Open to explore possibility

[Angrboda]

Speaking for myself, my goal isn't to maximize my happiness but to have as few false beliefs as possible.

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
--George Bernard Shaw

That is very true. And I think that feels like a broader conversation to have. Is it better to believe and know as many true things as possible? Better than believing things that are false?

For me, having been lied to and finding out the truth, from the perspective of having to find out and going through that traumatic pain, for that reason, I'd say I want to believe in as many true things as possible. I don't think it's a good reason, though. Because what if I never found out something was false but it was something I could have found out? If I never did, all my life, the reveal never hurt me. In what ways did the false belief hurt me? Is the bare truth and reality always better/inherently good(in a wellbeing sense)?

True propositions generally have greater instrumental utility than false ones. It was something of a myth that religion kept Europe in the dark ages, but it illustrates the conundrum. If believing false things retards growth, that's a significant downside.

[John 6IX Breezy]

 In what ways did the false belief hurt me? Is the bare truth and reality always better/inherently good(in a wellbeing sense)?

True propositions generally have greater instrumental utility than false ones. 

Many psychologists have argued that fitness beats truth; that what works is generally more useful than what is correct, and our brains are adapted for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

IMO, a "god" that needs humans to get its message out is almost certainly an invention of humans and therefore not worth bothering with.

It's trapped, and it needs you to rescue it, with money

Now, before you snicker...is that more or less ridiculous than the almighty? 

[HappySkeptic]

True propositions generally have greater instrumental utility than false ones. 

Many psychologists have argued that fitness beats truth; that what works is generally more useful than what is correct, and our brains are adapted for it.

A debatable idea, but why would false propositions have better fitness?  In general, they shouldn't.

[Astreja]

IMO, a "god" that needs humans to get its message out is almost certainly an invention of humans and therefore not worth bothering with.

It's trapped, and it needs you to rescue it, with money

Now, before you snicker...is that more or less ridiculous than the almighty? 

So it's a god that can't be released on its own recognizance because it's invisible, therefore we have to post bail for it?  

[Angrboda]

True propositions generally have greater instrumental utility than false ones. 

Many psychologists have argued that fitness beats truth; that what works is generally more useful than what is correct, and our brains are adapted for it.

Fitness is a specific type of instrumental utility.

[John 6IX Breezy]

A debatable idea, but why would false propositions have better fitness?  In general, they shouldn't.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable with the idea; I would direct you to Donald Hoffman for a better argument.

My response would be that there are simply infinitely more ways to be wrong than to be right. And our brains find it easier to exist within that space; and it actively perceives the world through the less of fitness rather than truth.

A false proposition such as "porcupines shoot their quills" will increase the distance you keep from danger, and lower the probability of getting wounded, in ways that it wouldn't if you knew they don't shoot quills.

[brewer]

Rationalizing cognitive dissonance. 

[pocaracas]

A debatable idea, but why would false propositions have better fitness?  In general, they shouldn't.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable with the idea; I would direct you to Donald Hoffman for a better argument.

My response would be that there are simply infinitely more ways to be wrong than to be right. And our brains find it easier to exist within that space; and it actively perceives the world through the less of fitness rather than truth.

A false proposition such as "porcupines shoot their quills" will increase the distance you keep from danger, and lower the probability of getting wounded, in ways that it wouldn't if you knew they don't shoot quills.

Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the right thing for the right reason?
There's a chance that the wrong reason will eventually lead to a wrong action, while the right reason would never lead there.
Imagine the porcupine is wounded and needs your help.

[HappySkeptic]

Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the right thing for the right reason?
There's a chance that the wrong reason will eventually lead to a wrong action, while the right reason would never lead there.
Imagine the porcupine is wounded and needs your help.

Imagine that you are hungry and need to eat it.  Being worried about quill missiles is maladaptive.  Understanding when the things will stick you is important.