Faith and "Truth vs Utility"

[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.

[Foxaèr]

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.

No. The harshness of the truth, that god does not exist, is preferable the comfort of the lie, that god does exist.

[Aroura]

Do you have evidence that there is great utility in adopting it? Or it just another faith based proposition to support your other faith based proposition?

You can't prop up one weak idea with another weak idea and then claim you've built your house of stone.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Well... if there is a proposition in which behaving as if it's true is useful regardless of its actual truth value.... then that just means that behaving if it's true is useful regardless of its actual truth value.

If you still aren't convinced you're not going to actually believe it regardless of if you find it useful to 'behave as if' it's true or not.

P.S. Pretending God exists when you don't believe he does is certainly a futile act; not a useful one.

[Valyza1]

The harshness of the truth, that god does not exist, is preferable the comfort of the lie, that god does exist.

Do you call it a lie because it can't be demonstrated to be true or do you call it a lie because it can be demonstrated to be false?

Do you have evidence that there is great utility in adopting it? Or it just another faith based proposition to support your other faith based proposition?

I'm not espousing any faith-based proposition here. I'm asking whether or not utility would validate the adoption of one.

If you still aren't convinced you're not going to actually believe it regardless of if you find it useful to 'behave as if' it's true or not.

I don't know. If a person behaves on a daily basis as if some undeterminable thing is true and that behavior is constantly producing overall positive results, strengthening the tendency to continue doing it, I'm not sure that the adoption and the belief would always remain distinguishable to them. At a certain point, it might be just as good as true.

P.S. Pretending God exists when you don't believe he does is certainly a futile act; not a useful one.

That's a bit semantically misleading. "Pretending" implies that you actually know otherwise. "Assuming" is more about what I'm talking about. Would you say the same thing if you used the word "assuming"?

[Foxaèr]

Do you call it a lie because it can't be demonstrated to be true or do you call it a lie because it can be demonstrated to be false?

Both.

[Valyza1]

Do you call it a lie because it can't be demonstrated to be true or do you call it a lie because it can be demonstrated to be false?

Both.

The post is only talking about propositions that can't be demonstrated to be true or false. I agree with you that propositions which can be demonstrated as false have no value in being adopted. I don't think the proposition "God exists" is one those, though, which is why I referred to it. However, if you want debate that point, I'd be happy to do it.

[bennyboy]

The harshness of the truth, that god does not exist, is preferable the comfort of the lie, that god does exist.

Do you call it a lie because it can't be demonstrated to be true or do you call it a lie because it can be demonstrated to be false?

A lie isn't so much about the truth of a statement, as whether a person represents their best knowledge. When someone claims knowledge which they obviously cannot be privy to, then that's a lie-- they are representing the God idea as a statement of fact, when they do not actually have any sufficient reason for them to claim that it IS a fact.

[Valyza1]

Do you call it a lie because it can't be demonstrated to be true or do you call it a lie because it can be demonstrated to be false?

A lie isn't so much about the truth of a statement, as whether a person represents their best knowledge. When someone claims knowledge which they obviously cannot be privy to, then that's a lie-- they are representing the God idea as a statement of fact, when they do not actually have any sufficient reason for them to claim that it IS a fact.

Then, yes, I agree in that the proposition that God exists is not a fact, and when it is treated as such, there is an underlying dishonesty, and pretense to knowledge one does not possess, which, yes, can be quite comforting and may allay anxiety. If that's the point the Lutrinae was trying to make, then I agree. I do, however think that God's nonexistence is more properly defined as "possible truth" rather than just "truth".

[brewer]

See Min's thread, utility when there is PFC damage or inadequate development. 

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48919.html