Belief in Deity vs Belief in Fictional Four

Crutches have their uses in specific instances, but I think we can both agree that if you don't have a broken leg, a crutch just gets in the way.I wouldn't define a walking stick as a crutch any more than I would define a car as a crutch. It can be used as one, no doubt, but unless a person has a hurt leg, using it as a crutch would slow a person down and get in the way.The problem with a crutch when it's not needed is that while it provides a temporary benefit, such as resting a leg, it tends to impede progress rather than enhance it, which is what is what it was originally made to do.Someone lying to me to make me feel better in the short-term is just inhibiting my progress toward acceptance of the truth, no matter how hard. I don't think anyone has to be scientific at all times. I also think Phat has the right to believe his comforting lie over the painful truth, but on a debate forum, I pick up the gauntlet of debate.Believing a comforting lie can have deleterious effects on progress, as described above. One who gives a lie to someone to "protect their feelings" is doing them a disservice in the long run and thus is doing harm, IMO.

Very true. But try not to get too carried away with the analogy. "A broken leg" can represent something as average as a broken home or drunken parents. In some circumstances, such an upbringing just doesn't "go away."I'm not saying religion is the best answer. In fact, I don't think it is at all. But, for some people, it can be the only answer. And, if used properly (as Phat was using it), such things should be protected, not taken away from those who take solace in it. Believing a comforting lie can also have great advancing effects on progress, so who cares?I understand that you feel that lying to protect feelings is a disservice in the long run and thus does harm. But you are not everyone so it doesn't matter. My point is that there are some people who have certain experiences and certain feelings such that believing a comforting lie is extremely beneficial and quite possibly the only thing keeping them alive in this world, short term and long term. Such a thing, if recognized and used for the beneficial aspects (as Phat was doing), would be incredibly arrogant, dissresptectful and wrong to take away just because "you" don't like it.

So you are suggesting that religion is like the teddy bear that the huge, malformed child-like retard carries around and goes into a raging fit whenever he loses? That the retard isn't going to get any better and so there is no reason to try to wean him anyway?I can accept that, as long as this crippling disability is not allowed to harm others. In the same way that you don't put that retard in the position of operating a bulldozer, we should not put deists in positions of power or responsibility if we are rationalizing deism as a form of mental thumb-sucking. Really? Like what? Generally society does not considering unintentional acts of good to be worthy of merit, such as tricking someone into giving to the poor. Religion is only really going to direct people to make decisions on morality because, surprise surprise, it does not have any actual effect on reality. Believing that there is a God watching over you is not going to let you design cold fusion, even if you pray really hard. Since religion is a lie I do not consider moral judgments based on that religion to be worthy of respect.The only possible way that I can see religion leading to progress is by enslaving the mislead to direct their efforts toward a useful end that they would not otherwise have chosen, such as religious charity or hospitals. In those cases it is only the director of those efforts who is worthy of some respect, but it is similar in respect to herding cattle and involves the ethical issues involved in enslaving humans.

In certain cases, yes. Are you suggesting that we should take away the Teddy bear and force the malformed child to cry all day? That's your wonderful solution? What if it's impossible to "wean him away" or for him to get better? What's the Teddy bear hurting? Why can't he just keep it? Way to have compassion.What I'm talking about is the sense of telling a known comforting lie for the purposes of feeling better and moving on.When an adult goes through a traumatic experience, it can be amazing how quickly they'll recover and be able to move on once someone simply tells them "it'll be okay." We can't see the future, no one can promise this, the person being told knows it's a lie as well. But none of this matters, the act of compassion and the comforting lie in and of itself helps the wounded get better and continue living.I'm saying that religion, when used with the knowledge of how religion is not a known fact, can be seen as the uber-"it'll be okay" message. It can be comforting and beneficial. And not acknowledging such an obvious fact is missing out on what it means to be human.Being human doesn't mean that everyone feels things the exact same way you do. Being human is understanding that we're all different, and certain systems work better for certain people in certain scenarios. To lose this idea, to fall into the other extreme of dumping everything that is not perfectly known, rational, and understood is a disservice in and of itself.No one's asking to use religion in order to make claims to reality. I'm only talking about using religion for what it's good for... providing a sense of community and social acceptance. And, again, what's wrong with that? There are a great many people who have committed suicide when all that was needed for one person to say to them "it will be okay." It's nothing more than a comforting lie, but it certainly helps.It's really not a difficult concept. What are you talking about?
Who ever mentioned basing moral judgements, or anything at all, on a comforting lie? In fact, I specifically stated that both parties are fully aware of the comforting lie. And that it's not being used for anything other than it's comfort. What's wrong with that?Some people are detrimentally afraid of the unknown after death. To tell these people the truth they already know that "we don't know what's going to happen" will only re-inforce their fears, possibly even putting them into a paralyzed state. Not everyone is blessed with a childhood free of abuse/rape/death/manipulation. However, the simple, known lie, of "it will be okay" can work wonders for having them accept their situation and move on. To ignore such a thing is just kind of mean and stupid.Nobody's talking specifically about scientific progress here, only the progress of human beings.

The two paragraphs I posted were intended to go together. Asking rhetorical questions that I answered already simply to accuse me of lacking compassion is rude. Oh yes, I am sure it can be comforting. Telling an anxious rock-climbing student that there is a net to catch them if they fall can certainly help them to relax and climb instead of stiffening up from fear. Of course if there actually is not a net then when they act like there is one and splatter on the ground...Lying to people saying "Oh, it will be all right.." is NOT the same as religion. They know you are comforting them, you are not claiming to be able to see the future. If you were pretending to be prescient or some type of psychic then you would be reviled for preying on the weak and vulnerable, and rightly so! What is wrong with that is that people don't KNOW that is what they are doing. Softball leagues are for providing a sense of community and social acceptance, religions are for controlling people's behavior and siphoning off their funds. Somehow I don't think most people would agree with your assessment that they are far better off having someone else control their lives. And is that inherently better than saying "I don't care what happened, I still want you to be around. Whatever happens later, I will still be your friend."? Do you think those suicidal people really believed that comforting person could see the future, or was the *comforting* the pertinent part? If both parties are aware of the truth, IT IS NOT A LIE! Star Trek is not a lie because everyone knows it is fiction, the Muppets are not a lie and Kermit can even be made to comfort people. Religion is a lie because people truly believe that there is a god, or afterlife, or whatever and they *act* on these concepts. They deny medical care or otherwise sacrifice their lives and efforts for things that are not true. That is the harm.Even if you have two priests talking to each other and they are both aware of the farce they are perpetrating, they are still acting as con men to their congregation. In religion the deception is inherently linked to the comfort value, and with that deception comes damaging repercussions. Everyone is afraid of death, except for those who have been fooled into believing that it does not happen. Somehow humans can manage to keep living even with the knowledge that death will eventually occur; this is much easier when they have not been mentally stunted through intentionally deceptive make-believe.We do know what will happen when people die. They die, they are gone, and their body decomposes (or whatever we do with it, it hardly matters). This is a fact of life and not one that must be hidden away from people, similar to the way that forever hiding the use of sexual organs is idiotic. Heck, you can go all your life without having sex but everyone *will* eventually die!Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

And not debating in good faith is even worse. Fix your own problems first. Perhaps you didn't catch it when I stated that the lie is known to be a lie by both parties. No one is talking about a situation such as you present here. No one is talking about religion in the way it is commonly abused today. I'm talking about using religion for what it should be used for: comfort and caring in situations where nothing else is possible. Again: No one is talking about religion in the way it is commonly abused today. I'm talking about using religion for what it should be used for: comfort and caring in situations where nothing else is possible.We can stop using the word "religion" if you are unable to comprehend a scenario in which community spirit is shared without dogma or control. Not all churches are evil. Yes, it is inherently better than saying such a thing if saying such a thing has no effect on the person, yet saying "it will be okay" will help immensely. How is that not inherently better? The *comforting* is the pertinent part, but if we use what you say, and the comforting doesn't take place... what then? What grounds can you possibly come up with to state the absolutely no one, anywhere, can ever be comforted by a known lie? Sounds good to me. I was only using the term because you kept focusing on it. I'd rather call it what it is... a known fiction. However, the fact that such a thing is colloquially called "a comforting lie" doesn't change anything. Again? Okay, for the third time, then: No one is talking about religion in the way it is commonly abused today. I'm talking about using religion for what it should be used for: comfort and caring in situations where nothing else is possible. Wrong again. I'm not afraid of death. Stop assuming that all people feel the same way you do about all things. It's a naive attitude. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You can call it whatever you'd like. Not all people are the same and some people certain can ONLY cope through the beneficial use of known fiction to keep them going. Sometimes it's only required for the short term. Sometimes it's also required for the long term. Not all people are the same, it's a fact. But you're wrong. It's a fact of life that some people certainly do need it to be hidden from them (especially after they already know about it). Some people do not want to be reminded of such things, in fact some even can't be reminded of such things without going into a psychotic episode or possibly worse. The only remedy is not to remind them, and when such topics inevitably come up... let them hold onto their known fiction so that they can cope long enough for the conversation topic to move on.Why would you insist that such people need to continually face things they obviously cannot face? Why do you have some notion that just because you can deal with the truth, that therefore all people must always deal with the truth constantly? It doesn't make any sense.

What part of "I can accept that" was too hard for you to accept? How about cognitive dissonance? "Superman will save you!" is hardly comforting when you know he won't. Your example of "It will be ok" is actually understood to mean "I will do whatever I can to make sure it turns out ok", otherwise why would it be odd for them to reply "Really? Will I win the lottery, or will Sue like me next week?"You are not lying, you are saying something using phrasing that does not literally mean what you are conveying. Lying requires deception, and that isn't what is going on in that situation. So you welcome it? You don't particularly care if you die? What?Not all fear is debilitating. People who fear death will attempt to avoid it; it is a valid and pertinent concern when your life is threatened. It is natural and ingrained into human nature so I think it reasonable to assume most people fear death. And as I said earlier, I can accept that. I also pointed out that people who cannot deal with the facts of reality without going into psychotic episodes or worse should not be put into positions of authority or importance due to their inherent instability and unreliability.

I absolutely agree.However, transmitting the understanding without actually saying it explicitly is sometimes exactly what's required. Especially when the known-fiction that is said is something that is extremely comforting to hear. Sometimes for short-term, sometimes for long-term.Not all human beings are strictly rational.
Not all human beings are even capable of being strictly rational at all times. I accept it. And no, I don't particularly care if I die. Mostly because "if I die" isn't a choice that I have, I am going to die, it's not something I can debate or alter. I'm capable of accepting this and not being afraid of it. Some people are not. I agree. It is reasonable to assume most people fear death. But, that's not what you assumed. You assumed that all people fear death, this is not true, and it's all I said. What is it about "using a known fiction to comfort oneself" isn't "dealing with the facts of reality"? We just finished saying that using the known fiction is exactly what prevents any psychotic episode or worse.Must everyone, at all times, deal with everything in the exact same way you do?How can you possibly define "using a different set of tools to get to the same position you're in" as anything resembling an "inherent instability and unreliability."Remember, we're not talking about being irrational because you don't know better. We're talking about using an irrationality because you do know better.It's two very different things. And I'm still getting the feeling that you don't understand that we're talking about the latter and not the former.

So given the choice you don't have any particular desire to choose to live, or to take any precautions to prevent death? I... don't even know how to respond to that. How is actively attempting to believe a known fiction in order to comfort yourself dealing with the facts of reality? I don't know where you learned your phrasing but "dealing with the facts of reality" does not mesh with "retreating into a personal dream world" in my book, even if it is intentional. *Especially* if it is intentional. In essence it seems the practicer of the latter is trying to become the former. It seems you are arguing that for some ignorance is bliss, and that even though they are not ignorant they need to pretend to be ignorant to avoid going psychotic. I have even accepted this, but with the caveat that such people are teetering on the edge of sanity to the extent of being unfit for important roles.Think about it this way: The sky is blue. You know this. Pretend that you don't, with the understanding that if you ever know that the sky is really blue you go nutters. Would you really be OK with someone like that being say, an air traffic controller?

I have a 9 year old niece and a 7 year old nephew. Kids that age still believe everything you tell them. Kids grow out of believing in the fictional 4 because eventually parents tell them to stop believing in those things. But since my brother is religious, he and his wife take their children to church every sunday. They make their kids pray every day once before each meal and once before bed.That, ladies and gentlemen, is why people grow up believing in the fictional god.

What does this have to do with fearing death?
I choose chocolate ice-cream over vanilla as well, are you saying I fear vanilla ice-cream?
I work out to stay in shape, do you think I fear growing old?
Choosing a preference with the available information is simply choosing a preference, the reasons/motivations for such a decision may be fear, it's certainly a possibility. But it doesn't have to be fear, nor does fear need to be included at all. Some people find the facts of reality very harsh, they use irrationality to help them cope with their issues. How is that not "dealing" with the facts of reality?
There are many ways to "deal" with things. Some ways are more straightfoward than others. But not all ways work for all people. And some of the ways that use the irrational do not negatively impact a person's performance when dealing with other aspects of reality. Of course some people are unfit for important roles. Some rational people are also unfit for important roles. It's also true that not all people who use irrationality for it's comforting benefits are any where near using it to prevent psychotic episodes.Not every scenario is as dramatic as you make it sound. That's why your blanket statements are useless. Your extreme situations may indeed be true, but they are useless when examining the more subtle, and yet more interesting situations. Nobody's saying this. Your extreme examples are useless. They have no connection with how people can knowingly use irrational ideas to ease fears about unrelated facts of reality to make perfectly rational decisions in other areas.Why can't we just continue to judge people's abilities in certain areas with how they do in certain areas? Seems like a perfectly good system to me. No need to add in useless blanket statements that serve only to add unnecessary restrictions. If someone's use of the irrational effects their ability for a certain area, then of course we shouldn't have that person deal with that area. But this doesn't say anything about using the irrational to help comfort oneself.

Lets look at the inverse then; how would one *not* deal with the facts of reality? It seems to me that you have simply defined that out of the equation. Not when these statements blanket over the group of people who supposedly "need" religion to function. I trust this is a small subset. Great. Your example person's use of the irrational affects their ability to live as a mortal, we shouldn't have them deal with that area. Surely we can simply make them live forever and only associate with other immortals, then they won't have to deal with it. Sign me up!

By ignoring them. Using an irrational method to calm fears about the facts of reality is not ignoring the facts of reality. What are you talking about? Your remarks that do not rationally line up with anything proceeding them lead me to believe that you are the one living in a dream world.How does having an irrational system of dealing with the unknown facts of dying have anything to do with "their ability to live as a mortal?" Why can't they proceed throughout life while hardly giving death a second thought, like most people on the planet do every day? Why can't they be in postions of power when that power isn't over anything relating to death? Like a powerful accountant? Or a powerful business owner?

You're right, and as I said, or at least tried to say, For the duration of the damage/pain/hurt a crutch can be useful and can create slow progress when otherwise there would be none. I'm talking about the cases where the damage/pain/hurt has healed. In those cases, the crutch still gives slow progress, but without the crutch, progress would be much faster. That's what I meant by impeding progress.But I would also argue that any crutch that is used should be, within the bounds of reason, the one found to give the greatest help along with the greatest progress. Just because something can help you move doesn't mean it should be the thing employed if there is something else that will give you better movement. A walker will help a person with severely deforemd legs get around, but a Rascal would be better.Religion, if it is actively believed, is a way of thought that influences almost all other thoughts, and is thus, IMHO, the worst level of crutch, and should be, if at all possible, replaced with a better one. If telling the truth to someone, in as compassionate a way as possible, will lead to that person committing suicide, then by all means, tell them a lie that will help them. But, if I can be allowed to make broad, generalized, sweeping statements, leaving that lie in place, knowing as you do that a lie as big as religion will affect all other aspects of a person's life, without trying to help the person come to terms with the truth over as long a period as necessary, is negligent in the highest sense. It's akin to slapping duct tape over a crack in a levee and wiping your hands of it. True, the tape may hold and may be the only thing saving the town from a deluge, but without follow-up maintenance, it would more than likely end up letting the problem recur.Lower in the debate with phage, you talked about a "comforting lie" that both parties know is a lie. This is in no way what I meant when I made ym first comment. As phage said, if both people know it's not strictly true, it's not a lie, and isn't glossing over reality, it's a crutch used as a crutch should be used, and is often left behind rather quickly. Religion is almost never passed along as lie both parties are aware of. Usually, it's goal is that the person receiving it, at the very least, believes it completely and forever more, and therein lies the danger I have been talking about.

So claiming your essence does not really die and goes to heaven, even though you know it isn't true, isn't ignoring death. It seems like a cop out, but sure, whatever. Intentional denial isn't precisely the same as intentional ignorance. It does not have to be related for it to be a problem. The facts of life are somewhat ubiquitous and potential mental breakdowns can play havoc even with an accountant's responsibilities. I know that a coworker with hidden "teddy bears" would be at the very least disconcerting. "My uncle died last night." "No he didn't. He just moved in with Jesus." "Umm, well..." "Oh yes, I know, but it makes me feel so much better this way." < commence with the rocking, humming, and general creepiness > (I know it isn't a logical argument, but hey, we don't always have to be logical!)As an aside, how do you think this method of coping functions in other aspects of their duties? Would an irrational system of dealing with an audit, or an irrational method of dealing with a chronically late employee cause any problems?