Finally, And By Special Request;

[Khandro]

Is a non-provable 'untruth' that makes a person happy, and gives a sense of well-being, not better than a non-provable 'truth' that makes a person feel unhappily jejune?
(please note the words untruth and truth are in quotation marks.)

[Rosie29]

I'm not very good at hypothetical philosophicals. But its an interesting thought - have you got anything specific in mind Khandro?

[2ndhandrose]

I guess the "little white lie" is sometimes better than a non- provable 'truth' if it is told only for the best interests of the recipient ie. to tell a child that the cat ran away rather than it was squashed by a vehicle travelling far too fast on a suburban road or any other road for that matter.

[Canary42]

Let's all hope it really is "Finally" - but don't hold your breath.

[jno]

you'd need to specify better for whom. But better for the individual, yes, I would have thought so. There is some evidence suggesting that religious people are happier than others

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7302609.stm

But the research isn't watertight. And whether they are happy because they are religious, or religious because they are happy, who knows.

[birdie1971]

Forgive me if I'm being slow but what constitutes, “a non-provable 'untruth'” or for that matter, "a non-provable 'truth'"?

[naomi24]

//And whether they are happy because they are religious, or religious because they are happy, who knows. //

Maybe they are happy because they're deluding themselves into believing the rationally impossible - a non-provable 'truth'. That seems to be the whole point of the question.

[LazyGun]

So lets assign some values to these non provable untruths and truths, and you can tell me if I have misunderstood you.

In this situation and in this forum, we can assume that the non-provable "untruth" to which Khandro refers would be the existence of a supernatural creator entity = a deistic worldview.

The non-provable "truth" in this same situation would be a non-belief in such a being, ie agnosticism, or atheism.

I am not sure I would agree with the inference that is being drawn here. A deistic worldview does not automatically confer a greater happiness quotient upon those who believe; nor does non-belief, or atheism, automatically restrict or limit the joy ,intensity of experience, or happiness in life - There is no evidence that I am aware of that can demonstrate this, and in the absence of any objective evidence, the question surely becomes a strawman hypothesis.

The question appears to me to suggest that, for want of a better analogy,Deism grants technicolour vision in 3D; atheism restricts you to monochrome black and white, 2 dimensional, drab, and dreary.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that if a belief in a god makes a person happy, then we should be accepting of that - I would have no argument with that at all. Feel free, as an individual, to believe or disbelieve in whatever you like if it brings you happiness and peace - and conforms to the golden rule.Feel free to congregate with others of a like mind, if that provides you with comfort, or joy, or structure to your life.

I would only challenge such personally held views when believers use a public forum to contradict the evidence (creationism, intelligent design, man co-existing with dinosaurs, mankind descended from apes) or where those who do believe attempt to change cultural values to conform with their belief ( banning abortion,opposing gender or sexual equality, imposing blasphemy laws, restricting free speech, bending H&S to conform to their religious rites or symbols, assuming a better or greater moral sensibility than non-believers, or believers of other faiths), or those who evangelise about their faith, making statements and claims which are an insult to intelligence or reason.

If you stroll around in public, shouting out at passers-by through your "Megaphone of Truth" that your faith makes you morally superior, or whose way of life is better, or possesses "The Truth " that others do not, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that some people within the world are going to shout back, asking you to justify your assertions, or to challenge statements that are counter to the evidence! :)

[Khandro]

birdie; In this context 'truth' and 'untruth' are flexible, and that is why the words are in parenthesis. What you consider to be true, someone else may not. If you cannot prove what you believe to be true, then it is a non-provable 'truth' (to you.)

[Khandro]

jno; Thank you for the above link.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //In this context 'truth' and 'untruth' are flexible.//

'Truth' and 'untruth' cannot be flexible. Wanting it to be true - or untrue - doesn't make it so.

You said on another thread in relation to this question ...

//there must be madness in preferring reason to happiness.//

Could you explain that please?

[ludwig]

It depends on how it affects other people. A state of blissful ignorance or blissful belief in an unprovable 'truth' is fine, as long as it doesn't harm or encroach upon other peoples lives.

The spanish inquisition or al qaeda might have achieved an enormous sense of well being from the knowledge that they're doing their god's will, but their actions weren't/aren't partcularly good for their victims.

I personally don't have an issue with any individuals religious beliefs if they keep them to themselves. It's when it becomes organised and judgmental that you get problems.

[Khandro]

naomi; //there must be madness in preferring reason to happiness.//

"Could you explain that please?"

It's Voltaire, quoted by a_v on that thread.

[naomi24]

I know that - but I wondered why you quoted it, and if you believe it.

[ludwig]

I think Lazygun's last paragraph sums it up nicely. The fact is, people have been shouted at through organised religion's 'megaphone of truth' since the begining of human history. It's only in the last 100 years or so that people have started to shout back.

It's a bit rich of religion to start complaining about the noise from the atheists.

[Old_Geezer]

If it is non-provable how do you know truth from untruth ?

[modeller]

Ah the paradise of living in a world of fantasy.

Thought would destroy their paradise.
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

Thomas Gray 1742

[Khandro]

OG; A very good question!

[modeller]

I can't really accept this #non-provable 'truth' #. That is contradictory.

If something is accepted as ' true ' , it is because it has been proved to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

It isn't religion that makes people happy. It is 'contentment' whatever their beliefs. If religion gives you comfort and contentment that could contribute to good health. On the other hand if you are , discontented with your life and striving to change it, that creates stress and risk of ill health.

[naomi24]

//If it is non-provable how do you know truth from untruth ? //

You don't - and therefore you can only say you don't know.

[ll_billym]

A strange question - why should people have emotional attachment to something that they know is non-provable and then allow what is nothing but a a mental fabrication to make them happy or 'unhappily jejune'?

If the persons version of truth is based on what we can see, and what we DO know about the universe then they are grounded, can take on board new information and frankly do not actually 'care' what the 'truth' is - there is no emotion associated with it - what 'happiness' is displayed is the knowledge of getting closer to the truth, or the knowledge that their version of reality is based on what is provably 'real'

The fact is that a lot of weak people have their own little stories about what the truth is that 'make them happy' and the emotional investment (although when it comes to organised religion there are many other vested reasons) means that they are unable to debate or learn, or admit possible failings in their story because it might make them cry.

Thankfully most people nowadays don't actually care that much and are not made happy or sad by where the universe came from and long may this trend continue.