular ways (sense of community, inclusiveness, support structures, etc).

No - The effects religion produces related to the supernatural and the specific communities based on a sect of beliefs about the world (etc.) are unique and can't be replaced by any social group - It's like saying a sports team can be replaced by a political party. I don't think religion would replace the love I have for politics (despite not belonging to any party I hang with several groups to debate politics) and vice-versa. But I'm interested in hearing what you think and how do you think the same effect could be achieved

Again, I'm not really interested in any sort of transcendent or objective 'truth' concept.  I care about what works to help people and progress society and technology and public health and ideas that actually help those people "ignorant due to poverty, marginalization, and because they don't understand science they think god created the world, etc".  And fairy tales don't do that except in the simplest, stopgap sense.

I never mentioned an objective truth concept, I'm referring to what's most likely/probable. I don't see about how one cancels the other. The Africa example is an extreme one and it was what I remembered when typing the reply but there's many first world cases I can point out on how someone believes in god for X or Y reasons and it helps them somehow. The example of oncologists is obvious, but there's many traumatic events that lead people to believe in something higher than themselves

Only if you consider 'rational' to mean 'based on what makes me feel good', then yes.  And if you're going to purport that 'what makes me feel good' is rational, then you've instantly given the most insane acts of barbarity and superstition the validation of being 'rational' because it made the participants 'happier'.

Are you telling me criminals and violent human beings don't rationalize their behaviour? Do you know that rapists think rape is ok and they are doing something right? Do you know serial killers plan ahead and they believe the rest of society is stupid for not allowing them to have pleasure? Do you know that thieves frequently rationalize an opportunity-cost economic equation to conclude the profit is worth the risk of going to jail? For obvious reasons most behaviours are rational/rationalized and the fact they're awful doesn't change anything.

Why do you think that people take drugs for pleasure? Obviously, it's because it makes them feel good.

I'll refer you to my previous comments about 'truth'.  And as to your "nurturing change everything" idea...that's the point.  And changing things in this world for the better, helping people, alleviating the ills of suffering, is only possible when people take an evidence-based, verifiable method of approaching these problems, not by fairy tales.  Telling starving children in Africa that they're going to heaven and that they're part of God's master plan might make those specific children 'happier', but it does not stop the problem of starving children.

I never argued otherwise but I still don't see how one cancels the other. It's not just nurturing, it's nature.