On rosy ideas
April 4th 2012 05:38
"God takes care of idiots."
A rosy idea is one that is false, but which would be nice if it were true (because you approve of the outcome). In this case, it's nice that there are plusses to being an idiot, and it's nice that there's someone there to look out for them.
But there's more to rosiness than just outcome. There's more to its attraction. Rosiness is also about what beliefs are required for and follow from the particular rosy thought in question.
In this case, there are two sorts of entailed beliefs:
(1) Moral beliefs. For instance, that there is an objective morality, or that good is more powerful than bad.
(2) Beliefs about reality ("ontological" beliefs). For instance, that there's a big boss in control of it all.
So, if you want to think that God takes care of idiots, it's not just so you're relieved of the duty of worrying about them yourself -- it's also because you're comforted, made secure, reinforced, in your neat beliefs about morality and reality. Every religion provides not only clear guidelines on how to live life (satisfying a need for direction), but also creation stories, etc (satisfying a need for explanation).
The basic message of many rosy ideas, and of this one, is that everything turns out all right in the end. God's in his heaven, and all's right with the world.
It might be suggested, then, that the first step to any genuine morality is to reject rosy ideas. For it could be argued that actions only have meaning when the result is in doubt -- when something is really at stake. Alternatively, that people are only motivated to take action when the result is in doubt. If God guarantees a good outcome, then human actions on both counts don't really matter.
Similarly, the first step to any genuine ontology might be to relinquish notions that the universe is human-centric, or morally concerned, or neatly ordered, or is even understandable at all...
Note
-- The above is suggestion only, and not argument. Many, many people believe (perhaps rosily) in determinism or predestination as well as the meaningfulness of human action. Not only Calvinists, but scientists.
A rosy idea is one that is false, but which would be nice if it were true (because you approve of the outcome). In this case, it's nice that there are plusses to being an idiot, and it's nice that there's someone there to look out for them.
But there's more to rosiness than just outcome. There's more to its attraction. Rosiness is also about what beliefs are required for and follow from the particular rosy thought in question.
In this case, there are two sorts of entailed beliefs:
(1) Moral beliefs. For instance, that there is an objective morality, or that good is more powerful than bad.
(2) Beliefs about reality ("ontological" beliefs). For instance, that there's a big boss in control of it all.
So, if you want to think that God takes care of idiots, it's not just so you're relieved of the duty of worrying about them yourself -- it's also because you're comforted, made secure, reinforced, in your neat beliefs about morality and reality. Every religion provides not only clear guidelines on how to live life (satisfying a need for direction), but also creation stories, etc (satisfying a need for explanation).
The basic message of many rosy ideas, and of this one, is that everything turns out all right in the end. God's in his heaven, and all's right with the world.
It might be suggested, then, that the first step to any genuine morality is to reject rosy ideas. For it could be argued that actions only have meaning when the result is in doubt -- when something is really at stake. Alternatively, that people are only motivated to take action when the result is in doubt. If God guarantees a good outcome, then human actions on both counts don't really matter.
Similarly, the first step to any genuine ontology might be to relinquish notions that the universe is human-centric, or morally concerned, or neatly ordered, or is even understandable at all...
***
Note
-- The above is suggestion only, and not argument. Many, many people believe (perhaps rosily) in determinism or predestination as well as the meaningfulness of human action. Not only Calvinists, but scientists.
| 24 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Comments (2)
Read More