That most people don't have pragmatic notions of truth. That is, they don't believe things because they think believing those things is useful, but because they think the thing they believe is a factual reality that cannot be modified for convenience but has to be dealt with. https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1197983365095256066

So, when a Christian says "Jesus is the son of God," he doesn't mean "I think it would be useful if Jesus were the son of God" but "Jesus is actually the son of God, and accepting this fact of reality is important for the wellbeing of your eternal soul."

If you told the Christian that it would be better for societal cohesion & tolerance for him not to believe that Jesus was the son of God, he'd point out that not believing something makes no difference to the reality & that this actually matters if you want to go to heaven.

Of course, I don't believe the Christian is right about this, but he does and therefore him saying that Jesus is the son of God is not at all puzzling and entirely consistent with his belief that Jesus really is the son of God.

Let's apply this notion of pragmatic truth vs factual truth to something else which should make the logic easier to understand for people who find it incredible that anyone literally believes that Jesus is the son of God.

Factual truth claim: Men are stronger than women.
Pragmatic truth counterclaim: Given the history of gender inequality and the moral benefits of gender equality, it would be wise to quit broadcasting the exclusionary claim that men are stronger than women.

If we think that pragmatic notions of truth are the way to go, we could weigh up the pros and cons of believing that men are stronger than women for society and come to a conclusion. It shouldn't need to be said that this will have absolutely no effect on the biological reality.

Maybe that's OK, tho? If it worked out better socially - eg, eradicated sexism - for everyone to believe that there are no significant differences between men & women except genitals, the pragmatic notion of truth has been more helpful than the factual notion of truth? I say no.

The reason I say this is because I think that factual truth has an inbuilt advantage over pragmatic truth in that in the longterm believing things that correspond with reality is extremely useful. Back to the God question.

If it is true that a certain God existed & believing in it or not has profound consequences for whether or not your eternal afterlife is filled with pain or bliss, this is important to know. If this is not true, this is also important to know as it will influence how you live.

The claim that it is better for society if you don't believe literally in the Christian God depends on the Christian God literally not existing. If it does, it is definitely more beneficial to the ultimate wellbeing of everybody to believe in it & do what it wants.

Therefore urging people to believe metaphorically but not literally in a god relies on them first accepting your premise that their god does not exist. If they don't accept that premise, your exhortations that it's better for them not to believe what they believe is futile.

You've got ahead of yourself. By arguing for a pragmatic truth - it is better not to believe that Jesus is the son of God - you are claiming a factual truth - Jesus is not the son of God - coz if he were it would not be more useful to believe he wasn't.

So, we're back to factual truth and this reveals itself as the thing that needs settling before you can decide what is useful and what isn't.

I once spoke to a feminist who believed in pragmatic truth & she told me that she approved of the methods of Jordan Peterson (who also believes in pragmatic truth) but not his conclusions and herein lies the problem with pragmatic truth.

What beliefs are useful depends very much on what you are trying to achieve and it turned out that the feminist was trying to justify a belief in patriarchal oppression & JBP a belief in the wisdom of biblical narratives and archetypes.

Most people, however, do not believe in pragmatic truth. They might certainly be using motivated reasoning to reach the conclusion they want but, having done so, they will nearly always regard their conclusion as a reflection of reality, not usefulness.

The end. Goodnight.