Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

Grunth wrote:

I would say that the idea of religion being truth is a contraction.

Alcohol also brings people together for the worship of intoxication.

Alcohol, like religion, would be plain good for you given that alcohol and religion had no bad side effects. Religious assemblies, unlike alcoholic assemblies, don't necessarily have to include abandoning reason.

[Grunth]

Grunth wrote:

I would say that the idea of religion being truth is a contraction.

Alcohol also brings people together for the worship of intoxication.

Alcohol, like religion, would be plain good for you given that alcohol and religion had no bad side effects. Religious assemblies, unlike alcoholic assemblies, don't necessarily have to include abandoning reason.

Not enough information there for me. Religious people assembling for what?

-- Updated July 12th, 2016, 10:04 pm to add the following --

If you mean an assembly to pray to a god together then, yes, it is the abandoning of reason. But the religious assembly goers often admit to this because they themselves speak of faith vs reason.

-- Updated July 12th, 2016, 10:07 pm to add the following --

Alcohol is a far better idea. Great thinkers and reasoners meet over a drink or 5, and may even slip under the table.

Oh, and really drunk people speak in tongues. I've heard them. This maybe where a middle ground is often met.

[Kernaghan]

Is religion good even if it's false? I am unable to think of an example of good to fit this question. But if we delete religion and substitute philosophy, or perhaps medicine. Is philosophy/ medicine good even if is false or more correct "mistaken/incorrect.
Does this appear logical?
We do know that that religion is not "good" as is evident with today's events, but especially from past history of religion. I cannot include all religions as I know little about most religions.
Does this mean if we accept that religions were evil/sinful still it may have been "good" in some instances therefore also "good" by accident even when false.
I have made no attempt to define false religion.

[Grunth]

Is religion good even if it's false? I am unable to think of an example of good to fit this question. But if we delete religion and substitute philosophy, or perhaps medicine. Is philosophy/ medicine good even if is false or more correct "mistaken/incorrect.
Does this appear logical?
We do know that that religion is not "good" as is evident with today's events, but especially from past history of religion. I cannot include all religions as I know little about most religions.
Does this mean if we accept that religions were evil/sinful still it may have been "good" in some instances therefore also "good" by accident even when false.
I have made no attempt to define false religion.

No point defining 'false religion' as it is an oxymoron. Falsity and religion are one and the same.

[Philosopher101]

If to put it as simple as possible religion is good even if it's false as it creates more kindness in a world that needs it. And also it cannot be false as the things that it teaches are very real. Like compassion, kindness, love for one another etc, which are things that can be felt/experienced regardless of whether you believe in a religion. In my opinion it is merely a written guide on how to live a happy and prosperous life.

[LuckyR]

If to put it as simple as possible religion is good even if it's false as it creates more kindness in a world that needs it. And also it cannot be false as the things that it teaches are very real. Like compassion, kindness, love for one another etc, which are things that can be felt/experienced regardless of whether you believe in a religion. In my opinion it is merely a written guide on how to live a happy and prosperous life.

Your answer is colored by thinking of specific religions and specific episodes within those religion's histories. A more dispassionate review of the histories of religions leads to a different conclusion.

[GaryLouisSmith]

No point defining 'false religion' as it is an oxymoron. Falsity and religion are one and the same.

Would you say that falsity and religion and metaphysics are one and the same?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I recently was told by someone that religion is a good thing even if it is false. He said that it's good because it brings people together and teaches morality. Is this true? Is religion good for people even if it isn't false?

Religion is a noun covering such a vast range of phenomena that I think it's too complex a question. But the smaller question of can a belief that is false be good can be answered in the affirmative. There are placebo type beliefs. There are things that coaches say, like I know you can do this, that can be useful. There are idea in science that have turned out to be incorrect but still led to fruitful research.

[Philosopher101]

If to put it as simple as possible religion is good even if it's false as it creates more kindness in a world that needs it. And also it cannot be false as the things that it teaches are very real. Like compassion, kindness, love for one another etc, which are things that can be felt/experienced regardless of whether you believe in a religion. In my opinion it is merely a written guide on how to live a happy and prosperous life.

Your answer is colored by thinking of specific religions and specific episodes within those religion's histories. A more dispassionate review of the histories of religions leads to a different conclusion.

I feel the message of religions or religious thinking is still based on the original idea of treating people well. I agree that although it's difficult to paint all religions with the same brush cause there is so many exceptions but I think this ultimately comes down to a misinterpretation of the messages or making things more complex than they actually are. Or people with biased opinions coming in to the mix possibe. What do you think?

[LuckyR]

Your answer is colored by thinking of specific religions and specific episodes within those religion's histories. A more dispassionate review of the histories of religions leads to a different conclusion.

I feel the message of religions or religious thinking is still based on the original idea of treating people well. I agree that although it's difficult to paint all religions with the same brush cause there is so many exceptions but I think this ultimately comes down to a misinterpretation of the messages or making things more complex than they actually are. Or people with biased opinions coming in to the mix possibe. What do you think?

I don't disagree with you on the basic message for believers, the trouble comes with the attitude on non-believers.

[Pattern-chaser]

Would you say that falsity and religion and metaphysics are one and the same?

Wow, that's not at all provocative, is it? Although, in fairness, the title of this topic starts us off is a slightly confused manner.

Is religion good even if it's false?

Good for who/what? Good for humans can be bad for [ some other creature or thing ].

And what does it mean for a religion to be false? Factually incorrect? Morally lacking? Counter-productive (in some way)?

Religion began, I think, as an attempt to understand the world, maybe even to exert a little control over it. It still retains these aims today, to some degree, even though we have learned many other ways to supplement it. How can religion, viewed in this way, be 'false', or even 'good'?

[GaryLouisSmith]

Would you say that falsity and religion and metaphysics are one and the same?

Wow, that's not at all provocative, is it? Although, in fairness, the title of this topic starts us off is a slightly confused manner.

Is religion good even if it's false?

Good for who/what? Good for humans can be bad for [ some other creature or thing ].

And what does it mean for a religion to be false? Factually incorrect? Morally lacking? Counter-productive (in some way)?

Religion began, I think, as an attempt to understand the world, maybe even to exert a little control over it. It still retains these aims today, to some degree, even though we have learned many other ways to supplement it. How can religion, viewed in this way, be 'false', or even 'good'?

The question is What does it mean for religion (and metaphysics) to be false? Here I am going to take the minority, realist position that the Good and the True are simple, real things. By simple I mean that they cannot be analyzed into simpler constituents. They are thus indefinable and irreducible. By real I mean that they do not depend on mind for their existent. They are existents outside the mind. Moreover and likewise, I think that the False and the Bad are simple, real things. They are all what the Scholastics call Transcendentals.

So now the question is how religion fits into all that. Religion, as I see it, deals with spirits and the gods, some of whom are good and true, some are bad and false.

By asserting all that I am doing metaphysics. I’m sure that there are many out there who will not only disagree, but will disagree vehemently. They will assert that such metaphysics is itself bad and false. It just is, they will assert. Which, I guess, pretty much proves my point.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am going to take the minority, realist position that the Good and the True are simple, real things. By simple I mean that they cannot be analyzed into simpler constituents. They are thus indefinable and irreducible.

I would argue that "good", standing alone, without context, is incomplete. Good to/for who/what??? Without that additional information, "good" is meaningless. In the context of your words, I would say that "good" is already simplistic, reduced beyond its ability to subdivide without losing its essence. Like dividing the atom, in the days when we thought atoms were the smallest things that can be.

"True" you can make an argument for, although we all know how complicated it can get when you try to delve into Truth, and what it might mean. But at least it can be said to be a complete concept of itself. When it comes to "good", it's like "attached": it makes no sense until you know what is attached to what.

Good is not a simple, real, thing, and it has already been over-divided by the removal of who/what it's good for.

[Ralfy]

The question isn't so much whether or not it is good or false but how it is part of the human condition.

[cosinus]

I think so, especially in case of Christianity.

Large societies do not last when people aren't willing to sacrifice their own reputation and career for a greater cause.
They will lie to cover failure,
they will lie to cover lie,
they will only employ liars to cover lie,
they will try to control the narrative to cover lie,
they will try to control the media to cover lie,
they will even murder to cover lie,
they will denounce the church to cover lie,
they will cancel to cover lie,
until the whole world is covered in an alternative reality full of corruption.
And evil becomes good and good becomes evil.
We see it happen right now within western civilization.

Communism of the last century proofs my point.
It's a good example of what happens when Religions are suppressed.

Any questions?