h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We all have in our minds some sort of mental framework which helps us to decide what to do, in order to maximise the Quality of our lives. I call this framework a belief system. Many people's belief systems prominently feature a religion.

Is there a way we can judge or rank different belief systems? I think there is. We can compare two belief systems by looking at their followers/users, and seeing how much they improve themselves. [Note the difference between this and assessing their success: they could've been successful before they joined.]

If the followers of faith F improve themselves more than those of faith G, then we can say that faith F is more effective than faith G. That isn't ALL there is to say. It could be that faith F, successful though it is, just doesn't mesh with the way you work and think.

Note that the practices and/or teachings of faith F (or G) are immaterial. It is only the performance in the Real World of its followers that is a useful measure of how faith F (or G) helps them to thrive. The teachings are irrelevant; it's what happens if/when you follow them that matters.

Is this a fair and/or useful way to judge a belief system? [I believe that is equally applicable to atheist and theist systems.]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The problem I see here is that the criteria of "improvement" will themselves be features of a particular belief system.

Noggin

I already considered that one, and concluded that the criteria of "improvement" might be different for every individual. However, when *I* am evaluating (say) a religion, I am applying my own criteria, and so the conclusions I draw will be compatible with my perspective.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

In that case your suggestion seems quite similar to the pragmatic philosophy of William James and John Dewey.

James argues that 'An idea is "true" so long as to believe it is profitable to our lives.' and 'If the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true.'

I share Bertrand Russell's (and presumably others') objections to this theory: It assumes a belief is 'true' when its effects are good. For this definition to be useful we have to know a) what is good and b) what the effects are of this or that belief, and we must know these things before we know that anything is true.

So for example, 'Santa Claus exists.' may be true. Even if he doesn't. A recipe for confusion.

P-c:

"We all have in our minds some sort of mental framework which helps us to decide what to do, in order to maximise the Quality of our lives. I call this framework a belief system."

and

"Is there a way we can judge or rank different belief systems?"

A difficulty I antipate is an ambiguity or vagueness in this definition. If the mental framework that a particular person has is his belief system, then in judging or ranking different belief systems we are just judging or ranking particular individuals.

If you mean that the mental framework is something external to an individual, then you have to accept that this external thing (possibly religion, or a faith in some sort of idea of the scientific method) underdetermines an individual's response to it. That is, rankings of these external things will not necessarily correspond to rankings of individuals who hold these external belief systems.

"If the followers of faith F improve themselves more than those of faith G..." suggests you mean my second interpretation above, am I right?

"The teachings are irrelevant; it's what happens if/when you follow them that matters."

This is potentially incoherent. I mean, how do you determine whether someone has faith F without reference to the teachings of faith F?

Anyway, I see two possible uses for comparison of belief systems. The first is at an individual level. We want to be able to look at our and other belief systems and possibly switch to another if we find it more valuable. I think this is an unrealistic model of individual change. It's just not possible to switch belief systems at will like this. I have some, possibly naive, thoughts about how we could improve this model though if you're interested in that?

The second is at the political level. Certain people want to make statements like 'Muslims are more backward than Christians' (to take an example that has been in the news a lot recently). Here the issue is more difficult, you have to ask what the consequences of accepting such a judgement are, the intentions of the person making that judgement, etc. Ultimately, this isn't an epistemological activity any more, but a political one.

Jowot, actually P-c's pragmatic comparison of belief systems is more sophisticated than the equation of 'truth' with usefulness. He is not, at least on the face of it, interested in what is true or not at all, only in what is a useful framework of belief. What is the correct attitude to take towards our lives. He's making comparisons of a way of life, and is testing differents ways of living against the observable effects of taking that way of life up. Russell's criticism doesn't apply here, as the ultimate goal is not deciding on the truth or otherwise of particular statements. (Incidentally, as I tried to explain on another thread on h2g2, I don't think James' view is as crude as Russell makes out either.)

I my own opinion there is actually very little to choose between the diverse range of belief systems available in terms of their individual values and merits.

Rather, I think that instead of a fair comparison of the individual belief systems, you are more likely to establish who has the better guild. That is, which faith has a more effective operating and management structure with associated goals and objectives that serve to further the improvement of their faith, albeit as measured against your particular yardstick.

However, it could serve to identify areas where a particular faith could make changes in its organisation and operation that would enable it to improve itself.

For example, Islam has a single text which explicitly rules out translation into other languages. This is not a core aspect of the islamic belief system, but what it does do is eliminate the variety of translation and interpretation that is endemic within Christian religions. Hence you might conclude that a single authoritative source is a key element of a successful faith.

Similarly, the Roman Catholic church has a very clear hierarchical structure, with just one man at the top, whereas pagans have no such clear leadership and voice. Hence you might conclude that a single leader providing a clear and unambiguous direction and visible leadership is a key part to a successful faith.

Does that make sense?

Madent, what you say makes sense to me, particularly "...you are more likely to establish who has the better guild..."

One last thing before I head off. Jowot, have you read the "Truth Seeking" thread in Ask h2g2? If not, my comments on pragmatism start at

FFM19585?thread=387863&skip=180&show=20#p4992290

(hope that link works)

Hmph. Try:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/FFM19585?thread=387863&skip=180&show=20#p4992290

Unconventional, but it seems to work...

Kind of works. Odd colour. Do you have a reference for the Lakatos work you referred to?

I imagine there's a better way of linking to a specific post. I don't know how. Anyway, the reference is the essay Lakatos wrote in "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge" edited by Musgrave and Lakatos. All the essays in that book are worth reading.

I largely agree with Dogster's longer post above.

"Anyway, I see two possible uses for comparison of belief systems. The first is at an individual level. We want to be able to look at our and other belief systems and possibly switch to another if we find it more valuable. I think this is an unrealistic model of individual change. It's just not possible to switch belief systems at will like this. I have some, possibly naive, thoughts about how we could improve this model though if you're interested in that?"

Much of this gives me a sense of unease. Designing a framework of belief on the basis of what would be useful (to us or them) for other people to believe seems vanguardist and undemocratic. That is to say it would be difficult for people to make their own democratic choices if their beliefs are pre-formed on the basis of somebody else's agenda.

And if we are considering only our own beliefs - I agree that it is an unrealistic model of change.

PC:



By asking them!



I thought we might be assessing their religion, if they have one, but it also seemed important to recognise that one's belief system is not *only* one's religion (if one *is* religious, that is).

I'm not entirely clear on the purpose of assessing a religion, but decided to post because establishing *what* we judge, and *how* we judge it, seemed interesting for its own sake. I am particularly pleased with the observation that the actual teachings of a faith do not matter much. It's the consequences of following those teachings that determines the value of a faith to its adherents.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Designing a framework of belief on the basis of what would be useful (to us or them) for other people to believe seems vanguardist and undemocratic."

Quite so, but I wasn't suggesting this - I doubt P-c was either. I'm not entirely clear if you were saying we were suggesting this though, hopefully not.

Anyway, coming up with arguments in favour of one or the other frameworks of belief on this basis is quite another matter. These arguments can be presented and either accepted or rejected, which is very democratic.

P-c:

"I'm not entirely clear on the purpose of assessing a religion, but decided to post because establishing *what* we judge, and *how* we judge it, seemed interesting for its own sake."

I think it's not really possible. I mean, if you had a religious belief system that explicitly and unconditionally advocated, say, mass-suicide, like the Hale-Bopp cult (can't remember their name), you'd be on pretty safe ground judging them harshly from a pragmatic point of view. Most established religions don't have this absolute character though. An established religion, by its very nature, can't be so extraordinarily bad as one like that.

In practice, many religions are subject to a form of democratic control, albeit one that may take many years to come about. A change in the structure, institutions and beliefs of a religion can be brought about. Established religions must have a certain amount of flexibility because they have to respond to the mores of their believers to a certain extent, otherwise they would quickly become irrelevant.

Just as one example, you can't really 'judge' christianity, because the spectrum of christianity is so wide. What can you say about creationists that is also true of scientifically minded christians? What can you say about rabidly homophobic christians that you could also say about liberal ones?

You can't really judge christianity like that anyway. There is no such thing really, not in the sense of a single organised body.

There are many different sects of christianity, which have only a very limited amount of common ground. In this sense it would make sense to consider them as separate "religions" with separate "beliefs", albeit that there will be some overlap, just as there will be some overlap between judaism and islam.

OK, so here are some of my problems with the suggestion that the degree of 'improvement' of believers is a good way to judge a belief system.

1. What constitutes improvement will generally depend on a choice of belief system. For example, under some systems, celibacy would be considered an improvement of an individual. Under some others, the opposite would be true.

2. We all end up dead, which is no improvement, irrespective of belief. Unless of course there is an afterlife. But claims involving an afterlife are difficult to judge seriously.

3. It is possible to contrive examples of beliefs and circumstances that are likely to lead to (say) happiness, propserity, ethical behaviour, or renown (is this the sort of improvement intended?), where the beliefs are quite arbitrary, and are tailored to the circumstances. Perhaps there would have to be some qualification against ad hoc belief systems when applying this test.

4. The notion seems to be a poor approximation to the idea that beliefs may possess a degree of accuracy, and that our mental models of the universe are useful to us insofar as they are accurate. But it does not seem to consider that being right about things is an improvement over being deluded.

I can't work out whether you're for or against this idea, Jowot! My take on this is that the map (model) is not the territory, and the 'accuracy' of a model, even if that means anything, is less important than asking "does it work?" Does the map allow one to navigate the real world, in some way? Is it perhaps better or worse than other maps?

My AA map of the British Isles bears little resemblance to the land itself, but it does allow me to get from Cardiff to Carlisle without too much trouble. It works, but it resembles what it portrays hardly at all.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I would say that your AA map is useful by virtue of its accuracy. I think you would still have to explain how successfully getting to carlisle would have improved you.

In what way is my map 'accurate'? It's a map, and bears little literal resemblance to the land it represents symbolically....





Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"