Quote from: AkrasiaI think people live better lives when they hold true beliefs (or strive to hold true beliefs) even if that doesn't make them as 'happy' as they otherwise would be.

The evidence seems to be against you:

KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443-457. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x

SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323-348. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x

Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006) RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1), 175-194. DOI:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x

(hope those links work, if not, try from here)

If we hypothesise that religion evolved as a tool for the socialisation of the individual then we would expect to find that religious individuals are more socialised (something that these studies, among others, appear to support) and religious behaviour that is anti-social would be condemned by the religious mainstream (c.f. the widespread condemation of suicide bombers by moderate Imans and the average Christian's reaction to Fred Phelps or Pat Robinson)

Quote from: AkrasiaI think that you misunderstand the POE argument (any version).  It holds, very roughly, that there is far too much suffering in the world for God to be omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent (however, he might be two of these things).

I was specifically addressing Sigmund's comment about malleus arianorum's argument.

Quote from: AkrasiaIndependent of the biological drive to reproduce, presumably parents hope that their children will live 'good' lives, and the fact that some people indeed do suggests that this hope isn't always unwarranted.

There are, however, no guarantees.  To choose to be a parent is to accept the risk that the children you create may suffer and die cruel and meaningless deaths.  But more than that, few parents are willing to smother their children with the protection that would be necessary to shelter them from most harm, and we'd probably consider them bad parents if they did "over-protect" their children like that.

We accept that parents who love their children and wish nothing but the best for them still let them go out and do dangerous things, let them live in dangerous places (making them susceptible to natural evils), and eventually let them go out into the world to live their own lives, without the parent constantly watching over them and protecting them from every danger.  Even in cases where parents can fully control the risk that their children are exposed to, we accept that parents expose their children to risks and even death and that doesn't make them unloving or cruel parents.  Why is God being held to a different standard?

Quote from: John MorrowI was specifically addressing Sigmund's comment about malleus arianorum's argument.

And your question was answered in post #445. Why do you expect me to answer it again? If you don't like the answer that's your problem.

QuoteThere are, however, no guarantees.  To choose to be a parent is to accept the risk that the children you create may suffer and die cruel and meaningless deaths.  But more than that, few parents are willing to smother their children with the protection that would be necessary to shelter them from most harm, and we'd probably consider them bad parents if they did "over-protect" their children like that.

We accept that parents who love their children and wish nothing but the best for them still let them go out and do dangerous things, let them live in dangerous places (making them susceptible to natural evils), and eventually let them go out into the world to live their own lives, without the parent constantly watching over them and protecting them from every danger.  Even in cases where parents can fully control the risk that their children are exposed to, we accept that parents expose their children to risks and even death and that doesn't make them unloving or cruel parents.  Why is God being held to a different standard?

Once again, because human beings are not supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do you expect to be able to compare fallible humans with some theoretical flawless entity? Why shouldn't this alleged entity, who supposedly has some "plan" for all of us that we are just supposed to take as in our best interests on the word of other fallible (and often dishonest) human beings who somehow "know" it to be true. be held to a higher standard?

Quote from: SigmundAnd your question was answered in post #445. Why do you expect me to answer it again? If you don't like the answer that's your problem.

And I asked a follow-up question.  The discussion has moved on a bit from then.  I was explaining why this tangent was taken.

Quote from: SigmundOnce again, because human beings are not supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's easy to understand.  It's also entirely irrelevant.  Because even when parents do know and understand the dangers and can protect their kids, prevailing social views do not consider them irresponsible or cruel nor do they expect them to protect their kids by any means necessary.

Quote from: SigmundWhy do you expect to be able to compare fallible humans with some theoretical flawless entity?

Because with respect to the subject of whether or not it is ethical to put a person into an imperfect world where horrible things can happen to them, it's irrelevant.  Both God and parents are putting people into the same universe.  And unless you want to argue that human beings have absolutely no choice but to have children, the morality surrounding creating people to live their lives in an imperfect universe is the same.  And if you answer why a parent or God would put a person they love into a universe like this, you are closer to answering why God would create an imperfect universe the first place.

Quote from: SigmundWhy shouldn't this alleged entity, who supposedly has some "plan" for all of us that we are just supposed to take as in our best interests on the word of other fallible (and often dishonest) human beings who somehow "know" it to be true. be held to a higher standard?

Because you said, "All I need to understand is that for some god to be 'all-powerful', as I define it, and for this world to still be so fucked up, this god couldn't love me or anyone the way I define love.  Or perhaps this god does love me, but isn't able to do anything about how fucked up it's creation is, revealing itself as irresponsible."  

The first sentence can also apply to a parent's choice to bring a child into the world (i.e., Why would you put something you love into a world that's so messed up?) but the second sentence (that a God who loves you but can't make the world a better place for you is irresponsible) most certainly does.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonThe evidence seems to be against you:
 
...

If we hypothesise that religion evolved as a tool for the socialisation of the individual then we would expect to find that religious individuals are more socialised (something that these studies, among others, appear to support) and religious behaviour that is anti-social would be condemned by the religious mainstream (c.f. the widespread condemation of suicide bombers by moderate Imans and the average Christian's reaction to Fred Phelps or Pat Robinson)

I think that you misunderstood my point.  

Even if religious people are 'happier', more 'socially integrated', and so forth, the fact that they believe false things makes their lives worse off.  My point is that having false beliefs is an intrinsically bad thing, irrespective of considerations of happiness.  The truth/falseness of beliefs is not to be determined on the basis of happiness.

It may be that religious people are happier and more socially integrated atheists -- although I don't think that a few studies like the ones that you link to show that decively (but thanks for the links), or that most people who are 'non-religious' are in fact atheists (most are simply morally and intellectually lazy, and don't really think about such matters).  But this 'fact' that you posit does not constitute a reason for me to believe that any religious view is true, only that it is instrumentally useful for many (perhaps most) people, a kind of 'opiate for the masses'.

Children who believe in Santa Claus might be happier and more obedient to their parents than children who don't believe in Santa Claus (after all, he's watching them, making notes on who's 'naughty and nice').  But at some point one needs to grow up and realise that there is no Santa Claus.  It might be depressing, but it is better to rely on one's rational factulties as an adult, and try to see reality for what it is, than to persist in a self-imposed childhood.

Quote from: AkrasiaEven if religious people are 'happier', more 'socially integrated', and so forth, the fact that they believe false things makes their lives worse off.  My point is that having false beliefs is an intrinsically bad thing, irrespective of considerations of happiness.  The truth/falseness of beliefs is not to be determined on the basis of happiness.

Are concepts such as "justice", "mercy", "compassion" or "love" true or false? Do they exist? As has been noted (earlier on this thread I believe) the whole concept of human rights is a myth, a useful fiction that we choose to believe because it results in a society that functions better

It's amusing to note that you're getting closer to Ron Edwards territory: "Incoherent gamers only think they're having fun because they're Brain Damaged."  

(I can spell out the parallel if you wish, but I think you'll get it)

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAre concepts such as "justice", "mercy", "compassion" or "love" true or false? Do they exist?

Justice is a result of evolutionary psychology and the enforcement of what is best for the survival of the group, as are mercy and compassion. Love is simply how we experience sexual and emotional attachment as a participant rather than as a studier of it.

No big mysteries there really.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonAre concepts such as "justice", "mercy", "compassion" or "love" true or false? Do they exist? As has been noted (earlier on this thread I believe) the whole concept of human rights is a myth, a useful fiction that we choose to believe because it results in a society that functions better

I don't think that 'justice' or 'human rights' are 'myths' or 'fictions' -- or at least not 'fictions' as commonly understood.  Human rights protect objective, fundamental and universal human interests (interests in security from harm, etc.).  Conceptions of justice have to do with fairly resolving conflicts among humans (regarding distribution of resources in the case of social justice, regarding redressing and deterring harms in the case of criminal justice, etc.).

These are disputed concepts, to be sure, but they do exist in that they  don't posit (or don't need to poist; certainly one could be a Platonist) mysterious supernatural entities.  Simply because human beings give content to concepts like human rights and justice through their exercise of reason and their actions does not mean that they are 'fictions'.

(Also, I agree with GRIM's point about love.)

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIt's amusing to note that you're getting closer to Ron Edwards territory: "Incoherent gamers only think they're having fun because they're Brain Damaged."  

(I can spell out the parallel if you wish, but I think you'll get it)

I don't think that religious people are 'brain damaged', unhappy or delusional.   I just think that their happiness is based on false beliefs.

'Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.' (J.S. Mill)

Quote from: GRIMJustice is a result of evolutionary psychology and the enforcement of what is best for the survival of the group, as are mercy and compassion. Love is simply how we experience sexual and emotional attachment as a participant rather than as a studier of it.

Correct.  But the enforcement is done emotionally, not rationally, and as game theorists and researchers into how the human brain works will tell you, there are often plenty of false beliefs about risk and so forth in the mix.  Bet stepping back another step, just because evolution makes us think that things are really important, it doesn't mean that they are or that it's objectively true that we should care about those things.  Physics doesn't particularly value life.  Why should we, for example?

Quote from: AkrasiaHuman rights protect objective, fundamental and universal human interests (interests in security from harm, etc.).  Conceptions of justice have to do with fairly resolving conflicts among humans (regarding distribution of resources in the case of social justice, regarding redressing and deterring harms in the case of criminal justice, etc.).

The problem is that this is a turtles all the way down argument.  That's what psychopaths illustrate.  If you remove the emotional component that forces people to care about things like resolving conflicts or a concern for security, those things suddenly don't matter.  In other words, you can build an extravagant utilitarian argument around these things that explain why they are important, but it will be build upon assumptions that are just as irrational.  What objective and purely rational reason do we have to care if we live or die, kill or save, reproduce or go extinct?  The universe certainly doesn't care and almost every rational theory of how the universe will end suggests that nothing we do will ever have any lasting meaning or consequences.  So, purely rationally, what's the point and why should we care?  Or are the psychopaths the only ones who are free from irrational constraints on their behavior?

Quote from: AkrasiaSimply because human beings give content to concepts like human rights and justice through their exercise of reason and their actions does not mean that they are 'fictions'.

Keep digging deeper.  What's the entirely rational core behind human rights and justice?  Why are any of those things important?  And when you come up with an answer, ask if it's entirely rational or build on feelings and irrational beliefs.  Then dig deeper and so on.  You'll find that it's turtles all the way down.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But the enforcement is done emotionally, not rationally, and as game theorists and researchers into how the human brain works will tell you, there are often plenty of false beliefs about risk and so forth in the mix.  Bet stepping back another step, just because evolution makes us think that things are really important, it doesn't mean that they are or that it's objectively true that we should care about those things.  Physics doesn't particularly value life.  Why should we, for example?

Because we do, and, unlike many things, there's good reason.

Quote from: GRIMBecause we do, and, unlike many things, there's good reason.

And that good reason is?

Quote from: John MorrowIt's easy to understand.  It's also entirely irrelevant.  Because even when parents do know and understand the dangers and can protect their kids, prevailing social views do not consider them irresponsible or cruel nor do they expect them to protect their kids by any means necessary.

In no way is it irrelevant. I know that bad things might happen to, or because of, my child. I also know that it's possible he/she could live a relatively happy and productive life, or even become a hero and live to a ripe old age basking in accolades and adoration. An all-knowing god would know for certainty which it would be. Even without omniscience, a god would know that if bad things were to happen at all, then at least some of it's "children" would suffer because of them because we would all be it's "children". Also, just because "prevailing social views" do not consider parents cruel, doesn't mean they aren't.

QuoteBecause with respect to the subject of whether or not it is ethical to put a person into an imperfect world where horrible things can happen to them, it's irrelevant.  Both God and parents are putting people into the same universe.  And unless you want to argue that human beings have absolutely no choice but to have children, the morality surrounding creating people to live their lives in an imperfect universe is the same.  And if you answer why a parent or God would put a person they love into a universe like this, you are closer to answering why God would create an imperfect universe the first place.

I do not agree with you. It is certainly not irrelevant. It might be the same universe, but humans and god would not be basing the choice on the same amount or quality of information. Plus, I do argue that for many people having a child is no choice at all. For many people it's either an accident, or simply a biological drive to preserve the species. If you have ever known a woman who absolutely HAD to have a child, and considered no amount of money or effort too great, then you would know what I'm talking about. Finally, I also already said that I do, for the most part, consider it a pretty cruel and selfish thing to do... bringing a child into this world.

QuoteBecause you said, "All I need to understand is that for some god to be 'all-powerful', as I define it, and for this world to still be so fucked up, this god couldn't love me or anyone the way I define love.  Or perhaps this god does love me, but isn't able to do anything about how fucked up it's creation is, revealing itself as irresponsible."  

The first sentence can also apply to a parent's choice to bring a child into the world (i.e., Why would you put something you love into a world that's so messed up?) but the second sentence (that a God who loves you but can't make the world a better place for you is irresponsible) most certainly does.

The first sentence could never apply to any human being I've ever known or heard of. It does not relate at all to a parent's choice, it talks about the "creator", an entity that can be described as "all-powerful", which rules out the entire human race. As for the second sentence, I don't recall using the word "irresponsible" in relation to the rest of the sentence. I do recall saying that a god incapable of making the world better than it is couldn't be omnipotent, which is a bit different than "irresponsible".

Quote from: John MorrowAnd that good reason is?

Because it's all we have. Because it's hard-wired into our systems, just like it is most every other living thing.

Quote from: AkrasiaI don't think that religious people are 'brain damaged', unhappy or delusional.   I just think that their happiness is based on false beliefs.

'Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.' (J.S. Mill)

That's a funny thing for a utilitarian to say Mill was a utilitarian, meaning that he was concerned with achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; there is, in pure utilitarianism, no distinguishing between means to the end of happiness, except insofar as the means achieve the ends.

So if everyone's happy with false beliefs, then those false beliefs are good, in utilitarianism.

I would ask you what your definition of "false beliefs" are, and how it differs from "delusional." A person with delusions is one who believes in something which is false, yes?

I'd also point once again to beliefs as ends in themselves, and beliefs as a mean to other ends. A false belief that the Earth is flat is generally harmless; the belief is an end in itself. But if that person is a pilot, then their false belief will affect how they fly; the flat-earth belief now becomes a means to another end, of flying well. It doesn't achieve the end.

The difference is important. If someone's belief that the Messiah is coming is a false one, that's not important for their and others' happiness - what's important is what they do with that belief.

   "The Messiah is coming, therefore I must blow up this church with parishoners in it." - False belief leading to bad ends.

"The Messiah is coming, therefore I must give to charity, be kind to my family, and treat myself with respect." - False belief leading to good ends.
Some people use their beliefs to justify doing good things, and creating happiness; others use them to justify doing bad things, and creating misery. Whether the belief is false or not is often not important. The imminence of the Messiah generally doesn't matter, just as whether the Earth is flat or not doesn't matter. It could be false, or true, but doesn't matter one bit today. But if the Flat-Earther's a pilot, the guy is probably going to crash the plane. If the Messianic one's aggressive, he's going to brass up some civilians.

If you want to talk about beliefs being false or not, well that's open to argument. But if you want to talk about whether they create happiness or misery, you can't argue from principle, only from practice. Which is why you got quoted those scientific studies of how happy and well-integrated religious people were.

JS Mill was full of shit.