Should everyone know the truth..regardless of the consequences?

Prodigy54321 · #1 08-26-2006, 03:50 AM

a couple recent posts got me thinking

assume that there is no god...

...what types of negative consequences would you be willing to trade for this truth to be known throughout all the world?

now we could say that since there is no god..there is also no absolute morality..therefor it wouldn't matter if the world turned into one giant war zone..

but I think that most of us can agree that we have a general morality..shaped by evolution, etc. or even religious beliefs before this "enlightenment" may take place..basically there are simple things common to the great majority of humans that we just think are wrong(more simply..make us sad to know occurred)...such as causing unnecessary death or pain..stealing, etc..let's call this "artificial morality"

now lets say that this belief in God keeps the worlds population operating at a level of morality that is close to what our artificial morality dictates*..(closer than no belief in this God actually..because of fear of hell etc or general motivation for operating morally)

*which would be predictable since as us atheists know..God was made in the image of man..not the other way around [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]*

but the realization that there is no God means that we operate at a level of artificial morality that is below that of when people believe in this false god..

this means more stealing and killing, etc...

the question is...

is there any point that knowing the truth is outweighed by the consequences?

I'm guessing that opinions could range from, "if being blind to the truth is for your own good (even in the slightestbit..then it is worth it"...to, "nothing short (or even as far as) the destruction of the human race (or even existence altogether?) would make life based on false beliefs worth it"

I'd like some of your thoughts on this

loyalguard · #2 08-26-2006, 06:14 AM

I don't think there would be overly damaging negative conssequences if this were known throughout the world. I don't think that there would be a significant increase in "stealing and killing, etc."

Why? I believe that the impetus to kill, steal, make war, etc. is curbed by legal restrictions imposed by the state (or states), not by a belief in God or an implied morality to avoid hell or the like. Yes, some people use religious morality as a general motivation not to do evil but since (most) states also forbid these activities because it is in their best interest to do so (independent of the state's ties to religion) this is the more powerful motivator.

I think most humans are too short-sighted to use the guidance of a religious morality over the laws imposed by a state. Use this question as a non-scientific litmus test for this concept:

Assuming you are a God-fearing soul (that you will be eternally damned for murdering another human being) which is the more powerful motivator for you not to murder: Hell or life in prison/execution?

While forever is a long time, I think the idea of spending the next 30-40 years of my life or losing it all together is the more powerful motivator for me not to kill (and on a lesser scale not to steal). I'm not saying that fear of hell doesn't affect my decision, it just comes after the fear of incarceration.

Prodigy54321 · #3 08-26-2006, 06:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there would be overly damaging negative conssequences if this were known throughout the world. I don't think that there would be a significant increase in "stealing and killing, etc."

Why? I believe that the impetus to kill, steal, make war, etc. is curbed by legal restrictions imposed by the state (or states), not by a belief in God or an implied morality to avoid hell or the like. Yes, some people use religious morality as a general motivation not to do evil but since (most) states also forbid these activities because it is in their best interest to do so (independent of the state's ties to religion) this is the more powerful motivator.

I think most humans are too short-sighted to use the guidance of a religious morality over the laws imposed by a state. Use this question as a non-scientific litmus test for this concept:

Assuming you are a God-fearing soul (that you will be eternally damned for murdering another human being) which is the more powerful motivator for you not to murder: Hell or life in prison/execution?

While forever is a long time, I think the idea of spending the next 30-40 years of my life or losing it all together is the more powerful motivator for me not to kill (and on a lesser scale not to steal). I'm not saying that fear of hell doesn't affect my decision, it just comes after the fear of incarceration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree with all of this..

I never said that I don't think that this is the case..

the situation in my post is merely a hypothetical..and is meant to only be an example for which to base my general question...this could certainly be extended to other things

loyalguard · #4 08-26-2006, 07:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I basically agree with all of this..

I never said that I don't think that this is the case..

the situation in my post is merely a hypothetical..and is meant to only be an example for which to base my general question...this could certainly be extended to other things

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured as such. I just wanted to put it out there. I guess then since I didn't really answer your question, then, no. I would not want to perpetuate false beliefs in order to preserve the common good (even if it meant world destruction).

benjdm · #5 08-26-2006, 08:14 AM

Some thoughts:

I want my mental picture of reality to be as accurate as possible. Having a mental picture that is less accurate but happier is not what I would choose. I don't understand people who feel otherwise.
[ QUOTE ]
since there is no god..there is also no absolute morality

[/ QUOTE ]
A God does not equal absolute morality. A God existing who creates a moral standard means might makes right; God subjectively says what is right and wrong. It is still 'artificial' and subjective.

MidGe · #6 08-26-2006, 08:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
now we could say that since there is no god..there is also no absolute morality..therefor it wouldn't matter if the world turned into one giant war zone..

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubts that few pathological cases, like you seem to be, would have no morals, without god. My observation is that those who do not believe in god are more likely to empathise with the human condition (an therefore others), than those that think there is an arbitrary external rule that justify things like suicide bombing or the inquisition.

DavidC · #7 08-26-2006, 12:30 PM

I wouldn't bother saying anything about it.

--Dave.

luckyme · #8 08-26-2006, 12:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
since there is no god..there is also no absolute morality

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no absolute morality even if there were a god. Life is too complex to be reduced to non-contextual snippets of morality. Gather 100 christians/jews/muslims from different sects and try to get them to agree on what god has to say on some interesting moral situations ... it's hilarious to watch the contortions they have to go through in their attempt to come up with a decision that makes sense and has some semblance of a connection with their decision on similar looking situations.

Perhaps another way of expressing it is .. if we give a god or two credit for knowing absolutely what is morally correct, that does not mean that absolute morality has any meaning at a human level because she has no way of pre-communicating her view on any given situation and a list of rules obviously can't work.

Prodigy54321 · #9 08-26-2006, 03:06 PM

your guys are killing me...

I've heard Christians, Jews, and Muslims all say something similar to what I wrote...that if you don't have anyone to "report" too, you will tend to act immorally..because there is no telling what is right and what is wrong...

if you haven't heard any religious people say something to this effect, then you probably don't discuss your beliefs with many religious people...

I was only commenting that this is the belief held by MANY people throughout the world...I personally don't think that this is true and have argued many times in this forum that I don't think that a world "without a god" would descend in chaos..and that the world would be a better place..even independent of the fact that we no longer have a false belief..

this whole thing about absolute and atrificial morality was only meant to set up a situation where knowing the truth may have negative consequences..

as I said above..I don't think that knowing this truth would have an overall negative consequence, but I cetainly don't know that fur sure..and I can see how this may not be the case..

the thread "Do you think the world would be a better place without religion? " is handling that question

I am only asking you all how much weight you think that knowledge of the truth carries when considering whether "the world is a better place".

RJT · #10 08-26-2006, 03:32 PM

P54321,

Fwiw, I like your term “artificial morality” in the context of Absolute morality. We need to call it something when we discuss it. (The assumption, of course, is that nothing pejorative is implied by it. )

Anyway, your question is really one of the primary reasons (for me) to talk discuss the God question. Basically, we are saying, “How should one live one’s life?” Does the answer to this question change whether God exists or not. If so, why; if not, why not?

RJT