Is believing something that isn't true inherently wrong?

[Socratic_Method]

Or, conversely, is not believing in something that is true inherently wrong?

It’s been something I’ve been pondering a lot recently. As Catholics, we tend to think that an unbelief in God is in some way a sin (I think…?) or that perhaps belief in something else other than the God we know is in some way a sin, or in a way morally wrong… Over the course of Church history, we’ve made such a big fuss over particular matters of theology, such as whether Jesus Christ has one or two natures, and have gone so far as to label certain ideas “heresies” and shun those who believed in them. We seem to take the matter of Truth very seriously.

But then I think about the issue in a secular situation… For the longest time, people believed that the Earth was flat. The sphere-ness of the earth isn’t something that’s easy to deny now, since we’ve been up in space and seen firsthand what the planet looks like, so we can reasonably say that people back then were wrong about the shape of the earth. But I don’t know of anyone in the Church who would say that the people of ancient times were sinning by not believing in the truth that the earth is spherical. Neither do I think that the Church would say that little kids believing in the monsters in their closets would be sinning, nor when someone buys into an urban legend, nor when the general public believes the most recent scientific theories even if they turn out not to be correct. There are plenty of people who believe that there are real dragons and mermaids, life on other planets, the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, etc…

So I guess my question is, at what point does getting the facts straight cross into the serious zone? Are we always bound to believing in every truth in all cases? Why do theological facts matter more than scientific or everyday facts? Is there a difference between believing that Jesus had gotten married and believing that Canada is a state in Wisconsin? Would someone be sinning if they thought that fairies were real? Is my continuous flow of questions starting to annoy you?

 

[Etchi_Besem]

My standpoint is that when you join a group you are binding yourself by its ways. So, for example, to be Catholic and not believe in the central tenets of the faith poses an issue. If you have doubts, it is okay but if you know and refuse to believe for reasons such as ‘it is not scientific’ then that is a bigger issue because you contradict your very self and try to reduce the experience of God to neatly fit under science, yet God is broader than whatever we can discover, believe or conceive. There is a form of knowing (perhaps several) that cannot be scientifically proven. You just know it and that is the kind of knowing you get by being open to God’s action in you. Sometimes prayer brings different thoughts than you learn either as a private/public revelation or from being temptation and it is good to read those thoughts with others in the larger Christian community for discernment and it can lead to a clarification, correction and/or acceptance which causes the Church to change/grow and/or state its point more clearly.

 

[phoage]

Believing in something false, or disbelief it a truism can be embarrassing, dangerous or even fatal, but I do not see how it can be sinful; especially when you are talking about a matter of faith.

An erronious belief can lead you to an act that is sinful but the belief in itself is not.

 

[Sarpedon]

In atheism, nothing can be “inherently” good or bad. Everything is simply matter/energy in some form or another. Something can only be inherently good or bad if there is some transcendent reality that gives this added dimension to the energy/matter. Atheists almost universally acknowledge that atheistic morality is nothing more than group (mob) consensus (i.e. the moral zeitgeist of Dawkins).

“Believing in something that isn’t true” is only inherently bad through religion. If atheism is true, there is nothing inherently wrong with believing in falsehood or anything else for that matter.

 

[Johndigger]

I like the original question. It’s also something I’ve been considering recently.

Let’s take a contentious issue at the moment - man-made global warming. It’s an issue I’m quite undecided on.

However, I do believe and act if global warming were true because the consequences of choosing the wrong option could mean the end of life as we know it. If, on the other hand we choose to believe in global warming and we’re wrong then the world has only lost a few trillion dollars. (A huge amount of money, but very little compared to the other options)

(Do you see where I’m going with this?)

I’ve used the form of argument used in Paschal’s wager.

Is believing in something potentially not true in favour of beliving something that’s much more likely to be true inherently wrong?

I would have to say, no - because if truth isn’t the only criteria to consider in life (For example, an atheist might believe that being happy is the point of life) then potential consequences should be taken into account.

 

[AirLiner]

Well, human morality involves following natural law, so it’s only a sin to believe something false when the falsehood affects ones ability to follow it. Since worshipping is part of this law then atheism in itself is sinful.

 

[TheAtheist]

Atheists almost universally acknowledge that atheistic morality is nothing more than group (mob) consensus (i.e. the moral zeitgeist of Dawkins).

Well, i wouldn’t necessarily say mob consensus.

Moral codes are drawn up to allow a level of interactivity between individuals and groups that don’t result in you taking a brick to my head or vice versa.

Furthermore, i’d like to think, that there’s a certain level of humaneness that we all partake in - an ability of empathy.

The problem of course is when we start to divide ourselves into groups for whatever reason ~ we tend to quickly lose that as we identify far more strongly with the dictates of said group.

 

[AirLiner]

Well, i wouldn’t necessarily say mob consensus.

Moral codes are drawn up to allow a level of interactivity between individuals and groups that don’t result in you taking a brick to my head or vice versa.

So according to atheists morality is nothing more than altruism, an evolutionary byproduct designed to further the species.

Furthermore, i’d like to think, that there’s a certain level of humaneness that we all partake in - an ability of empathy.

You admit its your own opinion, and besides, its irrelevant to atheistic morality considering that in atheism ideas are just atoms moving around.

The problem of course is when we start to divide ourselves into groups for whatever reason ~ we tend to quickly lose that as we identify far more strongly with the dictates of said group.

True, history is evidence of this.

 

[Sarpedon]

Moral codes are drawn up to allow a level of interactivity between individuals and groups that don’t result in you taking a brick to my head or vice versa.

“Drawn up?” In other words, we create (or created) morality? If we can create it then we can destroy it.

 

[Wowbagger]

Is believing something that isn’t true inherently wrong?

Actually, let me surprise you: Yes, to believe something that is not true is always a sin. If you dissent from the Church, yes, that’s a sin. If you believe condoms are 99% effective, yes, the mere belief is a sin. If you believe the world is flat, yes, that’s a sin. If you’re a twelfth-century commoner with no way of knowing that the Earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around… yes, it’s still a sin to believe in the geocentric model.

Vocabulary lesson! The word “sin” comes to Modern English from German by way of Old English. Bartleby tells me that the original German word means something like, “the transgression is evident.” However, our understanding of the word “sin” comes mainly through Christian religious texts–the Bible. Jumping over to Wikipedia, we I find that the two words mainly translated as “sin” are the Hebrew het and the Greek hamartia. Both of these words translate roughly as “to miss the mark” or, generally, “to err.” This conforms with what I was taught in THEO101. It also conforms with Thomas Aquinas’s definition of sin: sin is “an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law.” Any act that embraces that which is not true, therefore, is a sin. Even if it’s something seemingly innocent, like thinking the Earth goes around the Sun in an era of ignorance, it misses the mark about a truth of the Divine law (which encompasses material laws). Like all sin, it damages the body of the Church and the whole of humanity in subtle ways. To believe something that is not true, or to fail to believe something that is true, is sinful.

However, as in all things ethical, we must separate the objective sin itself from the culpability of the sinner. The 12th Century commoner is protected by invincible ignorance. The person who believes in fairies is probably also protected by invincible ignorance. The person who rejects the theory of evolution on rational grounds is (I think) probably wrong, but, again, if honestly pursuing the answer instead of an agenda, such a person is protected by invincible ignorance. The person who rejects the theory of gravity really cannot have such rational reason, and must be deliberately ignorant. Here, we begin to find moral culpability for the sin of vincible ignorance. The person who rejects the theory of gravity, however, is not nearly so ignorant as the atheist who rejects knowledge of God, and so the objective sin of the atheist is much worse than that of the anti-gravitationalist. However, there are many atheists who are truly honest in their pursuit of truth, and so, though their apostasy is objectively a gravely damaging, very serious sin, their culpability is slim to null, because of invincible ignorance. On the other hand, there are atheists who stick to their beliefs despite knowing, deep down, that atheism isn’t true. These people are not only committing a serious and grave sin; they are also fully responsible for that sin.

The key thing is in remembering the crucial and often-forgotten difference between objective sin and subjective culpability for sin. Too often, people say the latter but only mean the former. The world is truly awash in objective sin, I think, far more than anyone realizes, but we are held to account for only a tiny, tiny part of the damage we do. Truly, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

I’ve held this opinion for some time, but I have never expressed it in public, so critiques of it are welcome and invited. I haven’t read Aquinas carefully enough on this point to be sure I’m actually being faithful to his theology. Regardless of what you think about it, I hope it made interesting reading and helped push you toward greater understanding.

Is my continuous flow of questions starting to annoy you?

Never.

 

[LilyM]

Very simply - I believe you have a duty to follow that which, after conscientious study and consideration of all sides, you believe to be true, and reject that which in similar circumstances you believe to be false.

If the jury’s out, it’s out.

I tend not to believe one way or another on issues such as global warming for this reason. Although a healthy level of precaution can’t hurt in view of the potentially massive harm if it IS true, but I don’t think it’s a sin for others who are relying on different sources of information to believe one way or the other.

 

[geometer]

“I see!” said the blind man, as he fell down the steps…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Socratic Method

Or, conversely, is not believing in something that is true inherently wrong?

It is wrong if you deep down know that something is true and you persist in not believing in it.

This would be a case of lying to yourself, and when we lie to ourselves that is always wrong. The reason we lie to ourselves can vary from one situation to another.

Most often we lie to ourselves because of not wanting to face the music:
we don’t want to think we are bald; we don’t want to think we are fat;
we don’t want to think we are guilty of this or that.

God knows we can run, but we really cannot hide.

 

[rookieonedge]

So I guess my question is, at what point does getting the facts straight cross into the serious zone? Are we always bound to believing in every truth in all cases? Why do theological facts matter more than scientific or everyday facts? Is there a difference between believing that Jesus had gotten married and believing that Canada is a state in Wisconsin? Would someone be sinning if they thought that fairies were real?

Believing something that isn’t true, when it comes to moral principles, is inherently wrong; and, conversely, not believing something that is true is also inherently wrong. That’s where we cross over “into the serious zone.” For example, believing that mosquitoes are friendly creatures, has no philosophical/theological consequences, so one may believe that assertion to be true. Not believing those little “devils” sting, of course, may be detrimental and have a deleterious effect, but there is no sin.

Sin can also be defined (besides the above mentioned definitions “to miss the mark,” and “to err,”) to “offend against a principle.” For example, the 5th Commandment is a Principle–of high degree. If one believes it is o.k. to abort a pregnancy resulting in the death of a developing human being, one is inherently wrong. Or, put another way, not believing that it is wrong to have an abortion is inherently wrong. Either case demonstrates an offense against a Principle. Therefore, both situations involve sinning. As mentioned in post #5, however, there are objective and subjective degrees of sinfulness.

We are bound to believe in the Truth “in all cases” to the effect that we are able. Just like we can’t tell a secular judge that we didn’t know there was a law against parking in a particular zone (or whatever!) or the IRS that we didn’t know we owed taxes on such and such property (are you listening Tim Gaithner & co.?), we certainly can’t make excuses before our Eternal Judge. God alone can determine our culpability.

As for the rest of the questions, as stated above, it is only those that concern God’s laws and His purpose that are relevant. Included in God’s purpose are worship, doctrine, His Church and Church laws.

“The light of reason whereby such principles are known to us is given us by God as a kind of likeness effected in us by uncreated truth. Therefore since all human teaching has what efficacy it has from the strength of this light, it is clear that it is God alone who chiefly and interiorly teaches, as nature interiorly chiefly heals.” (A First Glance At. St. Thomas Aquinas–A Handbook For Peeping Thomists by Ralph McInerny

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

There is culpability to consider. I’ve known people that do not believe in Jesus because they are offended by hypocrisy they’ve seen among Christians. They made a rational decision to become atheists based on observed phenomena, and I’ve been hard pressed to convince them otherwise. I don’t think they’re sinning. They’ve actually arrived at their unbelief in a very rational and honest way. Perhaps I have not been a good enough witness for them. Perhaps their unbelief is partly my fault. Does that make sense?

There are many things that we don’t know that we don’t know. Now I would be sinning if I became an atheist, because I “know” or have “experienced” God’s love. As a college English instructor so many of my students didn’t know that they didn’t know many things. They came from a very narrow worldview of hip-hop culture and media saturation. It was my job to challenge them and to force them to research those areas where their knowledge was lacking and thus educate themselves. Everybody hates a sermon. In my class no one was allowed an opinion; you stated your thesis and presented your support. If your support didn’t hold up to scrutiny, you were wrong and had to rethink your position. Without proselytizing I was able to get across many Catholic social and moral positions in this way.

Because of this I am always hesistant to jump down an atheist’s throat so long as they are not malicious. But as Fulton Sheen once said that we and atheists are brothers and sisters in faith; they cannot “prove” God doesn’t exist in the same way that we cannot “prove” that he does.

 

[rookieonedge]

rookieonedge:
“As mentioned in post #5, however, there are objective and subjective degrees of sinfulness.” (I should have written post #10 which mentions the idea of sin as subjective and objective.)

 

[rookieonedge]

There is culpability to consider. I’ve known people that do not believe in Jesus because they are offended by hypocrisy they’ve seen among Christians. They made a rational decision to become atheists based on observed phenomena, and I’ve been hard pressed to convince them otherwise. I don’t think they’re sinning. They’ve actually arrived at their unbelief in a very rational and honest way. Perhaps I have not been a good enough witness for them. Perhaps their unbelief is partly my fault. Does that make sense?

There are many things that we don’t know that we don’t know. Now I would be sinning if I became an atheist, because I “know” or have “experienced” God’s love. As a college English instructor so many of my students didn’t know that they didn’t know many things. They came from a very narrow worldview of hip-hop culture and media saturation. It was my job to challenge them and to force them to research those areas where their knowledge was lacking and thus educate themselves. Everybody hates a sermon. In my class no one was allowed an opinion; you stated your thesis and presented your support. If your support didn’t hold up to scrutiny, you were wrong and had to rethink your position. Without proselytizing I was able to get across many Catholic social and moral positions in this way.

Because of this I am always hesistant to jump down an atheist’s throat so long as they are not malicious. But as Fulton Sheen once said that we and atheists are brothers and sisters in faith; they cannot “prove” God doesn’t exist in the same way that we cannot “prove” that he does.

You say your students came from a “very narrow worldview of hip-hop culture and media saturation.” Are you excusing their faults and sins, or are you just saying they are less culpable than one who has made a firm decision to turn away from God’s Church and the dictates of his/her conscience? The question is, at what age can we reasonably assume the conscience has been formed? Catholic thought has determined that the age of 7 years old is the “age of reason.” Also, that the “law is written in our hearts” meaning that we know certain truths to be immutable. Murder is an easy self-evident example (except when it comes to abortion–which must necessitate rationalization upon rationalization).

Those who are offended by the hypocricy among Christians are still obligated to follow Truth (the Lord Jesus Himself) and put an end to their rebellious attitude and excuses. We have a duty to choose what is right at all times. The problem is, our minds are clouded by sin (personal/social and the workings of the evil one).

We are “wanderers” on this earth; we have a need to seek Truth. Some find it as young children. (There are books of the lives of very young saints). I agree that the media works to destroy the voice of conscience. It’s wonderful that you are able to steer your students to catch a glimpse of what truly matters in your rigorous style of assignments.

 

[Dameedna]

That’s an interesting question, but it’s a bit of a double edged sword.

Why would you believe something that isn’t true?

Why would you not believe something that is?

I do not agree with christianity. Some people say it’s true, therefore I am sinning. According to their definition (to not believe something that is true, is a sin) they are by default sinning…to me. It’s really quite a never ending and pointless excercise.

What you are really asking comes down to not wether something IS or IS NOT true, but how we react to a truth. That’s the only real discussion that can be had on this topic imo. If we are lying to ourselves, then yes I would consider that a sin, not in terms of religion, but just simply missing the mark in life and not helping to create a better life for yourself. You hurt yourself, when you lie to yourself.

Disagreeing with another person, and disagreeing with a religion could hardly be called a sin, since every single person is doing just that. A Catholic would have to admit that they are actually sinning in terms of another religion, if they were to support this notion. They may not care wether some-one else considers them a sinner, but they cannot deny that that is exactly how they are percieved. The Golden rule, could be well applied in this situation.

Personally, I think anyone that does not question everything, and hold a healthy dose of doubt and skepticism is lying to themselves and to each other, and therefore “sinning” in the general sense of the word. But of course, this is just my opinion as is that of every other person and religion that exists. It’s a human’s opinion.

Cheers