Disposition toward error

[historia]

In general, which is worse: (a) to believe in something that turns out to be false, or (b) to not believe in something that turns out to be true?

[Miles]

In general, which is worse: (a) to believe in something that turns out to be false, or (b) to not believe in something that turns out to be true?

They could be equally bad.

(a) To believe the bridge you're about to drive over will hold you and your car as you drive over it, when it won't

(b) To not believe the bridge you're about to drive over will fail if you and your car as you drive over it, when it will.

.

[benchwarmer]

In general, which is worse: (a) to believe in something that turns out to be false, or (b) to not believe in something that turns out to be true?

It depends entirely on context.

For (a):

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Mark 16:18

they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

If I believe that and it turns out to be false, I die after drinking poison or getting bitten by a snake.
If I don't believe that, I remain safe as I won't try drinking poison or handling deadly snakes.

For (b):

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... and-health

Elemental and methylmercury are toxic to the central and peripheral nervous systems. The inhalation of mercury vapour can produce harmful effects on the nervous, digestive and immune systems, lungs and kidneys, and may be fatal.

If I believe that and it turns out to be false, I remain safe because I don't expose myself to mercury on purpose.
If I don't believe that and think mercury is fun to play with, I likely end up with mercury poisoning and could die.

I have a feeling I know where this is trying to lead, but I guess we will find out on further discussion.

[tigger 2]

The example from Mark 16:18 is flawed.

Mark 16:9-20 "Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8...." - NIVSB f.n.

[benchwarmer]

The example from Mark 16:18 is flawed.

Mark 16:9-20 "Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8...." - NIVSB f.n.

What does that have to do with the OP? Whether the text is actually true or not is irrelevant. The point was whether someone BELIEVES it's true or not. I could have made up some random ideas, but thought something we all know about (true or not) makes the point I was going for.

[Tcg]

It depends entirely on context.

For (a):

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Mark 16:18

they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

If I believe that and it turns out to be false, I die after drinking poison or getting bitten by a snake.
If I don't believe that, I remain safe as I won't try drinking poison or handling deadly snakes.

If you were to believe that and handled deadly snakes as a result, you would not be the first to die as a result of that belief. Here is but one example of a believer who has died based on their belief in that Mark passage:



Pastor Jamie Coots died on February 15, 2014 as a result of being bit by a rattlesnake he handled during a religious service. In spite of that event, his son Cody Coots has taken over his father's pastorate and continues to handle snakes based on his belief that the Mark passage is true. No matter the source of the passage, people who accept it as true are a perfect example of folks dying because of their belief.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

It depends entirely on the culture.

1. If you live in a gullible or trusting culture it's best to believe everything as a default, and only denounce something when you're sure, and maybe even then keep your mouth shut. Otherwise you'll face ridicule and seem like an overly antagonistic person.

2. If you live in a dismissive/incredulous culture you're much more likely to get ridiculed for believing in conspiracy theories than for dismissing everything out of hand, which if done right will make you seem incredibly intelligent and logical.

As to practical effects that don't depend on the culture, just be sure before you act and it doesn't really make a difference whether you're acting on a negative or a positive. Any negative can be phrased as a positive and vice-versa. Whether something is negative or positive depends on the culture anyway, so boop on back to 1 and 2.

It may seem like I'm not responding to the OP, so watch this:

In general, which is worse: (a) to believe in something that turns out to be false, or (b) to not believe in something that turns out to be true?

I do not believe that snake will bite me. Ow he bit me! (Now, I am not believing in something that turned out to be true: The snake will bite me.)

I believe the snake won't bite me. Ow he bit me! (Now, I am believing in something that turned out to be false: The snake won't bite me.)

[JehovahsWitness]

In general, which is worse: (a) to believe in something that turns out to be false, or (b) to not believe in something that turns out to be true?

Humm... good question. I think both are sides of the same thing since both imply taking a position and subsequently needing to revise that position. The person who " believes in something that turns out to be false" is either a victim of misinformation or gullibility (or both). The person who "does not believe in something that turns out to be true", is either ignorant or rejected revelant information. The former may only be a victim but the latter may be a victim or have been unduly rash.

I suppose what you are trying to highlight is a disposition to believe as opposed to rampant sceptism. But I think in the end, you ask the wrong question. In my opinion there are only two types of people: those that love and value truth, and those for whom such people remain a puzzlement.

If I didn't know it already, this " COVID era" we presently find ourselves in, has brought into sharp relief, that the former are a tiny minority. None of those in the former group need ask me how COVID has illustrated this point ; we speak out own language from the alphabets of an inquisative heart. I say "heart" because it is not just an intellectual exercise, it is a quest for TRUTH no matter what. And it's a willingness to continue the search no matter how unconventional, inconvenient or humiliating the mistakes along the way may be.

So which is worse? I think it is better to believe in the existence of truth (since truth must exist) and be proven wrong in ones search, than to be so skeptical one errs on the side of immobility and never begins the journey (or gives up because one was wrong). The radical sceptic does nor believe truth is attainable and as a certain carpenter from Nazareth implied, from such a position one can never be truly free.

[nobspeople]

In general, which is worse: (a) to believe in something that turns out to be false, or (b) to not believe in something that turns out to be true?

I'm not sure this can be answered adequately without knowing what the things are and the consequence of not believing.

If I believe I can fly, but find out they can't, the only 'bad' thing would be having to change my belief.

If I believe I can fly, and test that by jumping off the roof, I crash-n-burn, which isn't a good thing.


So I'm not sure asking a thing can be done so generally.

[Diagoras]

In general, which is worse: (a) to believe in something that turns out to be false, or (b) to not believe in something that turns out to be true?

As others have already opined, context is important.

More relevant (in my opinion) is the process by which a person reaches their decision to believe or not believe. Consider the quantity and quality of any evidence used (or ignored) to support their position. Consider the ‘belief framework’ that the person used. Someone brought up in a strict religious community may act as ‘rationally’ as someone taught to use critical thinking, logic and the scientific method.

Not directly answering the OP, but I posit it’s worse to continue to believe/not believe something when presented with much stronger evidence from the ‘opposing’ position.