2 questions.

1) From a naturalistic philosphy, what value does truth have?

If there is no God, or no ultimate objective for our personal lives, why is knowing the truth valuable?
Wouldn't personal happiness be the only logical goal? Regardless of whether or not that happiness is based in truth? Furhtermore wouldn't knowing the truth only be a possible means to the goal of happiness? Also, wouldn't it follow that false views could lead to happiness as well? In many cases, false views might allow for greater joy and contentment than true views. Underthose circumstances, wouldn't believing a lie be more valuable than knowing the truth?

IF the answer to the last few question is "yes" then wouldn't a theist who was fulfilled and made joyful in thier thiesm actually be better off than a naturalist that who is left empty regardless of who is actually "right" or "wrong".




2) If we assume naturalism, and natural evolution as a byproduct, can we be confident if ever obtaining any truth?

IF we evolution depends on survival. Does it not follow that those most fit for survival would be most likley to pass on thier genes?
If survival is what drives evolution, How can be certian that our ability to know truth is accurate? Lifes goal would be to survive, not to know truth. Hence we would have evolved along those lines, and not even be able to detect it.
Sometimes believing a lie is more condusive for survival than knowing the truth. For example, My children may be under the false belief that coming within 10yds or closer of the street = auto death.
My neighbors children rightly believe that playing on the street does not equal auto death. In fact, Only if they are struck by a car which normally travels on the street will they most likley be killed.
All other beliefs are shared between my children and my neighbors.
Which set of children are MOST likley to survive?

If we evolved around the premise of survival, can we really trust what we discern as truth?

The ultimate objective is not your own survival, but the survival of (as many as possible) your genes. That's the one thing every single one of your ancestors all the way back to LUCA some 3,7 billion years ago has managed to do.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
The ultimate objective is not your own survival, but the survival of (as many as possible) your genes. That's the one thing every single one of your ancestors all the way back to LUCA some 3,7 billion years ago has managed to do.



[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

My analogy was not perfect. Imagine an entire societ of children that believe coming within 10 yds of the street = auto death. This "trait" is taught down the line for generations.

In the other society, they have the right belief that getting near the street isn't auto death. Likewise, those that survive pass that "trait" to thier descendants.

The first society will have a better survival rate despite the false beliefs.

Obviously this analogy does not take into account all various aspects of a given environment. But is only used to illustrate the point that the endgoal of evolution is survival, not the discovery of truth. Our brains could be wired in such a way as to promote survival as opposed to truth. We may be environmentally conditioned to believe certian lies.
As a naturalist, how can one be certian this is not the case?

Also, back to question 1. What value does truth have to a naturalist?

Truth is subjective to the seeker.

Biology cares not one iota for truth. Our personal quests for truth have no outcome on our biology.

Religion is one avenue that many have travelled on their search for truth and indeed the evolution of religion closely parallels societal evolution.

I do not understand why you assume that a naturalist is "empty" by being devoid of YOUR truth. I accept evolution as the way in which life has progressed over these millions of years, I don't feel empty at all, in fact I feel gloriously fulfilled, knowing that we have evolved to the point of discerning our own orgins. I think that is amazing!

But maybe I'm not understanding your questions?

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Also, back to question 1. What value does truth have to a naturalist?

Chasing knowledge me feel good in the very basic sense? It also provides goodies and benefits? It saves lives? It helps people in the more general sense? It improves our quality of life? It allows us to do amazing things?

If we assume naturalism, and natural evolution as a byproduct, can we be confident if ever obtaining any truth

Yeah, why not? We can just never be certain of obtaining the absolute truth.

Evolution would have at least provided us with a tendency to perceive the real-world fairly well, it's adaptive to represent rewards and punishments adequately. However, there are some 'design' flaws. For example, when walking through a dark forest it actually makes adaptive sense to perceive shadows as being agents with intentions - if it is, it gives us a survival advantage - being mauled by a shadowy bear isn't helpful to survival; if it isn't a bear, well only use a small amount of resources. Incorrectly seeing a shadow as an agent is more beneficial than ignoring a shadowy agent.

Such 'design' flaws do feed into the wider world, though


[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Merigold
Truth is subjective to the seeker.

so truth is relative? no one thing is more true than another?

Biology cares not one iota for truth. Our personal quests for truth have no outcome on our biology.

a) how do you know this is true
b) I don't say that our personal quests for truth have a significant impact on our biology. I ask what value truth has to the naturalist? Why is it better to know the truth as opposed to believing a lie?

Religion is one avenue that many have travelled on their search for truth and indeed the evolution of religion closely parallels societal evolution.

I wouldn't disagree with that at the moment.

I do not understand why you assume that a naturalist is "empty" by being devoid of YOUR truth.

I make no assumptions along those lines. prefaced the question with the word "IF". I want to know -in terms of individual people- why its better to know the truth as opposed to believing a lie IF believing a lie makes a person happier? It seems to me that the logical extension of naturalism is that the endgoal one should achieve is fullfillment and happiness in THIS life because there is nothing coming later.
IF personal happiness is the end goal, would truth really be necessary for everyone?

I accept evolution as the way in which life has progressed over these millions of years, I don't feel empty at all, in fact I feel gloriously fulfilled, knowing that we have evolved to the point of discerning our own orgins. I think that is amazing!

Not all evolutionists are naturalists, but all naturalists are evolutionists.
I'm speaking to the naturalist.


First, lets operate under the assumption that naturalism is absolutley TRUE. If you could only pick ONE option, and was forced to exclude the other which would it be? For the entirety of your life.

A) "I feel gloriously fulfilled, but I don't believe in naturalism"

B) "I feel horribley empty, but I know naturalism to be true"

*I am not saying that a belief in naturalism = horrible emptiness. I am posting a hypothetical situation. Would you pick option A) or option B)

But maybe I'm not understanding your questions?

I hope I have clarified.

Originally posted by melatonin

Chasing knowledge me feel good in the very basic sense? It also provides goodies and benefits? It saves lives? It helps people in the more general sense? It improves our quality of life? It allows us to do amazing things?

So, truth is only useful as a means to the end of making you more personally happy. *I'm speaking to you as an individual, not to the society as whole*.

could you please respond to my post above. Which would you pick, A or B.

Yeah, why not? We can just never be certain of obtaining the absolute truth.

Evolution would have at least provided us with a tendency to perceive the real-world fairly well, it's adaptive to represent rewards and punishments adequately. However, there are some 'design' flaws. For example, when walking through a dark forest it actually makes adaptive sense to perceive shadows as being agents with intentions - if it is, it gives us a survival advantage - being mauled by a shadowy bear isn't helpful to survival; if it isn't a bear, well only use a small amount of resources. Incorrectly seeing a shadow as an agent is more beneficial than ignoring a shadowy agent.

Such 'design' flaws do feed into the wider world, though


[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

how can you be certian that your brain actual percieves reality correctly in order to draw these seemingly logical conclusions?

Originally posted by hulkbacker
First, lets operate under the assumption that naturalism is absolutley TRUE. If you could only pick ONE option, and was forced to exclude the other which would it be? For the entirety of your life.

A) "I feel gloriously fulfilled, but I don't believe in naturalism"

B) "I feel horribley empty, but I know naturalism to be true"

*I am not saying that a belief in naturalism = horrible emptiness. I am posting a hypothetical situation. Would you pick option A) or option B)

lol, how desperate are you?

I'd ignore your rather pathetic false dilemma and take option (c) - I feel quite fulfilled and I accept naturalism as a valid position about our existence.

Originally posted by hulkbacker
So, truth is only useful as a means to the end of making you more personally happy. *I'm speaking to you as an individual, not to the society as whole*.

Not always. Science might produce 'truth' that makes me personally unhappy. But I have the background satisfaction of advancing knowledge.

could you please respond to my post above. Which would you pick, A or B.

This forum really needs you.

how can you be certian that your brain actual percieves reality correctly in order to draw these seemingly logical conclusions?

Who said I have to be certain? I work on degrees of certainity.

For all I know we are all brains in vats. And you know no better either.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

lol, how desperate are you?

I'd ignore your rather pathetic false dilemma and take option (c) - I feel quite fulfilled and I accept naturalism as a valid position about our existence.

Assuming naturalism is true.. would you rather A) feel qutie fulfilled and refute naturalism. or B) feel emtpy and void but accept naturalism.

I don't see what so offensive about answering this question. To a naturalist, whats more important to you as an individual? the truth or your personal happiness? Why?

Not always. Science might produce 'truth' that makes me personally unhappy. But I have the background satisfaction of advancing knowledge.

a) science does not produce truth. It may however discover truth.
b) so the truth science uncovers only has personal relevence to you if it provides you with satisfaction? (or happiness). Not that individual truths provide you with personal satisfaction as concerned with that singular truth , but the concept that "knowing" truths in general provide you with satisfaction. In which case, truth would be a means to an end. Knowing the truth is only valuable to you because it provides you with satisfaction.
If the end goal is satisfaction(for the individual), then why would it really matter how that end goal is attained? Why would the truth be more valueable than a lie? if each reach the end goal.

This forum really needs you.

thanks

Who said I have to be certain? I work on degrees of certainity.

For all I know we are all brains in vats. And you know no better either.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

True. we can't know anything unless we know everything.
So we must then at least be hopeful that our views are logically consistent within ourselves. That gets back to my initial question....

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Assuming naturalism is true.. would you rather A) feel qutie fulfilled and refute naturalism. or B) feel emtpy and void but accept naturalism.

I don't see what so offensive about answering this question. To a naturalist, whats more important to you as an individual? the truth or your personal happiness? Why?

It's an informal logical fallacy.

As I said, I'd rather (c).

But, to get away from your pathetic dilemma, lets take an example with real-world consequences rather than your pathetic fallacy. If I had cancer, I would rather my doctor tell me the truth, than to lie to me in an effort to make me feel good and leave me in total 'blissful' ignorance.

I would expect to feel sad when told the situation, but not really for myself. Hard to know until I was actually in that situation.

a) science does not produce truth. It may however discover truth.

Wow, we really need another semantic pedant. Join the new borg, they'll welcome you with open arms.

b) so the truth science uncovers only has personal relevence to you if it provides you with satisfaction? (or happiness). Not that individual truths provide you with personal satisfaction as concerned with that singular truth , but the concept that "knowing" truths in general provide you with satisfaction. In which case, truth would be a means to an end. Knowing the truth is only valuable to you because it provides you with satisfaction.
If the end goal is satisfaction(for the individual), then why would it really matter how that end goal is attained? Why would the truth be more valueable than a lie? if each reach the end goal.

What the hell does that mean? It could be completely unsatisfying in some ways, and satisfying in others. My satisfaction only drives my motivation. I am continually unsatisfied with outcomes in science, but I accept it. Gotta kiss a few frogs to find the prince (jeez, sounds like this subforum at the moment). Get away from the binary logic.

Yes, the truth tends to be more valuable than a lie.

I determine that, the universe couldn't give a hoot. That is my personal value.

True. we can't know anything unless we know everything.
So we must then at least be hopeful that our views are logically consistent within ourselves. That gets back to my initial question....

Yeah, and it appears that your views seem to be pretty successful in excreting fallacies.

The way we assess the veracity of our knowledge is by testing its consistency. Rather than just making stuff up and accepting that with no evidence.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Why would knowing the truth of you terminal cancer be better than believing a lie?
Is it because you would be more fulfilled if that was the case. By virtue of your own hypothetical, you are essentially saying you would "rather" have it one way or the other? The way you would rather have it brings you more fullfillment or wouldn't actually "rather" have it that way.
Again, truth is valueable if its a means to the end of personal fullfillment.


what, as you have determined it, make the truth in general more valueable than a lie?

I suspect, it is because more often than not, truth leads to happiness. In which case the point still stands. From a view of naturalism, truth is only relevent as a means to an end for happiness.
Personal happiness and fullfillment are the goals. If believing a lie can reach those same goals, what makes truth more valuable?



[edit on 9-3-2009 by hulkbacker]

Originally posted by hulkbacker

Why would knowing the truth of you terminal cancer be better than believing a lie?
Is it because you would be more fulfilled if that was the case. By virtue of your own hypothetical, you are essentially saying you would "rather" have it one way or the other? The way you would rather have it brings you more fullfillment or wouldn't actually "rather" have it that way.
Again, truth is valueable if its a means to the end of personal fullfillment.

Nothing to do with fulfillment, really. Firstly, I would personally rather know - as this would be helpful for various reasons. Secondly, I wouldn't appreciate being BS'd for little justifiable reason.

what, as you have determined it, make the truth in general more valueable than a lie?

It makes for a better society in general?. By grasping the reality of the world as best as humanly possible, we are best equipped.

I suspect, it is because more often than not, truth leads to happiness. In which case the point still stands. From a view of naturalism, truth is only relevent as a means to an end for happiness.
Personal happiness and fullfillment are the goals. If believing a lie can reach those same goals, what makes truth more valuable?

Generally, the point in the cancer example is that I will die either way if terminal. So the 'greatest good' would not be served by me being in a situation of ignorance for multiple reasons. So it's not just about personal happiness and satisfaction, but sometimes it is.

Sometimes the truth hurts, my dear. It's not always flowers and balloons.

Would I want the humans of the earth to know that a 10 mile comet will smash them to pieces in 12 hours and we have no response? Probably, as at least people could be with their loved ones and we could make some prep. Either way we would probably be buggered.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Nothing to do with fulfillment, really. Firstly, I would personally rather know - as this would be helpful for various reasons. Secondly, I wouldn't appreciate being BS'd for little justifiable reason.

what makes knowing the truth helpful? why is being helpful important?
what about knowing the truth in this scenario is better than not knowing the truth except how it makes you feel. By your own admission, knowing the truth makes you feel better whether it is by direct or indirect means. Your personal objective is still doing what make you feel better. The truth.. In this instance, is a means to that end.
We can use fullfillment, happiness whatever word you like.

It makes for a better society in general?. By grasping the reality of the world as best as humanly possible, we are best equipped.

Irrelevent to the individual. Unless the individual gets joy/ happiness out of advancing the truth for the cause of the society as a whole. Truth is still no more than a means to reach the end of personal happiness.

Generally, the point in the cancer example is that I will die either way if terminal. So the 'greatest good' would not be served by me being in a situation of ignorance for multiple reasons. So it's not just about personal happiness and satisfaction, but sometimes it is.

why do you prefer the "greatest good" as opposed to a "lesser good"?
In this case, truth makes you happy because you feel knowing it servers the "greater good". Again, truth in itself is used here as a means to personal satisfaction. IF one can gain that personal satisfaction from what is not true, what advantage does truth have for the one individual over the other?

Sometimes the truth hurts, my dear. It's not always flowers and balloons.

I couldn't agree more. But what value does it have outside of being a vehicle for happiness. From the standpoint of naturalism, of course.

Would I want the humans of the earth to know that a 10 mile comet will smash them to pieces in 12 hours and we have no response? Probably, as at least people could be with their loved ones and we could make some prep. Either way we would probably be buggered.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

So again, the truth becomes a vehicle to make the majority feel better. OR you, perhaps to "feel better", knowing that you served the "greater good" at least give them time with thier families and all that.

What if your child was about to be obliterated by a comet. You were unable to do anything to save them or allow them to avoid thier immiment death. The asteroid is 8-10 seconds from blowing them to smitherines.
You can utter 1 of 2 statements as your last words to your child. But you may pick only 1.

1) I love you.

2) You are about to be demolished by an asteroid and your life will be snuffed out, you will cease to exist all together.

which option do you pick?


(I realize that both options 1 & 2 could very well be the truth, so you wouldn't necessarily be choosing between truth and non truth. The example only serves to show what is most important. Is it most important that your child feel fulfilled and happy or that they have the most detailed and reliable picture of the truth?)

Originally posted by hulkbacker
what makes knowing the truth helpful? why is being helpful important?
what about knowing the truth in this scenario is better than not knowing the truth except how it makes you feel. By your own admission, knowing the truth makes you feel better whether it is by direct or indirect means. Your personal objective is still doing what make you feel better. The truth.. In this instance, is a means to that end.
We can use fullfillment, happiness whatever word you like.

Jeez, I can see this is going to fun. Who said it's just about how it makes me feel?

It's also good generally.

It makes for a better society in general?. By grasping the reality of the world as best as humanly possible, we are best equipped.

Irrelevent to the individual. Unless the individual gets joy/ happiness out of advancing the truth for the cause of the society as a whole. Truth is still no more than a means to reach the end of personal happiness.

Luckily, I am able to care about more than just me. Sometimes I actually defer my personal interest to help or benefit others. Shocking, I know.

You can keep trying to confine this to just me, but in reality, it's not.

why do you prefer the "greatest good" as opposed to a "lesser good"?
In this case, truth makes you happy because you feel knowing it servers the "greater good". Again, truth in itself is used here as a means to personal satisfaction. IF one can gain that personal satisfaction from what is not true, what advantage does truth have for the one individual over the other?

Because it generally makes sense?

Is this like 20 inane questions? Do you have a school project or something?

Sometimes the truth hurts, my dear. It's not always flowers and balloons.

I couldn't agree more. But what value does it have outside of being a vehicle for happiness. From the standpoint of naturalism, of course.

Because it also has utility, because it has value? As I have stated, it's not always going to provide happiness.

I've actually answered this multiple times. All you are trying to do is confine this to the personal domain. Please.

So again, the truth becomes a vehicle to make the majority feel better. OR you, perhaps to "feel better", knowing that you served the "greater good" at least give them time with thier families and all that.

How would knowing that you are about to be struck by a 10 mile comet make the majority feel better? lol. I would make the best decision I could in that situation.

It would be about making the best from a bad situation. By not telling them it's quite possible that 'blissful' ignorance leads to greater happiness. Hard to say, but pushed, I'd probably make that decision.

What if your child was about to be obliterated by a comet. You were unable to do anything to save them or allow them to avoid thier immiment death. The asteroid is 8-10 seconds from blowing them to smitherines.
You can utter 1 of 2 statements as your last words to your child. But you may pick only 1.

1) I love you.

2) You are about to be demolished by an asteroid and your life will be snuffed out, you will cease to exist all together.

which option do you pick?

(I realize that both options 1 & 2 could very well be the truth, so you wouldn't necessarily be choosing between truth and non truth. The example only serves to show what is most important. Is it most important that your child feel fulfilled and happy or that they have the most detailed and reliable picture of the truth?)

Again with the inane false dilemmas, lol.

I would hope I would sputter a 'I love you'. As the truth wouldn't be helpful in any way, I'd just be telling my boy what he already accepts, apart from the comet bit. Indeed, if I was able to talk to them, I'd probably be done as well. Again, I would make the best of a bad situation.

lol, this is rather silly. Is there actually any point to this? If you have some amazing insight, spill it, because you're boring me already.

So, give me something useful to cling to, as this is getting tedious.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Here are my feelings...sorry to interrupt your debate.

Truth, in it's most raw form, is the share common perception by the majority of the observers.

To use the example of the car avoiding children...if every time a child went in the street, they were killed, it would be the accepted truth that street = death by auto. The one time that a child, however foolish, went into the street and was not killed, it defies the accepted truth and a new paradigm is created (or you could say that the old paradigm was modified). The new accepted truth is street SOMETIMES = death by auto.

This is how survival works. A bear will not ALWAYS kill you if you encounter it, but it works to your survival advantage to avoid encounters with bears.

To say a belief in a falsehood can help as much as belief in a truth is generally true. If the two different beliefs end in the same outcome, it comes down to personal freedoms. It would be in the best interest though of each person to seek as many freedoms as possible without risking not coming out with the same end. This is religion, for the most part.

No one can be absolutely positive what happens in the end. I don't care what side of the fence you live and play on. Not one person really knows for sure. They can only believe in their set of truth or lies and see what the outcome is in the end. Hopefully they lead their life the way they want to in the time they have.

In response to the last question posed...perceiving something as true and deciding whether to share that truth has caused every good thing and every evil thing that has ever happened.

Originally posted by melatonin
Jeez, I can see this is going to fun. Who said it's just about how it makes me feel?

you did. you expressed a certian dissatisfaction with being told a lie. They may have been intermediate steps from the lie or truth to your feeling, but the ultimate end was how it made you feel on the matter.

It's also good generally.

what makes it good? how can good even be defined?

Luckily, I am able to care about more than just me. Sometimes I actually defer my personal interest to help or benefit others. Shocking, I know.

I have little doubt about this. But do you not get some sense of fulfillment/joy/whatever out of helping others. Doesn't it help you look yourself in the eye and know that you have done the "right thing"?

You can keep trying to confine this to just me, but in reality, it's not

I never said that it only applies to you. Truth is a means to an end for the naturalist. It must be. it serves no other purpose. Whether the naturalist acknowledges this or not isn't the question. If truth is the "means", the "end" is ultimatley whats important for the individual. Which gets me back to where I started. A false belief can be everybit as valuable as a true one.

Because it generally makes sense?

but a false belief would make sense to that believer as well. There is really no distinction there.

Because it also has utility

what utility does the truth server

because it has value?

and I don't think its logical to answer the question "what value does truth have?" with "because it has value".
]

As I have stated, it's not always going to provide happiness.

I didn't say that truth always provides happines. I said it serves no real purpose to the individual unless it does so.

I've actually answered this multiple times. All you are trying to do is confine this to the personal domain. Please.

Actually, you are just using different ways to say that "truth is important when it makes me happy" but don't seem to notice you are doing so.

.

How would knowing that you are about to be struck by a 10 mile comet make the majority feel better? lol. I would make the best decision I could in that situation.

OR you, perhaps to "feel better", knowing that you served the "greater good" at least give them time with thier families and all that

It would be about making the best from a bad situation. By not telling them it's quite possible that 'blissful' ignorance leads to greater happiness. Hard to say, but pushed, I'd probably make that decision.

based on?

I would hope I would sputter a 'I love you'. As the truth wouldn't be helpful in any way, I'd just be telling my boy what he already accepts, apart from the comet bit.

Ah. finally. The truth is only valuable in serving a purpose.

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Ah. finally. The truth is only valuable in serving a purpose.

Didn't actually say that. It can and does have the potential to serve a purpose.

Knowledge/pursuit of truth has worth in and of itself. For example, as a naturalist I don't believe in pixies, but it's hard to disprove them. If we were suddenly able to show pixies to be false, we would have a potential truth about the world, but is not really of any great consequence to me as an apixiest - no real purpose, rather useless to be honest, but the knowledge is still worth having, I guess. Rather they spent their time and resources curing cancer or something. Although the pixiest might find the truth hurtful.

Another example, some biologist might find that the Pink-spotted aphid actually uses the stem of the elf-flower as a tool in its intricate foreplay - not really valuable or serving any great purpose to me - would perhaps raise a laugh. Suppose someone else might find it of value. Who knows? Perhaps some people find aphid pr0n fulfilling and would open up all sorts of avenues.

So, I ignored the rest, as I'm waiting for the grand revelation. Or was the above it? Another 'gotcha!' thread from the 'new creationists'?

Cool. Bring a friend, we're having a shindig! More the merrier. I'm sure you'll all make a great impact on the world here, lol.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
.

lol, this is rather silly. Is there actually any point to this? If you have some amazing insight, spill it, because you're boring me already.

So, give me something useful to cling to, as this is getting tedious.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Well, I tried to reach this point in one of my earlier posts. But you refused to answer the questions. Thus I had to take a less direct approach.

Now that we have established that the truth is only a means to an end. what if that end is met without the truth? What makes truth more valuable to meeting that end than any other medium?

I'll repeat my earlier post. IF we assume naturalism as true. Who is in the more enviable posistion?

The theist that gets comfort, joy, and fulfillment out of believing a lie.

OR

The naturailst that is left unfulfilled knowing the truth.

(*note. I am not implying that naturalim necessarily leads to emptiness or that theism leads to fulfillment)
In this particular scenario, would not believing a lie be more valuable than knowing the truth for these examples as individuals?

Now I ask. "How can a naturalist claim any form of superiority over a theist, even IF naturalism is true"?

If both are equally fulfilled(the objective if each individual)

by thier beliefs,( true or false, )

then each belief is in fact just as valuable as the other?


Nothing is gained, and nothing is lost in knowing or not knowing the truth in purley natural model of existence. Not in these contexts.


The point of all this, is that in Theism (especially of the Judeo/Christian sort) the reverse is not true. Personal fulfillment in this reality is not, or better, SHOULD NOT be the end goal for each person as an individual.
If we exchange the scenario's--

For these purposes, we assume the Christian worldview to be correct.

The theist is left unfulfilled by his knowledge that God is responsible for all, and that he, is in turn responsible to God.

The naturalist is fulfilled by his wrong belief that God does not exist and that he owes this God no worship.

In this instance, the only hope rests in truth. Only through truth can the actual objective be achieved. Truth still only has value as a means to the end. But in this case the end goes far beyond our natural world. In this one instance, the naturalists lie can be more valuable in achieving temporay success. But it will ultimatley lead to utter horror.
The theists truth may well lead to temporary repulsion, but it is only thru this truth can any individual actual obtain the true eternal goal.

Basically, its just another way of wording Pascal's wager. Only I emphasize that not only can the naturalist fail to look upon the theist after death and say "I told you so", but he can't even look down upon the theist in THIS life and say "I told you so", even If it could be proven him that he was correct.