Should we promote harmony or truth?

Consider this hypothetical: There are four well established and respected religious groups (for example, Islam ,Hinduism ,Christianity, Atheism). Their doctrines disagree about the nature of the supernatural. In the interest of harmony they decide to get together and determine what their ideas about the supernatural have in common. After some time they release a statement of their commons beliefs about that topic. Question: Is their joint statement more likely or less likely to be true than the beliefs traditionally held by one of the groups? Thanks for your feedback!

Question: Is their joint statement more likely or less likely to be true than the beliefs traditionally held by one of the groups?

Well, the criteria for and comparison of "true" would be relative and subjective to each religion in this hypothetical situation. It would be more for some and less for others. I would say they would come up with views that coincided with a lot of the views Universalism holds, which would be "more" for Hinduism and Atheism and "less" for Islam and Christianity, loosely speaking.

Truths are not voted in by consensus.

Truths are not voted in by consensus.

Some truths are a priori: All bachelors are single.
Some are relative: Buddhism is better than Atheism.
What is an example of a truth that you think should not be arrived at by consensus?

Truths are not voted in by consensus.

Example of a priori.

Some truths are a priori: All bachelors are single.
Some are relative: Buddhism is better than Atheism.

Strangely enough, theses are both relative... We decide probably via the dictionary(which by enlarge is the reflection of a consensus of the folks at oxford) what the meaning of "bachelors" and "single" mean(in actuality this works both ways; I'm simply making a point).

No matter how many people agree: 1 apple + 1 apple =5 apples , that doesn't change the fact that there are only 2 apples in actuality.

A consensus can be mistaken just as much as a single person can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, the op.

Question: Is their joint statement more likely or less likely to be true than the beliefs traditionally held by one of the groups?

There agreeing and cooperating would be a grand achievement, but it would not make any of their beliefs, even the joint agreed upon one, any more true.

If the question is essentially asking: can the agreement of these groups saying there is/is-not a god prove that a god exists/does-not-exist? The answer is no. We're going to need something more objective than that for it to be any more true. Even If there cooperating is a miracle in it self. Now, if there cooperation somehow coaxes god to literally show himself; that's a different story.

[Scott]

This reminds me of Hegel's basic philosophical method; by which I mean the idea that we make progress towards understanding and truth via the synthesis of the thesis and antithesis.

A priori statements aside, of course an a posteriori statement isn't true or a theory valid simply because a majority of people believe it is. However, as a matter of practical methodology, when we have people who strongly disagree, reasonably and civilly discuss and debate with each other and then come to an agreement about some things by synthesizing their beliefs or theories then the synthesis tends to be more reliable than either of the original contentions. In that way, we can say there is often a correlation between consensus after debate and truth, even though it is still not an absolute relationship.

Truths are not voted in by consensus.

I agree with Meleagar on this one.
Truth is simply another word for 'Reality'.
You cannot vote Reality in or out.
You have first to discover it, then understand it and finally accept it.

The problem with people is that they think they can decide or pretend to know what is true... By believing.
Once you allow beliefs to become your 'reality', Reality doesn't exist anymore, everything is illusion and/or delusion.

To answer the Op question by a simple sentence:
Harmony can only exist in truth.

I think one of the fundamental questions one needs to ask themselves is: if there was a choice between truth and happiness, which would you prefer, and why?

There really isn't a choice of happiness or understanding. One can find happiness in anything. Once you've reached a higher understanding, you'll realize you can't seek what you already have and that emotions only cloud rational thought.

Some truths are a priori: All bachelors are single.
Some are relative: Buddhism is better than Atheism.

Strangely enough, theses are both relative... We decide probably via the dictionary(which by enlarge is the reflection of a consensus of the folks at oxford) what the meaning of "bachelors" and "single" mean(in actuality this works both ways; I'm simply making a point).

And, strangely enough, after having made a very good and observant point indeed, you add:

No matter how many people agree: 1 apple + 1 apple =5 apples , that doesn't change the fact that there are only 2 apples in actuality.

Still, as soon as applied to the physical, results of mathematics become only relatively true. For, ought we not here for instance, ask: why view them [apples] as a pair of "ones" and not as X amounts of atoms? Is it because of what the naked eye sees and sees not? Perhaps...
Yet, it is still just as true, that what we have before us isa bunch of atoms [a trunch of neurons, maybe], which do not at all add up to a pair of "ones" of anything(or to five "singles" of anything, for that matter).

We chose to speak of "apples" and not "atoms", which means we chose a perspective on "reality". This is of course fine because it is absolutely necessary. But, we must not forget, that in no way, is our chosen perspective the only possible true one!

Nowadays, when it comes to atoms, we know they are there despite the fact that we do not see them and so, it is easy for us to understand that there are two apples and a bunch of atoms, and that these statements describe same thing in different ways. But there may be similar situations in which that may not be so clear, though still just as true.
Am I making any sense any longer? Oh, dear...

Hermit

IF enough people think they reside in the same reality [which humans think they reside in this reality] truth can and is voted for by consensus. That is why people elect and vote for their government: [I`m not saying the government elected tell them the truth] but that is why people vote them in, they believe in the truth of the policies of the party elected. Whether the outcome of voting that party in becomes the truth promoted for their election remains to be seen.
I would promote truth over harmony because truth brings harmony creating a false harmony with untruths and where there isn`t harmony results in false dichtomonies. The truth evolves society, I don`t see where falsely promoting harmony would evolve society.

There really isn't a choice of happiness or understanding. One can find happiness in anything. Once you've reached a higher understanding, you'll realize you can't seek what you already have and that emotions only cloud rational thought.

I didn't say there was a choice. I said it's one of the fundamental questions I think one should ask themselves: ***if*** there was a choice, which would you choose?

If truth is agreement (one definition of truth that's hard to disagree with without supporting the definition), then on one level, of course the consensus will be more true than any one belief system.

Maybe everyone can agree that all peaceful profits are good representations of a pantheistic nature-like god (so the atheist can be on board), and that all scripture is flawed, to some degree, and in need of interpretation in a historical context. To please the scientific community we could say "god is an infinite spiritual computer". To please Muslims, we can honor Mohammed and the beauty of the Koran while, like in the case of the Christian Bible, downplaying areas of scripture that are negative or confusingly vague.

We could say to the Atheist that, even if all of these writings are nothing more than historical fiction, can one still form an ethical understanding from even Aesop's fables? Omega Point Theory by Frank Tipler is an interesting intersect between physics and theology- though it rests on many assumptions. Only one of the assumptions in Omega Point need be true- that all possible worlds exist.

Hermit Philosopher, repost #10:

I would simply add that in all likelihood; even atoms are not the same, just the way no two apples are the same(we simply do not have the technology to see such as of yet).

Mathematics is a practical perspective that we all can relate to, not that we necessarily agree upon.

we must not forget, that in no way, is our chosen perspective the only possible true one!

Agreed. Inside the paradox all perspectives are comparably true.