One Global Faith -- Is It Possible?

[Misshalfway]

What I'm saying is that atheism doesn't lead to crimes or unrest any more than belief in God does. It is a part of human nature and generally unchanged with religious beliefs. The reason I brought up Scandinavia is that many people (probably even some here) believe that without religion society would completely fall apart and I recently found out that there is a very good example that says that it is not the case.

Ahhhh! Yes, the lightbulb just went on. I get cha! I think we are close to the same page. :) I think perhaps I still want to argue the virtues of spiritual truth. Religion on the other hand.....well, I have feelings about that too.

I think that the point of the book is not to attribute or condemn, but to challenge some of the "conventional wisdom" about society's relationship with religion. I'll probably end up buying the book at some point, you can borrow it when I'm done if you want :)

Sweet! I am always in favor of examining the 'conventional wisdom'. It's good for the soul.

Yeah.....shoot me the title and I will read the back cover next time I am strolling the ole Barnes and Noble. But, word to the wise. DON'T lend it to me. I tend to be so into my books that they don't look very nice when I am done with them. :)

[DigitalShadow]

Ahhhh! Yes, the lightbulb just went on. I get cha! I think we are close to the same page. :) I think perhaps I still want to argue the virtues of spiritual truth. Religion on the other hand.....well, I have feelings about that too.

Sweet! I am always in favor of examining the 'conventional wisdom'. It's good for the soul.

Yeah.....shoot me the title and I will read the back cover next time I am strolling the ole Barnes and Noble. But, word to the wise. DON'T lend it to me. I tend to be so into my books that they don't look very nice when I am done with them. :)

Amazon.com: Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment: Phil Zuckerman: Books

[DigitalShadow]

Here are some quotes by various founders of our nation who felt religion was important in society.

John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

Benjamin Franklin

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

James Madison

“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

George Washington

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

Simply because they founded our nation does not mean I can't disagree with them. Though if Elphaba saw this it would probably spark another huge debate over just how our founding fathers felt about religion, but I see no reason to get into that since it doesn't matter for the point I'm trying to make.

I have no doubt that our country has at least some religious foundation, but I think that the seperation of religion from Government is one of the most important parts of their philosophy and one of the reasons it worked out so well. My point is that there are other countries without a strong religious population that are doing well also, not because of their lack of faith or despite it, they are simply thriving and happen to be non-religious, something which many people have told me is impossible.

[Guest Godless]

What makes you think that a true Christian would live an unhappy or unfulfilled life? I submit that you can live the Gospel and still be quite happy. In fact, it has been shown time and again that wickedness is not happiness. Pleasures of the flesh do not equate true happiness, they are momentary 'fixes'. If there is nothing after this life, is the world worse off because someone lived a truly Christian life? Are you really worse off just because your neighbor chooses to live a Christian life?

I wasn't trying to imply that theism = unhappiness, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I know many believers who live very happy and fulfilling lives. But I also know many who fit the model I described, those who live soley for the afterlife.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when I talk about non-believers being happy, I'm not necessarily talking about momentary pleasures of the flesh. I draw happiness and meaning from the same things that many believers do. Things like love, hard work, service, and friendship can give someone happiness and purpose regardless of religious belief. As an atheist who was raised to believe in the LDS paradigm of happiness and purpose, I find it hard to find relevence in the gospel teachings to my present state of happiness.

[Misshalfway]

So if these other countries or country in this case, is thriving.....and they happen to be non-religious, then isn't the same possibility open to a religious population?

It seems like to me, the theme of this whole last part of the thread was the argument that religion is not necessary for happiness.

Well, if it isn't essential, then what is?

[Misshalfway]

I wasn't trying to imply that theism = unhappiness, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I know many believers who live very happy and fulfilling lives. But I also know many who fit the model I described, those who live soley for the afterlife.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when I talk about non-believers being happy, I'm not necessarily talking about momentary pleasures of the flesh. I draw happiness and meaning from the same things that many believers do. Things like love, hard work, service, and friendship can give someone happiness and purpose regardless of religious belief. As an atheist who was raised to believe in the LDS paradigm of happiness and purpose, I find it hard to find relevence in the gospel teachings to my present state of happiness.

I am sure that you remember the old mormon phrase "wickedness never was happiness".

What is your take on that?

And do you feel that your present state of happiness and inner contentment is due to the fact that those teachings are no longer in your life?

[Misshalfway]

I have one other tangent sort of question that I wanted to ask both of you, Godless and DS (and any other Ag's & Ath's who maybe listening in) if you wouldn't mind.

When I was seriously doubting the whole idea of a God and questioning my so called "spiritual" experience (btw, I still have those days), why is it that I felt so profoundly empty? I mean, I even felt fairly good about the decision that their was in fact no God. I felt that way for many months. But, I found that a warmth and a peace had left my life and I felt suddenly unsure of so many things.

From your perspective, what would I have been experiencing? I know any of my LDS friends would say that the Spirit left me. I am wondering what you think ..... you know someone outside my familiar train of thought.

[DigitalShadow]

So if these other countries or country in this case, is thriving.....and they happen to be non-religious, then isn't the same possibility open to a religious population?

It seems like to me, the theme of this whole last part of the thread was the argument that religion is not necessary for happiness.

Well, if it isn't essential, then what is?

One of the many paths a person can take?

[Misshalfway]

One of the many paths a person can take?

Forgive me for this, but Huh?

[DigitalShadow]

I have one other tangent sort of question that I wanted to ask both of you, Godless and DS (and any other Ag's & Ath's who maybe listening in) if you wouldn't mind.

When I was seriously doubting the whole idea of a God and questioning my so called "spiritual" experience (btw, I still have those days), why is it that I felt so profoundly empty? I mean, I even felt fairly good about the decision that their was in fact no God. I felt that way for many months. But, I found that a warmth and a peace had left my life and I felt suddenly unsure of so many things.

From your perspective, what would I have been experiencing? I know any of my LDS friends would say that the Spirit left me. I am wondering what you think ..... you know someone outside my familiar train of thought.

Whether right or wrong, it is understandable that being certain that a loving God exists would give a warm peace of mind and leaving the comfort of that could be unpleasant and bring up questions of other events in your life. It seems like a natural reaction to me and doesn't really speak to the truth of either position in my opinion.

Honestly I have never felt this empty feeling I've heard others talk about when I think about God not existing. I attribute that to the fact that I never had my hopes up that there would be anything past this mortal existance or any loving higher power. My life feels just as full and complete and rewarding as when I hear religious people talk about their lives.

[DigitalShadow]

Forgive me for this, but Huh?

Oops, I misread the last question, I thought you asked "what is it?" instead of "what is?"

So you're asking what is essential for happiness? Who knows? There are many different ways to obtain happiness as can be seen by observing cultures all over the world. I'm not a psychologist so I couldn't tell you what the current prevailing theories are on what tends to make a person happy, but there are so many variables involved that I don't think anyone can say with much certainty.

[Misshalfway]

Whether right or wrong, it is understandable that being certain that a loving God exists would give a warm peace of mind and leaving the comfort of that could be unpleasant and bring up questions of other events in your life. It seems like a natural reaction to me and doesn't really speak to the truth of either position in my opinion.

Honestly I have never felt this empty feeling I've heard others talk about when I think about God not existing. I attribute that to the fact that I never had my hopes up that there would be anything past this mortal existance or any loving higher power. My life feels just as full and complete and rewarding as when I hear religious people talk about their lives.

I was fairly sure you would answer that way. I have thought the same thing or something similar. Thank you.

[Misshalfway]

Oops, I misread the last question, I thought you asked "what is it?" instead of "what is?"

So you're asking what is essential for happiness? Who knows? There are many different ways to obtain happiness as can be seen by observing cultures all over the world. I'm not a psychologist so I couldn't tell you what the current prevailing theories are on what tends to make a person happy, but there are so many variables involved that I don't think anyone can say with much certainty.

Well, I actually really really agree with this assessment. I think that there are lots of choices in this life that leads to unhappiness regardless of religious affiliation. And the extremes are easy to identify. But I also think that healthy thinking which leads to healthy feeling is a really big key. And I would agree with you that stuff like freedom, and create outlets, and education all group together to form a recipe for happiness.

And from my point of view, this is another argument for the LDS platform because there is much that we teach (which isn't always understood or inacted properly) that covers much of this grand scope of what being happy means. I think this is partly why I don't like thinking in terms of my church. I like thinking in terms of what is true and what isn't true and I see that at least my religion is much more than just shining the shoes for church every Sunday.

It is also why I believe that it IS possible to be happy whatever your belief system is. Truth is truth no matter if you find it in the NT or in the therapists office or from your life learnings. Love is love. Kindness is kindness. Cleanliness is cleanliness. etc. etc. There are no borders on such. I think there is a ton of truth in Buddhist thought.

[Guest Godless]

I am sure that you remember the old mormon phrase "wickedness never was happiness".

What is your take on that?

And do you feel that your present state of happiness and inner contentment is due to the fact that those teachings are no longer in your life?

That's a touchy subject because I view terms like "evil" and "wicked" to be primarily religious terms used to describe religious concepts. Now, it is quite likely that there are aspects of my lifestyle that members of the church would call wicked, or at the very least sinful. However, I don't draw my happiness from these things. I draw my happiness from the times I share with the people I love and the adventure of living each day without knowing what it's going to hold. I think most theists can relate to that.

I would have to answer your second question with a resounding yes. Before leaving the church, I had many ups and downs and found myself relying very heavily on what little shred of faith in God I had. I felt gratitude whenever things were going right in my life and sorrow when they weren't, and I believed that God's hand was at work in all of it. Looking back, it chills me to think that I once believed that my happiness and well-being were in the hands of anyone other than myself. Sure, my faith brought me comfort in some rough times, but now I've found that personal strength and perseverence trump faith a great deal. Naturally, I still have my down days, but it's much more comforting for me to know that I am not powerless to help myself out of the bad times, contrary to what some religious people would have you believe. Keep in mind, I'm speaking strictly from my own personal experience. I realize full well that everyone's relationship with God is different, and I respect that.

I have one other tangent sort of question that I wanted to ask both of you, Godless and DS (and any other Ag's & Ath's who maybe listening in) if you wouldn't mind.

When I was seriously doubting the whole idea of a God and questioning my so called "spiritual" experience (btw, I still have those days), why is it that I felt so profoundly empty? I mean, I even felt fairly good about the decision that their was in fact no God. I felt that way for many months. But, I found that a warmth and a peace had left my life and I felt suddenly unsure of so many things.

From your perspective, what would I have been experiencing? I know any of my LDS friends would say that the Spirit left me. I am wondering what you think ..... you know someone outside my familiar train of thought.

That's a difficult question to answer because of the varying degrees of faith and what you would call "awareness of the Spirit" that can be found in believers. Personally, I never felt the Spirit very strongly in my life. Even so, it was very difficult for me to reject the teachings of the Church because it was all I had ever known. I felt a sense of emptiness just as you did, but I don't think it was because the Spirit left me, but rather because I suddenly had a void of knowledge that I needed to fill. I've talked to many deconverts from both LDS and mainstream Christianity who have felt similar feelings of emptiness, confusion, and even depression while going through their initial phases of questioning and doubts about their beliefs. These feelings are a natural part of the deconversion process for the reasons I mentioned above, but they almost always fade away once you've found a worldview that better suits you. You just have to fill that void.

I think some of those feelings can also be attributed to the serious nature of LDS teachings and doctrines and the ramifications of rejecting it. There is a scripture that my mother has quoted to me many times that says something to the effect that those who sin against the greater knowledge will receive a greater punishment. That really bothered me for a while, but over time I was able to make the distinction between knowledge and faith. There was a time when I was very familiar with church doctrines, more so than many active members even. However, it was all just knowledge. I didn't have faith that any of it was true. Once I was able to make that distinction, I didn't feel quite so bad about rejecting the doctrines of the Church that I strongly believed to be false.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Godless

[Misshalfway]

I did thank your post, Godless, but I wanted to make sure you knew I meant it from the heart. A profound thank you for answering so thoughtfully.

[Guest Godless]

You're quite welcome.

[Islander]

The following is intended as a reflection rather than a response directed to anyone in particular.

It has been suggested that many philosophical views (referring more specifically to atheism) and beliefs expressed by many in the West is the result of a very warped and deeply self-centered existential frame of reference. In the West we can attain education, wealth, safety, influence, gratification and fulfillment pretty much in a state of total isolation and social withdrawal. We can design the kind of life that completely ignores the social environment and centers in our enjoyment and gratification without any restrain other than secular/government regulation.

Such is impossible in most of the known world. The value we attribute to our rights, desires, authority and principles of autonomy when it comes to our lives do not mean much in most part of the globe. It is interesting that the former emerged from Christian/religious interpretation on the words attributed to God Himself. We can afford the indulgence of such thinking and belief system in the absolute safety, freedom and tranquility of our country. It would be unattainable in most of the world. Such ideas are the result of the "artificial" environment in which we live but would have never emerged as a byproduct of life anywhere else.

I suggest that man's desire to be free from God answers to our own natural tendency to pursue the desires of our hearts; physical and material, unencumbered by guilt, obligation, commitments or constrains other than those of our own design. Since the denial of deity implies also the denial of the existence of the afterlife, centering in the here and now is the ONLY existential space available to express and pursue one's version of reality.

Food fro thought

Edited October 23, 2008 by Islander

[candyprpl]

I'm not sure how I came across this site but it has some interesting topics. Horizon Research Foundation. They advertised a book (The Spiritual Brain) that I found interesting --- here's a little about what it's about.

by Dr. Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (book discription from Amazon)

Do religious experiences come from God, or are they merely the random firing of neurons in the brain? Drawing on his own research with Carmelite nuns, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard shows that genuine, life-changing spiritual events can be documented. He offers compelling evidence that religious experiences have a nonmaterial origin, making a convincing case for what many in scientific fields are loath to consider - that it is God who creates our spiritual experiences, not the brain.

Many scientists ignore hard evidence that challenges their materialistic prejudice, clinging to the limited view that our experiences are explainable only by material causes, in the obstinate conviction that the physical world is the only reality. But scientific materialism is at a loss to explain irrefutable accounts of mind over matter, of intuition, willpower, and leaps of faith, of the "placebo effect" in medicine, of near-death experiences on the operating table, and of psychic premonitions of a loved one in crisis, to say nothing of the occasional sense of oneness with nature and mystical experiences of meditation or prayer. Traditional science explains away these and other occurences as delusions or misunderstandings, but by exploring the latest neurological research on phenomena such as these. The Spiritual Brain gets to their real source.

I think I'll add this book to my 'to read' list.:)

[Hemidakota]

I would be interested to know which part of the brain controls the rest? Not being a neurologist, I am just curious.

[DigitalShadow]

I'm not sure how I came across this site but it has some interesting topics. Horizon Research Foundation. They advertised a book (The Spiritual Brain) that I found interesting --- here's a little about what it's about.

by Dr. Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (book discription from Amazon)

Do religious experiences come from God, or are they merely the random firing of neurons in the brain? Drawing on his own research with Carmelite nuns, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard shows that genuine, life-changing spiritual events can be documented. He offers compelling evidence that religious experiences have a nonmaterial origin, making a convincing case for what many in scientific fields are loath to consider - that it is God who creates our spiritual experiences, not the brain.

That doesn't sound like a very fair or honest examination of the topic. Right at the beginning it presents the reader with the false dichotomy of "Do religious experiences come from God, or are they merely the random firing of neurons in the brain?" as if those are the only two possible explainations and you must choose one. I believe that religious experiences originate in the brain, but that does not mean I believe it has to be a result of random neuron firings any more than I believe being happy or sad has to be a result of random neuron firings. Mood and feelings are affected by a number of horomones and external stimulus, I believe religious experiences are simply a stronger version of normal feelings. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but at least I try to present the argument honestly.

Many scientists ignore hard evidence that challenges their materialistic prejudice, clinging to the limited view that our experiences are explainable only by material causes, in the obstinate conviction that the physical world is the only reality.

Here they frame the argument quite nicely, but it can just as easily be done for the other side:

Many theists ignore hard evidence that challenges their religious prejudice clinging to the limited view that God must exist. Instead they look specifically for events that could possibly confirm this view, in the obstinate conviction that a "spiritual" world exists.

I don't agree with either of those statements because they are both designed to make the other side sound deseperate with phraes like "clinging to the limited view" and "obstinate conviction" before even presenting any evidence.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the ideas presented in the book are wrong, but the way they present their argument is intellectually dishonest and appears to be meant to simply preach to the choir and give people who already agree reason to feel confident about their decision rather than truly explore the issue. Honestly I would love to read a book on that topic if it were a bit more fair with how it goes about it.

Edit: I know descriptions don't always match up with the book, and it could be horribly misrepresenting the style of the book, but I would guess that it is a similar style (my apologies if I'm wrong).

Edited October 24, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[candyprpl]

Like you said in your post about a book -- 'food for thought.'

It would be interesting for a believer of God and a non-believer to read the book and make an assessment -- don't you think? Would either of us be able to read the information objectively?

Having an experience of being very, very near death (in a coma) and having all kinds of delusions -- some of which I now know were just delusions, other experiences that happened to me were more than delusion -- I would be most interested in what this neurologist has to say.

[DigitalShadow]

Like you said in your post about a book -- 'food for thought.'

It would be interesting for a believer of God and a non-believer to read the book and make an assessment -- don't you think? Would either of us be able to read the information objectively?

Having an experience of being very, very near death (in a coma) and having all kinds of delusions -- some of which I now know were just delusions, other experiences that happened to me were more than delusion -- I would be most interested in what this neurologist has to say.

Is anyone able to read anything objectively? Obviously we have our own personal filters that color the way we look at things to varying degrees and different people will get different things from this book, like every book. I do however think that there is a difference between honestly presenting an argument with the evidence and purposely using logical fallacies to underhandedly convince the reader that a particular viewpoint is right.

If you look at the reviews on amazon you can see both skeptic and believer opinions. I was curious so I read through a few of them :) (Click for link)

Also, out of curiousity how do you know that some were delusions and some weren't? What is it that seperates "genuine" experiences from being simply more convincing delusions? (no offense, I've never had a near death experience so I am genuinely curious here)

Edited October 24, 2008 by DigitalShadow
added link

[candyprpl]

You're right -- my point exactly -- that's why we disagree with each other. You have your opinion and are firmly planted -- I have mine and am firmly planted.

I was afraid that you might want to know more about my experience -- truefully, I'm not a good enough writer to explain how I know and I am afraid that you might try and demean my experience.

I will tell you about one experience I had a long time ago (when I was Agnostic). I was raped when I was 14 by my school counselor and because of the trauma had blocked it from my mind. Many years later, suffering from severe depression I started recalling this incedent. The man had told me he would kill me if I ever told anyone. I was having horrible nightmares and sometimes would wake up in the middle of the night, terrified and convinced he was outside my door. My husband would have to walk the house, put our big watchdog outside the door before I could go back to sleep. On one occasion, I woke up in a horrible state of panic, I couldn't move, I couldn't even wake my husband. Never, in my life have I felt such fear. Then, all of the sudden, I felt a hand on my shoulder and immediately a calm came over me. I looked up and it was my grandfather, who had been dead for many years. He whispered, "It's okay babygirl." Then he was gone. I didn't have anymore nightmares after that.

Say what you will, but the spiritual experiences I have had are as real as the chair I'm sitting in. And the real delusions (the perpetrator being outside my door) were easly explained away. :)

[Starfish]

Thank you Candy, for sharing such a personal, sacred experience. I've also had experiences that I cannot deny. I know God is there.

ALL pain can be healed through the Atonement.