Human Organizations and the Pursuit of Happiness
God and Systems
God created material things to operate as systems and a thoughtful look at reality reveals this truth clearly. Galaxies rotate systematically, our solar system is called a “system” and operates in highly predictable ways, we also speak of ecological systems and weather systems. As to human bodies, we are comprised of a muscular system, a skeletal system, a respiratory system, a circulatory system, a nervous system, and others. God is a systematic God and has caused things to work in an orderly way. “Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven” (Job 25:2).
It is no surprise, therefore, to see human beings grouping themselves in various organizations in a systematic way. The way we choose to bind ourselves to others in official and non-official organizations is an amazing study. Consider the following: there are basically four large categories of human groupings that we observe (if you can think of more, I’d appreciate the feedback).
Four Categories of Human Groupings
First, the social category. This category speaks about our basic relationships with other people (friends, families, neighbors, clubs, schools, etc) and our particular personal characteristics. For example, if Susan is an African American female, she is in a certain racial class (African American) and a certain gender class (female), but both of these pertain to the social realm. If she decides to marry someone than she belongs to the group of people who are married as opposed to the group who are single. By the way, some of the social human groupings we are a part of (like age, race, nationality, and so on) we have no control over. Others we do (such as whether to marry someone who is older or someone who is younger).
Second, the business category. Business is basically the exchange of goods or the exchange of money for goods. We all are involved heavily in many businesses, whether through owning them, working for them, or shopping with them. Every time you shop at Wal-mart, you are effectively identifying yourself with that company and supporting them (I am not anti-Wal-mart, just making a point).
Third, the government category. We all are citizens of many governments. I am a citizen of Birmingham, AL, Jefferson County, Al, the state of Alabama, and the United States of America. (I would also add heaven). All of these are organization I identify with and support through paying taxes and in other ways. This category would include government sponsored organizations such as the military and the post office.
Fourth, the religious category. Everybody groups themselves into some religious category as well. There are many realms of this category. For example, I am a Christian. I also am a conservative Christian. I also am a Baptist. I also am a Southern Baptist. I also am an Evangelical. Someone else might be an atheist (though they might attempt to state that they are not religious but simply withholding all religious beliefs. But being an atheist is a religious position since it requires faith and it seeks to answer the same questions that religious faith does). Someone else might be a Buddhist. Of course the list could go on and one. But the point is, this category of human groupings deals with the ultimate questions of life (Who am I? Why am I here? Is there a God? Who is He? And so on).
Now, we could say many things about these four categories of human groupings (books could be written). For example, we could talk about how most organizations are not any one of the categories above, but usually a mix of two or more. A government, for instance, also runs as a business in many respects. But it is chiefly a government and the business end supports the governing end, therefore it is primarily a government.
Human Organizations and Happiness
Much more could be said about that, but I want to emphasize a very important issue concerning the purpose of human organizations – namely, that the reason all of these organizations exist is to seek fulfillment and happiness for its members. We enter into social relationships hoping that they make us happy. We open businesses and shop at certain businesses in order to obtain the things we need – which tend to our happiness. Governments exist to provide order and stability for a society – necessary elements for personal happiness. Religious groups exist for the happiness of its members (the Bible is full of language about joy and delight for example). So all of these organizations exist for the main purpose of providing human happiness. I can’t think of one human organization that ultimately exists for some other reason.
But it is important to put a qualifier here. These organizations exist for the happiness of the members – AS THAT ORGANIZATION DEFINES HAPPINESS. So at my church we have this mission statement “Our church exists to worship God by passionately believing and communicating to all peoples that God is the greatest Treasure there is and in Him there is fullness of joy.” I recognize that the purpose of my church is to make people happy by showing them the power, love, and salvation of God, thus I define happiness as knowing God and being in a living relationship with Him.
But some human organizations are terrible! Are they seeking human happiness too? Hitler’s government was an awful human organization. But even still, he was striving for human happiness as he defined it. Even if his definition of happiness was about a million miles off accurate, that is still what he wanted. Read his chapter in Mein Kempf on Nation and Race and you see his arguments that his position on these issues leads to the best end for humanity. He writes, “Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people.”
And so businesses strive to make customers happy as they define it. Governments strive to make citizens happy as they define it. People get married believing it will lead to happiness. They have kids for the same reason. Churches strive to make congregations happy (even if it means revealing their sin first). On and on we could go. There seems to be few exceptions to the rule.
Now, knowing these truths will help us understand why we join ourselves to various organizations. We are striving after happiness and fulfillment and see that a certain organization has the potential to bring us there. If you know this, you will begin asking the question (and you should), which human organization can bring me the most happiness?
God created material things to operate as systems and a thoughtful look at reality reveals this truth clearly. Galaxies rotate systematically, our solar system is called a “system” and operates in highly predictable ways, we also speak of ecological systems and weather systems. As to human bodies, we are comprised of a muscular system, a skeletal system, a respiratory system, a circulatory system, a nervous system, and others. God is a systematic God and has caused things to work in an orderly way. “Dominion and awe belong to God; he establishes order in the heights of heaven” (Job 25:2).
It is no surprise, therefore, to see human beings grouping themselves in various organizations in a systematic way. The way we choose to bind ourselves to others in official and non-official organizations is an amazing study. Consider the following: there are basically four large categories of human groupings that we observe (if you can think of more, I’d appreciate the feedback).
Four Categories of Human Groupings
First, the social category. This category speaks about our basic relationships with other people (friends, families, neighbors, clubs, schools, etc) and our particular personal characteristics. For example, if Susan is an African American female, she is in a certain racial class (African American) and a certain gender class (female), but both of these pertain to the social realm. If she decides to marry someone than she belongs to the group of people who are married as opposed to the group who are single. By the way, some of the social human groupings we are a part of (like age, race, nationality, and so on) we have no control over. Others we do (such as whether to marry someone who is older or someone who is younger).
Second, the business category. Business is basically the exchange of goods or the exchange of money for goods. We all are involved heavily in many businesses, whether through owning them, working for them, or shopping with them. Every time you shop at Wal-mart, you are effectively identifying yourself with that company and supporting them (I am not anti-Wal-mart, just making a point).
Third, the government category. We all are citizens of many governments. I am a citizen of Birmingham, AL, Jefferson County, Al, the state of Alabama, and the United States of America. (I would also add heaven). All of these are organization I identify with and support through paying taxes and in other ways. This category would include government sponsored organizations such as the military and the post office.
Fourth, the religious category. Everybody groups themselves into some religious category as well. There are many realms of this category. For example, I am a Christian. I also am a conservative Christian. I also am a Baptist. I also am a Southern Baptist. I also am an Evangelical. Someone else might be an atheist (though they might attempt to state that they are not religious but simply withholding all religious beliefs. But being an atheist is a religious position since it requires faith and it seeks to answer the same questions that religious faith does). Someone else might be a Buddhist. Of course the list could go on and one. But the point is, this category of human groupings deals with the ultimate questions of life (Who am I? Why am I here? Is there a God? Who is He? And so on).
Now, we could say many things about these four categories of human groupings (books could be written). For example, we could talk about how most organizations are not any one of the categories above, but usually a mix of two or more. A government, for instance, also runs as a business in many respects. But it is chiefly a government and the business end supports the governing end, therefore it is primarily a government.
Human Organizations and Happiness
Much more could be said about that, but I want to emphasize a very important issue concerning the purpose of human organizations – namely, that the reason all of these organizations exist is to seek fulfillment and happiness for its members. We enter into social relationships hoping that they make us happy. We open businesses and shop at certain businesses in order to obtain the things we need – which tend to our happiness. Governments exist to provide order and stability for a society – necessary elements for personal happiness. Religious groups exist for the happiness of its members (the Bible is full of language about joy and delight for example). So all of these organizations exist for the main purpose of providing human happiness. I can’t think of one human organization that ultimately exists for some other reason.
But it is important to put a qualifier here. These organizations exist for the happiness of the members – AS THAT ORGANIZATION DEFINES HAPPINESS. So at my church we have this mission statement “Our church exists to worship God by passionately believing and communicating to all peoples that God is the greatest Treasure there is and in Him there is fullness of joy.” I recognize that the purpose of my church is to make people happy by showing them the power, love, and salvation of God, thus I define happiness as knowing God and being in a living relationship with Him.
But some human organizations are terrible! Are they seeking human happiness too? Hitler’s government was an awful human organization. But even still, he was striving for human happiness as he defined it. Even if his definition of happiness was about a million miles off accurate, that is still what he wanted. Read his chapter in Mein Kempf on Nation and Race and you see his arguments that his position on these issues leads to the best end for humanity. He writes, “Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people.”
And so businesses strive to make customers happy as they define it. Governments strive to make citizens happy as they define it. People get married believing it will lead to happiness. They have kids for the same reason. Churches strive to make congregations happy (even if it means revealing their sin first). On and on we could go. There seems to be few exceptions to the rule.
Now, knowing these truths will help us understand why we join ourselves to various organizations. We are striving after happiness and fulfillment and see that a certain organization has the potential to bring us there. If you know this, you will begin asking the question (and you should), which human organization can bring me the most happiness?
21 Comments:
Jason,
For once, not so much of a criticism, just a comment. Your post is quite interesting and highlights some of the more intriguing aspects of human social culture.
A point that crossed my mind after reading it. Quite rightly, you outline how social structure in society generally emerges for the benifit and happiness of all; however, I've often felt that there are two differing types of structure - that which serves the common cause, and that which serves a singular cause.
Democratic Governments govern to bring order to the masses, and thus happiness - however, do they do so in order to be re-elected and thus maintain their positions of respect and power? Churches bring community spirit and a sense of belonging in rather the same way, but is it also to maintain their centrality to said community, and retain its respect?
One can look at this two ways; pessimistically - government and church seek to survive and thus perform as they do for their own ends - a business mentality; or optimistically, that the mutual existence of the leaders and the led are symbiotic, benefical to one and all. Despite my own atheistic views, churches perform an undeniable function in bringing people *together* on a regular basis. Government, of course, is central to us all. My opinion is that these are positive and symbiotic realities that do indeed benefit all.
However, people like Hitler seek happiness of a different kind - in the sense that their happiness is singular. They seek power, regardless of its effect on those who rely upon them (their citizens). Dictators want to be happy because their happiness is when they *control* and dominate. The rest of us in the democratic world, fortunately, realise the benifits of mutual happiness and co-existence, and our voting system and opposition parties would reject such dictators before they could obtain power in our countries.
I reckon you're right that everyone, in their own way, seeks happiness. But I also think that they do so whilst constantly balancing what is right with what they can get away with. That, I believe, is progress on the singular scale, something inherent in us all.
Incidentally, a potential additional organisation to add to your list; *tribal*. An archaic term, perhaps, but it's surprising how much of a tribal element remains in the human psyche, and how it comes to the fore on the sad occasions when order and happiness in our lives fails (WW2).
DC
Thanks for your comments D.C. Just a little interaction.
"however, I've often felt that there are two differing types of structure - that which serves the common cause, and that which serves a singular cause."
Very good point. When I said "much more could be written" - insights like this is what I meant.
"Democratic Governments govern to bring order to the masses, and thus happiness - however, do they do so in order to be re-elected and thus maintain their positions of respect and power? Churches bring community spirit and a sense of belonging in rather the same way, but is it also to maintain their centrality to said community, and retain its respect?"
Sure, power and respect are major reasons why human organizations are maintained. I would emphasize that happiness is not the only reason human organizations exist, but it is the end and ultimate reason. To prove the point further, having power and respect are often understood to lead to happiness. And those with power and respect usually try to keep everybody else happy (as they define) recognizing that if the masses are not happy, the powerful will not be happy either.
"However, people like Hitler seek happiness of a different kind - in the sense that their happiness is singular. They seek power, regardless of its effect on those who rely upon them (their citizens). Dictators want to be happy because their happiness is when they *control* and dominate."
Agreed - it is a different kind of happiness. But I think Hitler (and I have to say this tongue in cheek) was taking his views of human beings as mere accidents and macro-evolutionary theory to its logical end. In his view, happiness (for himself and the masses) was linked to dominance and the fulffilment of "survival of the fittest." Thus, in my opinion, Hitler was the most logically consistent atheist who ever lived. (BTW, his professions of Christian faith are bogus and he used that to gain even more power in Germany. Really, a quick reading of Mein Kempf shows that Hitler had many, many beliefs that were totally antithetical to any form of Christian doctrine).
"Incidentally, a potential additional organisation to add to your list; *tribal*."
Good insight. But tribal could also be a sub-category of government. Or even social. The question is, "What common elements makes this organization exist?"
Mmmm,
There's not much evidence to confirm that Hitler was a Christian of any denomination, but there's none at all to label him an atheist. Hitler was without doubt a man of god - however, so was Einstein. Which god, if any in particular, they believed in is a matter of conjecture. Einstein believed in a 'pre-religious' god, for instance.
I'm not a big fan of posting links on blog-sites, but the below shows a lot about what Hitler said and did in his lifetime, both within and beyond Mein Kampf. It's not likely all that he was recorded as saying was done to deceive his public - Hitler was a theist long before he began his rise to power.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
Common elements to a 'tribal' organisation would presumably be ancestral or even geographic. Like you said, identity can be something of a grey area and organisations can overlap. I reckon there's other organisations, but in our lives all would probably come under the umbrella of your original four to one degree or another. I can't think of any right now that don't.
DC
>> But being an atheist is a religious position since it requires faith and it seeks to answer the same questions that religious faith does
This is not always true. Atheism does not require faith (although some atheists may have faith). I guess it depends on which dictionary definition of 'atheism' you use. Some say 'deny god' some say 'lack belief in god or gods'. Go figure.
My point being: I disagree that your 4th category requires that everyone have faith, but I agree that most (if not all) people try to answer the questions you state. For example: some people may try to answer these questions through logic instead of faith (ex: there must be a logical and verifible reason that I exist).
I guess it could be argued that logicians have faith in logic. Seems like an oxymoron to me.
"My point being: I disagree that your 4th category requires that everyone have faith, but I agree that most (if not all) people try to answer the questions you state."
Perhaps a more precise name for the category is religious / philosophical?
Maybe just *philosophical* for the fourth category. After all, regardless of conviction, all religions remain philosophies at heart; possibilities, ideas and hopes.
Perhaps that's just my own atheistic bias, but philisophical would cover all denominations without prejudice, even atheism, which as cadmium points out, doesn't require a faith.
I've wondered whether, in fact, happiness is the right word to describe social systems and their motivation. Would not 'belonging' be a more precise word? It obviously results in happiness, but belonging, an the need to be wanted, is perhaps a more primal and core desire with the human psyche.
DC
As to whether to call the Fourth category merely "philosophical" I would agree. I do not deem my Christian faith anything less than a life system that explain reality. It is called a religion in as much as that term indicates a devotion to God.
"I've wondered whether, in fact, happiness is the right word to describe social systems and their motivation. Would not 'belonging' be a more precise word? It obviously results in happiness, but belonging, an the need to be wanted, is perhaps a more primal and core desire with the human psyche.
Perhaps, but belonging is not an end desire. We want to belong, sure, but that belonging tends to our own satisfaction and happiness with who we are. Few (if any)want to belong for the sake of belonging.
We might also say we want to belong as a mode of survival. Perhaps, again, but survival is still not the end of it. We want to survive and live because these are necessary to our personal fulfillment. At the end of the day, it seems happiness is the purpose.
To all,
Thought you might have something to say about this survey, conducted recently into the effect of religious conviction on happiness (societal health) in democratic countries. Most informative...
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
DC
DC,
Interesting article. I wonder if religious conviction actually contributes to loss of social health, or just have no effect on bettering it. If I had to guess, it would be the latter.
DC, I have printed and will read the article which seems very interesting. Of what I read so far, maybe the most important quote would be:
"This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue."
Having laid that as a premise for discussion, I will read with an open mind.
Thanks for the link.
As cadmium says, and as the survey says also, religion cannot necessarily be blamed for societal ills. However, the survey indeed confirms that religion does not *cure* said ills.
Maybe someone should inform the White House and the various evangelical movements...
DC
But DC, truly the problem with the article and others like it is that it assumes America to be a Christian nation.
But this is simply not the case. In fact, I'm not sure that there is a such thing as a "Christian nation." Or, for that matter, a secular nation. (Though one might speak about majority and minority positions in a legit way). The reason why is because God is calling people from all nations and forming a new one. I Peter 2:9, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession."
I respect the moral stances that our president has made, and I do not doubt that he is a believer in Jesus Christ, but he is not the representative of Christian character. And sure, a substantial portion of Americans are theists, but this does not mean that they all practice the Christian worldview. In fact the article you gave proves contray.
What this means is clear - America is not a good sample of a Christian nation. Maybe of a loosely religious nation. Thus, at best, America can be used to show that just being theists has little effect on the moral condition of a nation.
But if it were possible to group together people who were truly living by faith in Christ - and thus bearing the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23) - I believe that society would fare better than a society that did not consciously practice those things. Common sense tells us this.
The problem - it is not possible to group too many together like that. God has called His people to be salt, scattered across the earth. Thus even in "secular" nations (speaking of who is in the majority), God has his people bearing witness to the truth of his glory and living by the spirit.
Bottom line: it is not good logic to assume that just because a person provides a certain self-label that they are what they claim to be. In other words, if a person says, "I am a Christian," more research is required to see if their claim is true. Or if a person says, "I am an atheist." More research is required. We might follow-up with the so-called atheist and ask, "Do you ever pray?" If they say "Yes," then we have a glarring contradiction.
Likewise, America is filled with people who claim to be Chrisitans, but who are not living by the Christian worldview. Hitler (as per our previous conversation) might have claimed some form of religious ethic, but his actions contradicted any verbal claim.
According to the Bible, these contradictions between what people claim for themselves and what they truly are should be expected. "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of dificulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant...having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power." (II Tim. 3:1-5).
This by the way, was the major difference between William Wilberforce and his "Christian" opponents. Wilberforce was seeking to live constistently by the Bible's teaching (thus attempting to abolish the slave trade), whereas his opponents were playing with the title "Christian."
All this to say, research in this particular area will have much difficulty being accurate for two reasons.
1) People are often not what they claim to be.
2) The Christian church is not isolated in a few Christian nations, but is its own nation scattered throughout the earth.
Jason,
The survey conducted focused on religosity in general, not any one religion in particular. It's findings would apply equaly as well to Iran as the US were it not limited to democratic nations.
Your own interpretation of Christianity as being 'correct' as opposed to that of other Christians only highlights the divisive nature of religosity, supporting the findings of the survey. Quite apart from this, the United States are blatantly predominantly Christian - how they practice it is irrelevant to the survey. I can't believe you wrote that! Likewise, even assuming Hitler lied about any Christian afilliation, his world-view was determinedly theistic - a man acting on his own interpretation of God's 'word'. Again, the survey is supported.
I hate to add this, as this thread is about philisophical issues and not really a head on debate, but I think the following adequately demonstrates the problems the theistic mind has in affirming its own assertions... You wrote that if people lived by the 'Christian' virtues of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23)", then the world would be a better place. I presume this is your version of Christianity. Could you explain how it is that your version of Christianity led you to suggest I commit suicide because of my atheistic, pro-evolution views, in a recent posting?
I think that the survey is supported entirely by the world-view of Christian America, however they might interpret which 'version' of their faith is 'correct'.
DC
>> But DC, truly the problem with the article and others like it is that it assumes America to be a Christian nation.
I'm not sure this is the case. It seemed more like the article was just concerned with religion in general. Actually, the word 'Christian' was only mentioned 4 times, and in no case was its mention tied to the United States.
>> America can be used to show that just being theists has little effect on the moral condition of a nation.
Agreed. I would go so far as to say that the article would indicate this for most nations: Japan can be used to show that not being theists has had little effect (reducing) the moral condition of the nation.
>> Maybe someone should inform the White House and the various evangelical movements...
My guess is that it wouldn't affect them in the least. Politicians would likely embrace murder if 55% of Americans held a positive view of it.
>>
Likewise, America is filled with people who claim to be Chrisitans, but who are not living by the Christian worldview.
Maybe this is why skeptics are so... skeptical.
Cadmium,
Nicely put. I wonder just how much evidence would be required for theists to realise that their beliefs do not promote societal health, or that secularism has no detrimental effect on society at all.
As time goes by, I am more and more convinced by evidence and observation that religion is nothing more than a drug indoctrinated into the minds of the young, which convinces them that they cannot live without it. It's like smoking; those who manage to give up wonder why on earth they 'needed' it in the first place. Answer? They didn't.
DC
“The survey conducted focused on religosity in general, not any one religion in particular. It's findings would apply equaly as well to Iran as the US were it not limited to democratic nations.”
Agreed. But this is a major point.
“Your own interpretation of Christianity as being 'correct' as opposed to that of other Christians only highlights the divisive nature of religosity,
Sure it is devisive, because TRUTH is devisive by nature. If you believe something is true and someone else does not hold to that belief, there is a divide. HOWEVER, being divided does not (emphatically) mean that you hate the person or that you do not tolerate their right to believe whatever they want. For example, you and I disagree as far as possible, however, I would never take arms against you or have the desire to eliminate you. In other words, I believe the “Crusades” were not conducted bases upon biblical truth and behavior. People can call themselves Christians and act very un-Christian-like. I would die for my faith in Christ, yes, but I would not kill for it. BIG difference.
Quite apart from this, the United States are blatantly predominantly Christian - how they practice it is irrelevant to the survey. I can't believe you wrote that!
Then the survey is severely flawed because there are major differences in both belief and practice among the different factions of Christianity. Just as there are major differences of belief and practice among different types of atheists. You probably can’t believe I wrote that because I am not at all supportive of the Christian political right. I believe that have a flawed view of the church as it is to exist in the world. I do not believe the world’s political systems should be the instrument of advancing the Gospel. I believe the organized church exists for that purpose.
Likewise, even assuming Hitler lied about any Christian afilliation (sic), his world-view was determinedly theistic - a man acting on his own interpretation of God's 'word'. Again, the survey is supported.”
Hitler was primarily a follower of F. Nietzsche and regardless of what he might have said in terms of his theism, he conducted his life and ran his government in accordance with Nietzsche’s views. But again, granting that Hitler was religious does not mean he embraced biblical Christianity.
I am going to say something here that is important. I believe that holding false religious views is more dangerous (or at least equally dangerous) than holding no religious views. Thus, the article we read is not surprising to me, because the majority of Americans are holding to false religious views. I believe that there is one true worldview – biblical Christianity. If that worldview is deviated from in any way – secular or religious – than you can expect serious societal ills.
“I hate to add this, as this thread is about philisophical issues and not really a head on debate, but I think the following adequately demonstrates the problems the theistic mind has in affirming its own assertions... You wrote that if people lived by the 'Christian' virtues of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23)", then the world would be a better place. I presume this is your version of Christianity. Could you explain how it is that your version of Christianity led you to suggest I commit suicide because of my atheistic, pro-evolution views, in a recent posting?
Yes this is my version of Christianity – it is also the biblical version. And also common sense tells us that if people demonstrated those character traits than the world would be a better place. My explanation for my challenge to you is more hyperbole than anything. I want to challenge you to be totally consistent within your own worldview. In my thinking, and I mean this, if I believed what you believe, I would kill myself. The reason is because there is no ultimate moral accountability and no hope for life beyond the grave. Then I would see how tough life is – how there is so much pain and suffering. And I would think about my final years of suffering with cancer or heart disease. And for crying out loud, a bullet sounds much better than that! So it is a challenge for you to be consistent. I really mean it in only that way.
“I think that the survey is supported entirely by the world-view of Christian America, however they might interpret which 'version' of their faith is 'correct'.
It is this type of simplicity in grouping various factions together that leads to flawed data.
Cadmium, you said, "Maybe this is why skeptics are so... skeptical."
We certainly agree here. As a pastor, I am constantly trying to get my church to see that they must live lives that reflect the truth of Christ. Every time that are unloving, they make the skeptical more skeptical.
"Nicely put. I wonder just how much evidence would be required for theists to realise that their beliefs do not promote societal health, or that secularism has no detrimental effect on society at all.
As a theist, I agree totally with this - but as in a previous post I emphasize, any deviation from the only true theistic position (Biblical Christianity) - whether it be a secular or religious deviation - will lead to society's detriment.
I would also add that even if we could have a society that was completely filled with those who claim to be biblical Christians and who actually seek to live by that worldview - it still would have soceital ills, because nobody is perfect. We believe that God is working to transform us into His image - but we are not there yet. Also, the Bible warns time and again of apostates, or those who claim to be believers but who actually are not (Judas is the case in point. So even in that society there would be ills.
"As time goes by, I am more and more convinced by evidence and observation that religion is nothing more than a drug indoctrinated into the minds of the young, which convinces them that they cannot live without it. It's like smoking; those who manage to give up wonder why on earth they 'needed' it in the first place. Answer? They didn't."
You sound like Stalin.
>> In my thinking, and I mean this, if I believed what you believe, I would kill myself.
Interestingly, the article seems to indicate that religion seems to have no effect on suicide rates (at least in teenagers). So, perhaps YOU might kill yourself, but statistically it wouldn't have any effect in general.
Side note: DC is obviously an intelligent and philisophical individual. I can think of no greater insult than your above statement.
>> It's like smoking; those who manage to give up wonder why on earth they 'needed' it in the first place. Answer? They didn't.
Perhaps, if by 'need' you mean to achieve happiness, morality (as the article above indicates). Some people practice religion because of their heritage (not because it brings them joy). For this reason, I would argue that religion isn't necessarily drug-like (although to some, it may be).
>> I believe that holding false religious views is more dangerous (or at least equally dangerous) than holding no religious views.
Absolutely. So, for a skeptic, how would they identify the false religions? How many religions/churches are there? 5000? And only 1 is 'true'?
At best, a skeptic may hold off choosing until they had a more clear view. If during this time they noticed that they were happy without having made any choice, they may just stay that way.
>> You sound like Stalin.
Actually, Stalin's stance on religion seemed to be up and down. He used it as a tool to control his people. I think you mean to say that DC sounds like Marx, who warned against the exact type of manipulation that Stalin would then employ.
More info on Marx's views on religion. I was surprised to see that he wasn't actually anti-religious.
"Side note: DC is obviously an intelligent and philisophical individual. I can think of no greater insult than your above statement."
I'm sorry, I fail to see why this would be classified as an insult. I agree that DC is intelligent and philosophical, my point is that if I believed what he believed, I would trace my beliefs to their logical end and that would lead to suicide. I really believe that is the most consistent action within the worldview. Its not an insult. It is my actual understanding of his worldview.
Jason,
It's hard to know where to start. Firstly, I think that Cadmium's referring to an 'insult' actually concerned your comment that I sounded like Stalin. More hyperbole...? Fortunately, I've become used to this kind of semi-subtle mud-slinging from theists, calling me a Darwinist-fundamentalist, or evolutionary-Jihadist, as though I have some terrorist connection. Such things only serve to support my suspicion of less-than-ideal morals harboured by 'God's' people.
None the less, I can understand everything you say when it is viewed from your own perspective; "that biblical Christianity is the one and only truth." The problem is that there is no evidence of this, and considerable evidence against it. It is a *belief* (like all religions) and nothing more, and to start from this point undermines all of your assertions.
I'll try and keep this reply on the thread of 'happiness'.
I'm afraid that all of your assertions that "deviation from your 'correct' Biblical worldview will result in societal ills" is the very thing refuted by the survey. What's more, I myself am living proof that secularism is not damaging in any way whatsoever. I am secular and live in the highly secularised UK. Claims that those without biblical Christianity will spend eternity in hell are the real hyperbole. I live a very happy, content life. I have a strong sense of right and wrong, and try always to live with decency, honesty, dignity and compassion. I've never had a religion. I don't need one, and never have. I consider them unnecessary for morale guidance in any way, and indeed I consider them detrimental to humanity. Why?
Because people follow such religions in order to get themselves a pass-card to heaven. You've said it yourself; what would be the point without having a reward for your 'good' life? I don't see life that way. I accept that some things (including the existence or otherwise of an afterlife) are currently beyond my knowledge, hence they do not affect me in the least. I live as good a life as I can - not for reward, but because it improves the lives of those around me, and in turn, my own. I accept that when I die, I may never exist again. It does not bother me. Why? Because our universe is solidy proven to be 13.7 billion years old, and I didn't exist for all of that time until now. Of course it didn't bother me, because I wasn't here, and nor were you, Jason.
Happiness for me is being *alive*. What comes next is purely speculative, no matter how deeply ingrained one's beliefs. Life is what we have, and I think we should make the most of it by being what we are; humans, not the pawns of some imaginary deity.
I had so much to say here, but I will end with a simple obervsation, based on Jason's comments. You've claimed that you'd take your own life willlingly if there was no god, no heaven, no reward. If, tomorrow, a god was proven to exist (any god) I suspect you would be overjoyed. My life, in contrast, would be unchanged. "So what if there is?" I would have no need to change, because it would have no effect.
Now consider the alternative. Tomorrow, it is proven that god does NOT exist. Again, my life would not change. It would not bother me in the slightest. I would still be happy in my life.
What, Jason, would happen to your happiness?
One of us can live happpily without belief. Then other cannot. You're the one carrying the excess and unnecessary psychological baggage.
DC
P.S. Cadmium - I too noticed the dearth of religious effect on suicide. Then again, suicide is very rare anyway - and religious groups are always heavily pro-life, to the extent of interfering with those who may WANT to take their own lives (euthenasia).
Post a Comment
<< Home