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.)

[Khandro]

modeller; The fact is that one cannot actually prove anything to be true, one consequence of karl Popper's work with 'falsifiability' is the understanding that you never really prove a theory to be 'true'. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.

[ll_billym]

I think we all know how the scientific 'search for truth' works but your question is not about the search for truth, it is about the search for happiness

The actual 'problem' you highlight is that some people have weak minds and emotional attachment to how the universe was created and therefore it is 'better' for them to believe in a version that makes them happy than another version that might make them feel 'jejune'.

The answer is so not be emotionally attached to this question and just forget it, but many build their whole identity around it to the detriment of themselves and others.

[Khandro]

ll_b; // some people have weak minds and emotional attachment to how the universe was created// This seems to me a rather sweeping statement presupposing, I presume, that anyone thinking differently from you must have a weak mind, is that correct?

[ll_billym]

Incorrect. It is not about whether they believe what I do, of course that does not make people weak, the weakness is because - as you admit in your question - that they are emotionally attached to their 'non-provable 'truth'' and use it for varying degrees of personal happiness, sense of identity and sometimes as justification to impose their will and beliefs on others.

I on the other hand am not emotionally attached to my version, I believe what I do based on the lack of evidence as to the existence of God - what makes me happy is that I am willing to accept the 'answer' whatever it may be and that I am not so weak that I need comforting stories about things that can never be known.

[modeller]

Khandro you say that scientists do thousands of tests to support a theory
but #It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result. #

Yes that may be true, but theists claim their belief is true without carrying out a single test/experiment that could be repeated throughout the world.

Where's the logic in that ?

[Khandro]

ll_b; You assert of the 'weak' //they are emotionally attached to their 'non-provable 'truth'' and use it for varying degrees of personal happiness,[and] sense of identity// What on earth is wrong with that? - everyone wants to be happy. Many people are equally attached to their opposite non-provable truth; that there is no purpose to either the universe or their place within it, and eschew the possibility that there might exist something beyond human knowing leading to negativity and unhappiness, manifesting itself, as can be statistically shown, in the form of ill-health, psychological disorders and suicide.

[naomi24]

Khandro, as I understand this you're claiming that those content to delude themselves are happier and mentally healthier. Is that right?

[Khandro]

naomi; //as I understand this you're claiming that those content to delude themselves are happier and mentally healthier. Is that right?// This would appear to be correct, the participants are happier and healthier both mentally and physically - borne out by statistics- though they do not necessarily have any concept of the self-delusion which you are able to witness from your exalted position of neutrality.

[birdie1971]

Khandro - “... naomi; //as I understand this you're claiming that those content to delude themselves are happier and mentally healthier. Is that right?// This would appear to be correct, the participants are happier and healthier both mentally and physically - borne out by statistics...”

To which statistics are you referring? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the USA one of the most Christian nations on earth? According to a survey in 2008, 76% of Americans are Christian. They're also (statistically) the most obese nation on earth.

How does that correlate with your above statement?

[FredPuli43]

A non-provable truth and a non-provable untruth are the same thing, quotation marks or no. The atheists' non provable truth is that gods do not exist. So is their non-provable untruth. And pari passu for deists.

So what is this non-provable truth that makes either unhappy?

[naomi24]

Khandro, //though they do not necessarily have any concept of the self-delusion which you are able to witness from your exalted position of neutrality.//

They don’t have any concept of the self-delusion - and you’re telling me that they’re mentally healthier? Really? How does that work then?

And if you want to discuss this do try to do it without resorting to your usual rudeness.

Fred, //A non-provable truth and a non-provable untruth are the same thing, quotation marks or no. The atheists' non provable truth is that gods do not exist. So is their non-provable untruth.//

I can’t imagine any intelligent atheist even contemplating the concept of ‘non-provable truths or non-provable untruths’. It’s a complete nonsense. If you don't know, the only thing you can truthfully say is you don't know. The other thing is, whilst in the absence of evidence atheists conclude that the existence of a supernatural god is highly unlikely, presented with evidence to the contrary, they would be willing to change their minds – unlike those who, despite indisputable evidence already available to them, cling doggedly to ridiculous notions of ‘non-provable truths’.

[Khandro]

birdie: I don't think that the various American congregations have been weighed, but fat people are often quite jolly people I find. ;-0

Fred; I make a special point, even in the question itself, of stating that the word 'truth'. is in parenthesis, showing that the same 'truth' can mean different things to different people. If it makes it easier, substitute 'so-called' for 'non-provable.'

naomi; I never mean to be intentionally rude to you, apologies. You do use the word 'delusion' rather a lot though.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //You do use the word 'delusion' rather a lot though. //

When someone lies to himself, I can't think of a more appropriate way of describing it. Can you?

[Khandro]

naomi; Here we go again! - what you call his lying to himself, he calls his truth, there is no lying involved. Lying means intentional deception.

[naomi24]

Khandro, anyone who tells himself the universe is 6000 years old is intentionally deceiving himself. Anyone who, despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, continues to cling to the wonky science of the Koran is intentionally deceiving himself. Hence he is lying to himself.

[vascop]

Although Naomi doesn't need support, as she is perfectly capable of holding her own, I would just like to say that I agree with everything she has said on this topic.

[naomi24]

Vascop, thank you. It's appreciated. :o)

[Khandro]

naomi; //anyone who tells himself the universe is 6000 years old is intentionally deceiving himself// I would of course agree, but really, how many people do you think would actually believe that? it's just another straw man argument, which you are attempting to connect to all religion.

[ludwig]

Does this blissful state of non-provable truthfulness have to relate to religion?

I'd sooner believe something less dull that gave me more free time on a Sunday. For example, can my non-provable truth be that I have superhero powers if I should ever choose to use them? I feel sure that would cheer me up.

[naomi24]

Khandro, // it's just another straw man argument, which you are attempting to connect to all religion. //

No attempt required. It’s patent nonsense.

//how many people do you think would actually believe that?//

Clearly more than you’re aware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Hardly a strawman argument – but as Gallup found, the percentage of believers diminishes with education – so there is yet hope.

As for the Koran, it’s estimated there are in excess of 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom take the wonky science it promotes as ‘gospel’ – to the extent that it is, quite disgracefully in my opinion, being taught in Muslim schools in Britain as ‘fact’.

As I said, wanting it to be doesn’t make it so. Some poor souls are convinced of the ‘non-provable truth’ that they’re Napoleon Bonaparte – but whichever way you look at it, they’re not. You need to face reality. You’re in denial.

Ludwig, //can my non-provable truth be that I have superhero powers//

They won’t work. ;o)