Faith and "Truth vs Utility"

[Edwardo Piet]

I can pretend something to be true, but in doing so, I've created a cognitive dissociation in doing so, defeating its utility. I don't see how thinking, something that's unfalsifiable, as true will make its utility desirable.

I presume you believe that other people have subjective interior mental states i.e. minds. I also imagine you tacitly accept that your senses reveal information about the a world that is objectively external to yourself. You might even believe that round objects are actually round in some meaningful sense. These beliefs are useful and unfalsifiable.

And such beliefs are certainly not science since they are beliefs about the noumenal. Science can only deal with the phenomenal. I agree with you but I wonder what your point is.

[Valyza1]

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.

(bold mine)

Then it would be unfalsifiable.

I can pretend something to be true, but in doing so, I've created a cognitive dissociation in doing so, defeating its utility. I don't see how thinking, something that's unfalsifiable, as true will make its utility desirable.

I assume you mean cognitive dissonance? If so, that's conflicting beliefs about what's true, which could only happen if it's possible for evidence against one of the beliefs to emerge. But if we're talking about unfalsifiable propositions, there can't be any such evidence, by definition.

I can think there's a omnibenevolent god who will look after me while a tornado is heading my way trashing everything on its path. I can pretend the god will look after me, but that won't stop the tornado, now will it?

"God will protect me from this storm" is clearly a falsifiable proposition, so it doesn't apply.

Val, you're completely confusing knowledge and belief.

Could you elaborate?

Looking at this from another angle, the utility of your belief may serve someone else more than you. Your belief that god may heal your disease might serve the miracle worker more than you. You receive false hope and the fraudulent healer drives off in a Rolls Royce. 

Your belief in an unfalsifiable premise may harm others. 72 virgins and a ticket to Paradise does no good for the victims of the faith based explosion you caused.

This is an excellent point and speaks to the fact that "good" in the context of my OP, may actually mean, more specifically, "supportable". And certainly, otherwise intelligent men committing such destructive acts because of their adoption of such an unfalsifiable premise gives one cause for pause. And during that pause, one might ask "is the fact that the premise is unfalsifiable really the problem"? For just as Al Queda can draw inspiration from such a premise, so can Desmond Doss. What is it that determines whether great destruction or great heroism will arise from assuming such a premise? I submit that the power of an unfalsifiable premise is just that: power. It can be used for good or for evil. Perhaps rejection of it comes simply from a fear of power.