Why it matters that we get it right

Part 3 of a series on the Peter Thiel question.

Upton Sinclair famously said that it’s “difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Not only is it easy to see the truth of this statement in the behavior of humans, but it’s also arguable that person is behaving rationally by dodging an understanding that would cause him to lose his salary. Because, if my answer to the Peter Thiel question is right, we’re rational to aim to believe whatever is most beneficial to believe, rather than whatever is true.

This is a choice that we are free to make. Whatever we choose, there will be serious practical implications.

The personal implications

Imagine that you’re a member of an ancient Amazonian tribe that beheads members who don’t believe p. Should you go down a path of investigation which could lead to your disbelieving p? Should you question p aloud, interrogating others who profess who believe it and undermining the grounds for their belief? Should you aim for the truth, or aim for what’s good for you?

Or imagine the life of a poor single mother living on the south side of Chicago, or in the slums of Mogadishu. Her faith in her god gives her hope, strength, community, existential comfort, and a psychological disposition to find the silver lining in life’s difficulties. Should she pursue lines of investigation that may cripple her faith?

If living with confidence and optimism make you happier and more successful, might this not be reason enough to believe?

We face these kinds of questions every day. I’m not saying there’s a clear answer. I’m saying that regardless of whether we make an intentional choice or choose by default, the consequences are enormous.

The social implications

The choice we make about the proper aim of belief has serious implications for how we think about how to affect the beliefs of others in a society.

Smart people have observed that it’s harmful to a society to have members who hold false beliefs and employ enabling epistemologies. This is because all of our success, as individuals and as groups, depends on the quality of our reasoning. False beliefs and faulty epistemology lead to poor reasoning and bad decisions.

The world’s major religions can be seen as a wellspring of false beliefs and corrupt epistemology. People like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, fed up with the costs of sharing a planet with these beliefs, have launched a rationalist assault on faith-based religion generally.

The strategy that the so-called ‘new atheists’ typically employ is to use careful reasoning to show that the the claims that these religions make about the world are false.

However, this strategy assumes that people aim to believe what’s true, rather than what appears beneficial to believe. If people really are — and should be — aiming to believe what’s good for them, then this strategy is missing the most important part.

Religious belief can provide significant benefits to the believer. These benefits include existential comfort, community, and a psychological toolkit effective at dealing with life’s difficulties. And it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his social and existential security depends upon his not understanding it.

If my answer to the Peter Thiel question is right, then the way to cure the world of bad epistemology is to provide alternative, and ideally superior, solutions to the felt benefits that religion provides. This is a separate project from simply showing that they are false.

I hope to have convinced you that it matters that we correctly understand the aim of belief. In the next post, I’ll continue arguing that we ought to aim for what’s beneficial to believe.