![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Got a thought brewing in my head about whether people can really believe things because of their usefulness, either for emotional health or as a goad to moral behavior.
After all, if someone states that they would believe something whether it were true or not, then what exactly are we meaning by "belief?" What they're saying is, "I don't really believe this is true, but I believe it anyway."
This is incomprehensible to me. In fact, the whole "atheism isn't so scary" thing for me wasn't a matter of losing my faith. It wasn't a matter of ceasing to believe in certain things. It was the realization that I'd never truly believed them to begin with, and had just been pretending to because I liked the idea of certain explanations, or I thought maybe it'd be good if more people behaved as though they believed it.
Neither of these things were the same as really putting any stock in it, though, which is one reason I resisted having certain kinds of discussions about them. I knew that when push came to shove, I just didn't have faith. When push came to shove, I really did only believe things that had some truth-value behind them (though there were other things that I thought were "nice" beliefs, but this isn't the same as believing them). When push came to shove, I knew I'd end up an atheist eventually, when I was ready.
However, I wasn't ready. So... I avoided the shove, and toddled happily along pretending that I believed certain things because I liked the psychological taste and feel of them.
But I didn't believe the things I "believed in." People who really believe the things they believe seem to be a far rarer animal, and I wonder what the world would look like if all the people who didn't actually put stock in the familiar rituals and ideas that they perpetuate simply... stopped.
I think that sometimes religious systems couldn't survive without these functional non-believers. If everybody actually whole-heartedly believed what they were told--rather than simply seeing it as useful or pleasing--then there'd be nobody willing to change anything. From that perspective, would it really be such a good thing if the non-believers were more comfortable being non-believers? Would it really be such a good thing if people who didn't believe stopped finding reasons to keep pretending they did, both to themselves and others?
In the end, I think that those things which can be destroyed by the truth deserve to be, even if they're pretty, or warm, or would serve as an enticement to do good were they actually believed by anybody to be literally factually true.
I wouldn't ask somebody who's gay to pretend to themselves and others that they're straight so that they'll make better sleeper agents to create change within homophobic institutions. Should non-believers also be told that they should continue going through the motions of religious faith, just because their friendly attitude toward atheists makes those reason-phobic organizations less of a threat to the ones who're openly atheist?
I think that'd be a rather nasty thing to ask, don't you? Merely expressing the hope that some people will be less true to themselves because it increases their value to some larger movement pretty much makes the speaker an asshole. If religions can't survive without people pretending to believe, then fuck them. Let's all stop playing stupid games and be who the hell we are.
After all, if someone states that they would believe something whether it were true or not, then what exactly are we meaning by "belief?" What they're saying is, "I don't really believe this is true, but I believe it anyway."
This is incomprehensible to me. In fact, the whole "atheism isn't so scary" thing for me wasn't a matter of losing my faith. It wasn't a matter of ceasing to believe in certain things. It was the realization that I'd never truly believed them to begin with, and had just been pretending to because I liked the idea of certain explanations, or I thought maybe it'd be good if more people behaved as though they believed it.
Neither of these things were the same as really putting any stock in it, though, which is one reason I resisted having certain kinds of discussions about them. I knew that when push came to shove, I just didn't have faith. When push came to shove, I really did only believe things that had some truth-value behind them (though there were other things that I thought were "nice" beliefs, but this isn't the same as believing them). When push came to shove, I knew I'd end up an atheist eventually, when I was ready.
However, I wasn't ready. So... I avoided the shove, and toddled happily along pretending that I believed certain things because I liked the psychological taste and feel of them.
But I didn't believe the things I "believed in." People who really believe the things they believe seem to be a far rarer animal, and I wonder what the world would look like if all the people who didn't actually put stock in the familiar rituals and ideas that they perpetuate simply... stopped.
I think that sometimes religious systems couldn't survive without these functional non-believers. If everybody actually whole-heartedly believed what they were told--rather than simply seeing it as useful or pleasing--then there'd be nobody willing to change anything. From that perspective, would it really be such a good thing if the non-believers were more comfortable being non-believers? Would it really be such a good thing if people who didn't believe stopped finding reasons to keep pretending they did, both to themselves and others?
In the end, I think that those things which can be destroyed by the truth deserve to be, even if they're pretty, or warm, or would serve as an enticement to do good were they actually believed by anybody to be literally factually true.
I wouldn't ask somebody who's gay to pretend to themselves and others that they're straight so that they'll make better sleeper agents to create change within homophobic institutions. Should non-believers also be told that they should continue going through the motions of religious faith, just because their friendly attitude toward atheists makes those reason-phobic organizations less of a threat to the ones who're openly atheist?
I think that'd be a rather nasty thing to ask, don't you? Merely expressing the hope that some people will be less true to themselves because it increases their value to some larger movement pretty much makes the speaker an asshole. If religions can't survive without people pretending to believe, then fuck them. Let's all stop playing stupid games and be who the hell we are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 12:06 pm (UTC)From:However, I've yet to meet a person that does not claim to to hold to one set of guidelines but behave according to a different (even if only very slightly different) set. Humans are weird like that.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 07:04 pm (UTC)From:Some beliefs are "Game rules". There's nothing intrinsically logical about getting $200 every time you pass Go; it's just something you're supposed to accept if you're going to play Monopoly.
"The Pope is infallible". That's a game rule for Catholicism, and the main reason I'm unlikely ever to play Catholicism, any more than I'd play Monopoly if there was a rule that you had to cut off one of your fingers every time you went to Jail.
"The Bible is infallible" is a game rule for most Protestant sects. Not as bad as total submission to a grumpy octogeneric white guy in Italy, but still too dumb to be worth my serious consideration. Seems to me a lot of people may not really believe religious game rules completely, but they won't contradict them.
"All people are created equal." Game rule for American Democracy? Do you believe it?
(Love the icon, by the way!)
Date: 2010-08-21 09:12 pm (UTC)From:On the other hand, I would not say that he as a person is of any more or any less metaphysical (for lack of a better term) value than I am. His vote weighs, in theory, exactly the same amount mine does.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 02:54 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 04:50 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 05:06 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 05:04 pm (UTC)From:I agree with this post.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 05:17 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 05:51 pm (UTC)From:I disagree. Though I usually phrase it slightly differently...ie, "This is useful to me and metaphorically true whether or not it's literally true." However, what *I* usually mean is that I DO believe it, I just can't prove it to be objective fact to everyone's satisfaction, and I don't want to argue about it. I'm also not emotionally attached to whether or not other people believe it or not.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 07:11 pm (UTC)From:Never underestimate the ability of people to bullshit themselves. My experience is, most people treat beliefs like hats, changing them according to what's fashionable, sometimes wearing several that don't go together in one day. And they consider themselves consistent.
I've known plenty of mostly intelligent people who, while in church, accept the religious creation dogma as the truth, and out in the world, consider natural selection to be the truth, and consider this no more inconsistent than answering the phone a certain way at work and a different way at home.
Maybe they're not even wrong. A well-lived life is a rich, nuanced stew and consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and all that.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-21 09:26 pm (UTC)From: