An argument from the utility of religion.

Righty ho well I haven't made a topic here in a while so I figure nows the time. This is an argument in support of strong atheism that I came up with a while ago and I thought I'd share it with everyone here so that it may be criticised, refuted and (hopefully) refined. Give me your thoughts, particularly about premise 1.

P1. If a story/myth/legend carries with it some means of directing behaviour towards one end or another it is probable that the story/myth/legend in question is a lie. (i.e. Plato's noble lie or GLaDOS' promise of cake).

P2. The more valuable the end the more probable the lie behind it.

P3. Most major religions posit a story/myth/legend about some God(s) to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

P4. Social cohesion is highly valuable.

Therefore: It is highly probable that most major religions are a lie

I kind of want to broaden the scope of this argument to deal with anything at all that has an alterior motive behind it but I can't think how I would formulate it. Give me your input and don't be afraid to put on your "brutal honesty" caps.

Righty ho well I haven't made a topic here in a while so I figure nows the time. This is an argument in support of strong atheism that I came up with a while ago and I thought I'd share it with everyone here so that it may be criticised, refuted and (hopefully) refined. Give me your thoughts, particularly about premise 1.

P1. If a story/myth/legend carries with it some means of directing behaviour towards one end or another it is probable that the story/myth/legend in question is a lie. (i.e. Plato's noble lie or GLaDOS' promise of cake).

P2. The more valuable the end the more probable the lie behind it.

P3. Most major religions posit a story/myth/legend about some God(s) to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

P4. Social cohesion is highly valuable.

Therefore: It is highly probable that most major religions are a lie

I kind of want to broaden the scope of this argument to deal with anything at all that has an alterior motive behind it but I can't think how I would formulate it. Give me your input and don't be afraid to put on your "brutal honesty" caps.

domatron23

I like it!

How about this for P3:

P3. Religions posit a story/myth/legend to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

I think it might encompass all religions then.

I like it!

How about this for P3:

P3. Religions posit a story/myth/legend to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

I think it might encompass all religions then.

RationalAtheist

Yeah I think the reason why I put P3 the way I did was to single out God. Your way makes the argument apply to all claims of religion though which I think is fitting. Here's a reformulation.

P1. If a story/myth/legend carries with it some means of directing behaviour towards one end or another it is probable that the story/myth/legend in question is a lie. (i.e. Plato's noble lie or GLaDOS' promise of cake).

P2. The more valuable the end the more probable the lie behind it.

P3. Religions posit a story/myth/legend to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

P4. Social cohesion is highly valuable.

Therefore: It is highly probable that the stories/myths/lengends of religions are lies.

A deist might look at that and say "well what does that have to do with the existence of God"? Perhaps we also need a version that specifically singles out God.

I see where your coming from . Another suggestion would be to extend your definition example thusly:

(i.e. Plato's noble lie, GLaDOS' promise of cake, or Christian God's promise of salvation).

I heard from a political speech-writer that examples are best given in threes too!

Here's a reformulation.

P1. If a story/myth/legend carries with it some means of directing behaviour towards one end or another it is probable that the story/myth/legend in question is a lie. (i.e. Plato's noble lie or GLaDOS' promise of cake).

P2. The more valuable the end the more probable the lie behind it.

P3. Religions posit a story/myth/legend to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

P4. Social cohesion is highly valuable.

Therefore: It is highly probable that the stories/myths/lengends of religions are lies.domatron23

Two thoughts:

1. 

P1. If a story/myth/legend carries with it some means of directing behaviour towards one end or another it is probable that the story/myth/legend in question is a lie. (i.e. Plato's noble lie or GLaDOS' promise of cake).

domatron23

I don't see why this is necessarily the case.

2. It seems to me that the extent to which one ought to care about whether a story/myth/legend is a lie also decreases commensurately with the extent to which the end is valuable. :P 

He returns! :D I haven't seen you on Gamespot for a while. Welcome back. :PChiliDragon

Oh, I've been around; I just haven't posted here. :P 

I don't agree with the first premise.

What exactly is Premise 1 based on? Just an assumption?foxhound_fox

Personally I find that to be just a strong possibility but dont think its strong enough.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I like it!

How about this for P3:

P3. Religions posit a story/myth/legend to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

I think it might encompass all religions then.

domatron23

Yeah I think the reason why I put P3 the way I did was to single out God. Your way makes the argument apply to all claims of religion though which I think is fitting. Here's a reformulation.

P1. If a story/myth/legend carries with it some means of directing behaviour towards one end or another it is probable that the story/myth/legend in question is a lie. (i.e. Plato's noble lie or GLaDOS' promise of cake).

P2. The more valuable the end the more probable the lie behind it.

P3. Religions posit a story/myth/legend to the effect of directing behaviour towards social cohesion.

P4. Social cohesion is highly valuable.

Therefore: It is highly probable that the stories/myths/lengends of religions are lies.

A deist might look at that and say "well what does that have to do with the existence of God"? Perhaps we also need a version that specifically singles out God.

As others have pointed out, P1 has no support. At the very least you need to change the wording from "probable" to "possible".

Furthermore, P2 is flawed in that it offers no way for us to know the relationship between probability of a lie and value of a story. While I think most would agree that P2 is logical, that's all it is. To put my point in an example: How much more likely is a lie between two stories, one of which will get the story teller $100 and the other which will get the story teller $200?

The overall flaw in your argument is that it assumes all religions are either real or were consciously fabricated by one person or a relatively small group of people with intent to deceive. In reality what we find is that religions mutate and evolve, and that humans are naturally predisposed to supernatural beliefs (that latter point is supported by neuroscience studies on religious beliefs).

Finally, this argument only works with religions that espouse moral codes. It does nothing to consider religions that merely believe in spirits or other supernatural entities but that have no central dogma. Nature worship falls under this category.

I guess its based on the logic that its no coincidence that the story is so fitting for it to be able to convey certain messages. And that concludes into it being fine-tuned specifically in order for it to be fitting to convey those messages and is therefore fabricated from scratch even.

Personally I find that to be just a strong possibility but dont think its strong enough.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I guess its based on the logic that its no coincidence that the story is so fitting for it to be able to convey certain messages. And that concludes into it being fine-tuned specifically in order for it to be fitting to convey those messages and is therefore fabricated from scratch even.

Personally I find that to be just a strong possibility but dont think its strong enough.

foxhound_fox

But then again people opinion on this assumption can range from "completely baseless" to "very very possible" or "very possibly valid".

Now I dont know whether this should happen in a strong argument or not.

I guess so.

But then again people opinion on this assumption can range from "completely baseless" to "very very possible" or "very possibly valid".

Now I dont know whether this should happen in a strong argument or not.

Teenaged

Hah, thanks for your honest critique guys. I appreciate it.

The first one was a convoluted way of saying "religion benefits society, so it must be a lie"ChiliDragon

Yup, that's a devaststingly concise way of summarizing the argument. It needs a bit of work I know.

It seems like most people here are taking issue with the first premise but I do think that it has some merits. Like Teenaged articulated so wonderfully if a story works well towards some end then it's no big leap in reason to presume that it was fabricated with that end in mind. In a strange way the exact same reasoning that the teleological argument invokes is being used here. Stories that perform a function are the result of design and therefore it is likely that the story originates from a designer. I'm not so sure I agree with that line of reasoning because, like gameguy noted, religion doesn't have to be a conscious fabrication in order to be false. There could well have been an unconscious evolution of religious thought that ended up with very useful religions and, by extension, very prevalent religions. Perhaps the idea of religion being a lie needs to be replaced with the simple notion of it being false.

To support that notion we can note that if a story is a useful behaviour modifier then there is one more reason to spread it around as a truth other than the fact that it is actually true. A useful fiction would be like a wolf in sheeps clothing, resembling a truth but resembling it so for alterior motives that are plainly clear. We might never say that a sheep is not a sheep but as soon as it starts eating others we would start to think that it's a wolf. In the same way we might never say that a religious story is anything but true but as soon as we see that it is so useful we might start to think that it is false.

For those who have played Portal what did you think of GLaDOS' promise of cake? To me the very fact that it was a useful motivator to get through the test chambers pointed strongly towards it being a falsehood. Didn't I have good reason to believe that? (and yes I know that I would be technically wrong because of the end scene).

There could well have been an unconscious evolution of religious thought that ended up with very useful religions and, by extension, very prevalent religions. Perhaps the idea of religion being a lie needs to be replaced with the simple notion of it being false.domatron23

I dont believe that the allegorical dimension of scripture (any scripture) is created consciously. At least not fully consciously.

The same way a poet writes his poem and in it we can find images of reality, connections to "objects", personalisations and several other poetic/allegorical ways of expression. All those connection are not conscious. A poet does not "think" the poem out.

All the connections are made impulsively and the words of his/hers are "woven" around reality. Since reality (our environment and what we know) is the source of every intellectual process we have (because those processes are triggered by stimuli and stimuli dont exist without an environment - and here a Christian butts in saying that that can happen in the case of the Holy Spirit :P)then fiction itself is based on reality and since it is based on reality, incontrollably and unwillingly portions of it along with one's inner word which is formed based on this reality go through even within fiction.

So, in my opinion, a conscious articulation of an allegory that conveys messages is very unlikely, although not impossible when viewing the subject without specific examples. I do though believe that old religions (and not modern religious phenomena) where not intentionally fabricated but in stead they were driven by real, existing impressions that were thought of as true by the "messenger".

For those who have played Portal what did you think of GLaDOS' promise of cake? To me the very fact that it was a useful motivator to get through the test chambers pointed strongly towards it being a falsehood.domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]For those who have played Portal what did you think of GLaDOS' promise of cake? To me the very fact that it was a useful motivator to get through the test chambers pointed strongly towards it being a falsehood.ChiliDragon

Because the promise for better days and the subsequent possible better days isplaced right next to the promise of eternal heaven.

The first is an observed instance. It has happened before. Thousands of times in human history, recess or generally a bad economic condition was followed by a better one.

The same cannot be said about heaven (or any other promise by religion). It hasnt been observed, or witnessed. We dont even know what it is specifically.

Because the promise for better days and the subsequent possible better days isplaced right next to the promise of eternal heaven. The first is an observed instance. It has happened before. Thousands of times in human history, recess or generally a bad economic condition was followed by a better one.Teenaged

As far as I know, they might all be deluding themselves, using the unintentionally fabricated stories about reinstated bonuses as a coping mechanism. ;)ChiliDragon

But still doesnt equate it to the case of heaven (I know you know that and sorry if I am being redundant :D).

I know you know that and sorry if I am being redundantTeenaged

But being a useful motivator in and of itself doesn't make something a falsehood. There needs to be something else that suggests it is false, and more likely to be false than true.ChiliDragon

No but it gives us an a priori reason to suspect that it is a falsehood. Your counter-example reveals this quite well. If you nor your colleagues had any knowledge of the past economic fluctuations you would be completely justified in suspecting that they are just telling you this to get you to work hard, not because what they say is true. Of course though a priori reasoning is always overcome by empirical evidence (as Teenaged noted) and so the fact that you and your colleagues know about the past economic shifts explains nicely why you feel that you are being told the truth despite what my argument deduces.

Now this is a bit of a weakness for my argument I think because as soon as the theist knows that my a priori reasoning is easily overcome by a posteriori evidence they will simply say "ok we might suspect on the face of it that religion is a lie because of its motivational capacity but I have reason X, Y and Z that tells me that it's true". Of course the atheist would surely argue against reason X, Y and Z but nevertheless the theist probably wouldn't be convinced by my argument. I think I'm kind of preaching to the choir because this argument would only be useful for converting weak atheists to strong atheists. It probably wouldn't be relevant to theists.

That brings up another thing that some might point out as a weakness. If my argument is useful in some way the wouldn't it be, by its own reasoning, a lie? If this is so then it's simply self defeating. I don't think the argument is self defeating because we have good a posteriori reasons to believe in each of the premises but nevertheless I imagine this counterpoint could easily be brought up.

I really appreciate your input guys, keep telling me what you think.

Your counter-example reveals this quite well. If you nor your colleagues had any knowledge of the past economic fluctuations you would be completely justified in suspecting that they are just telling you this to get you to work hard, not because what they say is true.domatron23

That brings up another thing that some might point out as a weakness. If my argument is useful in some way the wouldn't it be, by its own reasoning, a lie? If this is so then it's simply self defeating. I don't think the argument is self defeating because we have good a posteriori reasons to believe in each of the premises but nevertheless I imagine this counterpoint could easily be brought up.domatron23

vegetables are good for me, they must be a lie. It simply isn't a factual argument, I don't know what can be done with it. I know that it certainly won't convince a Christian.itsTolkien_time

Do you think of veg as mythical? Have you heard the "Legend of Legume"?

Do you know of any arguments that would convince a Christian? 

Do you know of any arguments that would convince a Christian? RationalAtheist

I don't think there are any arguments that would convince anyone out of their religious belief or non-belief, which is why I sometimes wonder why I'm here talking about it. :P

vegetables are good for me, they must be a lie. It simply isn't a factual argument, I don't know what can be done with it. I know that it certainly won't convince a Christian.itsTolkien_time

Now if you were to tell me that vegetables are good for me and you had a vested interest in me eating vegetables I might well suspect you. It's only because I know by a posteriori evidence that vegetables are in fact good for me that my suspicions are allayed.

I still think that my argument has merit but it needs more development to avoid objections like these. One thing I do think you have right though is that this argument isn't really for a Christian audience. It would be best used as an argument for strong atheism presented to weak atheists. Preaching to the choir one might say.

[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]vegetables are good for me, they must be a lie. It simply isn't a factual argument, I don't know what can be done with it. I know that it certainly won't convince a Christian.domatron23

Now if you were to tell me that vegetables are good for me and you had a vested interest in me eating vegetables I might well suspect you. It's only because I know by a posteriori evidence that vegetables are in fact good for me that my suspicions are allayed.

I still think that my argument has merit but it needs more development to avoid objections like these. One thing I do think you have right though is that this argument isn't really for a Christian audience. It would be best used as an argument for strong atheism presented to weak atheists. Preaching to the choir one might say.

There are stories in history that have good morals and lessons form them. Does that mean they are lies?

The Cilvil War was about emancipation of slaves and therefore freedom. I can just as easily call the lesson of The Civil War as much as the story of Jesus Christ coincidental.

Unless I read your post wrong.