Truth And Utility

Should societies embrace religious belief because it's true, or because it's useful?

The "true" argument is a rather simple one, and boils down "can you prove it?" If not, then others have no obligation to believe the believers, to grant any authority to what they believe, or to grant deference or ascendance to their views when they conflict with those of others. If actual evidence for the truth of a particular belief system emerges and withstands the rigors of the scientific method, then all subsequent arguments as to dogma and policy and law will follow an evidence-based path. The value of truth will have been established, and it will have justifiable priority over non-truth.

The "useful" argument is more complex. Its essence is that religious belief benefits society or the world as a whole, no matter whether the religions claims are provably true or not. It calls for considering several factors, including whether it's proper to lie to the masses in order to manage their behaviors. For if you yourself do not believe it true, what are you saying about your fellow persons?

This notion nags at me every time I ponder the likes of Jordan Peterson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali espousing religious faith. Neither of them, nor a number of other pundits, argue (at least from what I've read and seen) that their views are based on truth, and instead imply that religion is beneficial.

This leans into an uneven worldview, where groups matter more than individuals and where some people are deemed more important than others. In that worldview, societies should be managed by the smart people rather than based on respecting every individual's right to the truth and freedom of action. The promotion of faith is about control, not about respect.

I know some believe that there is good in such control. That religion is the conduit for teaching morality and coaxing bad people into doing good things and not doing bad things.

This sounds nice in the abstract, but it includes presuppositions that don't align with reality.

The lore of many religions, including the big ones, is chock-full of instructions to do bad things. That we reject those bad things is a strong indicator that morality is not sourced from scripture, but instead emerges from human nature and evolves as societies do.

There's also the matter of whether the idea actually works. There are bad people who claim that religion was their personal path out of badness, and I'm sure it's true for some.

But, as an overall cultural strategy?

We have ample evidence that religion can lead good people into doing bad things. That, in both present-day and across history, religion has been the justification for barbarism, murder, destruction, and privation. Religious differences remain the reason for massive conflicts around the world.

We also have the less-than-stellar track record of religion among criminals. There are virtually no atheists in prisons. Meanwhile, many inmates find religion while confined, but the high recidivism rate in the US suggests that it often fails as a path to being a better citizen. Faith-based programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous have success rates indistinguishable from those going it alone.

Some argue that societies need "good" religion to anchor opposition to "bad" religion, that Christianity is better than secularism at resisting the incursions and violence of fundamentalist Islam. As proof, they point at the influx of non-assimilating Muslims into Western European nations and the social unraveling that has resulted. This is a convenient correlation that ignores a couple things: that this influx and non-assimilation was a policy choice that had nothing to do with secularism, and that Christianity's teachings would lead to that very same policy of open-arms invitation. The argument sounds like an excuse for Christian nationalism, which runs directly afoul of religious liberty and which would inevitably raise the question, "which version of Christianity is the best bulwark against these incursions?" Christianity is not only not homogeneous, it is a term that only emerged in the middle of the last century, for political power purposes. Fact is, different versions of Christianity have been at each other's throats since its inception, just as different versions of Islam have.

I am deeply skeptical of the "useful" argument for these reasons and more.

I also reject it from a human perspective. Who am I to assert power over my neighbors? How is it proper or moral to seek to control them by lying, or by feeding them beliefs that I don't share? What precept gives me license to manage others? Consent of the governed, if it is to be moral and if it is to be based on the precepts of human dignity, individual rights, and equality for all, cannot be based on deceit. If you yourself don't believe what you preach, how can you call yourself a good person that respects others?