|
Are religious people happier? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you mean the way the catholic church does re gays, masturbation or contraception? :p |
Yes, exactly. FYI, I don't support every position the Vatican holds... only the ones for which their theological support holds up to scrutiny; these three positions don't really fit the bill for me (note: I can understand their positions; however, on all three I think they are born out of more secular concerns with sketchy theological support and maintained by reluctance to abandon centuries of tradition).
| quote: | | :stongue: dude, these threads would suck major arse without your input. ive learned way more from you than i ever did in religious studies :) |
Thank you. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Yes, exactly. |
but isn't that a fundamental (ha!) concern of religion as a whole, if even the most authoritative speakers on the subject have issues with adequate interpretation? youre an awesome christian as far as i can tell through the internet, but i dont see or hear that kind of insight from the people that so often represent christianity as a whole.
or do you think that nice christians (read: all faiths) just rarely make the news? i mean, i sure know plenty that are awesome, and i dont know too many crazies (except for this one girl i de-flowered but i think she was crazy well before she found the lord, but that's another story). yet i have to put up with the opinions of father such-n-such in the local rag because of proposed football games on good friday? where are all the moral hazard's at the pointy end of the religious field??
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
FYI, I don't support every position the Vatican holds... |
haha, mate im like your biggest TA stalker, so yeah i know ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
all three I think they are born out of more secular concerns |
oh, absolutely. |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| the more you understand (or at least think you understand) the more depressing life seems. fact. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
A placebo effect is the effect of merely thinking you've received a medical treatment when you actually haven't. As far as I can tell, if you think you're religious, then you are, which leaves no room for a placebo. I'm not suggesting that God is beaming down happiness on religious people, just that adopting certain beliefs might make you consistently happier than people who don't. It's almost too obvious to need saying that someone's happiness doesn't prove the truth of a doctrine. |
Not really. Placebo effects in scientific studies have shown that they can often do the same thing as the drug that others are on. The human mind is capable of things that we can't even begin to explain.
Hence the mention of positive thinking. It really can make a significant difference in someones life even if their beliefs are wrong. I have no problem with religion if it's for that person alone and doesn't involve others. The problem with religion is when beliefs a forced onto others. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
FYI, I don't support every position the Vatican holds... |
That's actually quite common especially amongst the newer generation of Catholics and other Christians. We don't live in the 15th century so there's no need for religion to remain stuck in the 15th century either. The first thing Catholics need to do is allow priests to marry and have families, but that's a long discussion in itself. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but isn't that a fundamental (ha!) concern of religion as a whole, if even the most authoritative speakers on the subject have issues with adequate interpretation? youre an awesome christian as far as i can tell through the internet, but i dont see or hear that kind of insight from the people that so often represent christianity as a whole.
or do you think that nice christians (read: all faiths) just rarely make the news? i mean, i sure know plenty that are awesome, and i dont know too many crazies (except for this one girl i de-flowered but i think she was crazy well before she found the lord, but that's another story). yet i have to put up with the opinions of father such-n-such in the local rag because of proposed football games on good friday? where are all the moral hazard's at the pointy end of the religious field?? |
The problem is more to do with how information is disseminated then anything else. A good example is that debacle with the media stories stating that the Pope said condoms spread AIDS; the Pope said nothing of the sort... his position was a very well thought out and nuanced one that is logically sound; however, news outlets don't report nuanced positions because they are complicated and take time to explain... instead they boil it down to an easily consumable sound-byte that will fit in nicely between the end of the first half and the Pepsi commercial in order to intrigue viewers to stay tuned for the 11pm news. The end result is that it's only the people that really care to hear what was said that actually get the full story.
A further problem is that most of the people out in the streets handing out propaganda and holding placards are zealots, usually poorly informed zealots, who understand neither their faith nor the sensibilities of those they are trying to reach... the end result is they cannot explain their faith or positions correctly (as they don't actually understand either) nor could they do so effectively (if they actually did understand them) because they don't understand their audience. They try to spread their message through authoritarian vehicles and shouting down the opposition... which is funny as hell because if they took the example of the fathers of their faith they would understand that you cannot force anything on anyone; rather, you can show them, explain, let them make up their own minds, and some may just come to ally themselves with you... other's won't but at least they will listen and potentially understand.
As for where all the Moral Hazards are... they are living examples of their faith, which means they are serving not dictating... servants don't make the news. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
I would readily reduce happiness to contentment within one's niche. Further, satisfaction in one's station in life and confirmation of a prejudice (albeit a positive one) regarding one's station and place in his or her observable environment (whatever the extent) are possibly the most determinant factors when we evaluate 'happiness'. More specifically however, I would further reduce it to the potency of social networks, personal relationships, socio-economic status (and potential) as well as whatever individualistic goals people are impelled to achieve (if any).
With this in mind, I don't believe it's far-fetched at all to propose that "religious" people are happier. but just how do you define religion? Are we talking strictly people of the book, smaller religions, or perhaps the general 'religious' sense that could easily be applied to most any dogmatic approach that unites people under - often political - aims? For better or for worse, one of the most significant components of most any religion or religious following is its social potential; people come together under a single (or relative consensus) ideal and are, frankly, exponentially more powerful for it. Religion is largely measured not by the logic of its tenets, but the number of followers it attracts. Is there really any surprise they so often war against one another? It's a competition to people - perhaps not so far as the individual is concerned - but when it comes to people in the plural sense, it's a goddamned fight for the survival of an ideology; Each and every demagogue is trying to sell you his or her opinion-slice of paradise, and isn't that what it's mostly about to people? Argue whatever you think it's supposed to be or what the books say or how you personally feel about it, etc - I think the result is basically the same.
Somebody who is a part of their flock is supported. Should they lose their job, they shall probably always be in close contact with someone who needs a worker. Should their car break down, there's probably a mechanic amongst their congregation they can shoot questions at. Babysitters? No problem - just call Stephanie. I know these are almost completely random examples, but my point is that the social potency of an individual is perhaps one of the most confirmational things a person can experience - to submit oneself almost entirely to a given social organism elevates a person above their own ego, and human beings, as likely the "dominant" species of our planet for the time being, have adapted quite pleasurable sensibilities when it comes to groupthought - in fact, some of the most malevolent (though I use that term tentatively) movements in history have been done at the entirely voluntary behest of its followers - why? Because it feels good - it feels "right".
In short, conviction is positive confirmation, and I would more often than not reduce that to 'happiness'. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
That said, I don't think the goal of my religion is happiness; rather, peace... I'm not sure I've reached that. |
This.
I feel as though I reached that. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Well don't get too comfy just yet; life still has some depressing challenges for you ahead, I promise. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Well don't get too comfy just yet; life still has some depressing challenges for you ahead, I promise. |
What the hell is wrong with you today?
GROUCHY! :mad: |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
It's raining. :)
//And it's merely in my nature to take offense to conviction, if you couldn't tell. :o |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
|
I think the problem is the political power of the nutbags in the US. A lot of my friends are Christians but their views are very similar to yours.. ie they don't feel the need to leave their intelligence at the door when they talk about religion. I've had conversations about religion with heaps of people in Australia and i have never had to have the creationism vs evolution debate.. very few people here seem to see the need to draw that kind of dichotomy between reason and religion. I suspect the situation in Canada is similar. But these guys actually have a visible effect on the foreign policy of the most powerful nation on earth... hence all the hoo-ha.
A medical practitioner I know referred another devoutly Catholic doctor's patient for an abortion. The patient was a young lady who had been raped. This doctor happened to be a family friend of hers so when she told him about it she mentioned that she knew he was a Catholic and was a bit apologetic etc.. His response? "Sweety, I'm a Catholic, not a ". |
|
|
|
|
