Religious people are happier than non-religious people. This replicates fairly well across many countries. This should be a fairly convincing argument all on its own. It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism, as well, if you accept God as a metaphorical construct. Religious people are also more charitable. If you break down the numbers, this increased charity is not just benefitting the church.
>Of course correlations are not causation, and the negative correlation that I expect between religiosity and happiness does not mean that atheism makes people happier, or religion unhappier. What it means—and this is supported by several sociological studies (see here for one)—is likely that people either turn to religion or maintain their religion when their social situation is so dire that they’re unhappy. When conditions are good, and there’s lots of social support, including help for sick people, old people, free medical care, and so on, then there’s no need to be religious, no need to supplicate a god for what your society can’t provide. When you’re well off, your country gradually loses religion, the thesis of Norris and Inglehart in the preceding link.
>In short, what makes people happy is not religion, but material well being and the assurance of material aid. That’s supported by the study’s finding that immigrants, including Muslims from the Middle East, quickly gain the happiness of their new country, while (I suspect), still keeping their religion, though perhaps in an attenuated form.
This does not contradict my point- if you live in rural Appalachia, there's a good chance you have a pretty hardscrabble life. Religion is adaptive in this circumstance, and you can become happier by becoming religious. The author of the article you linked also goes on to quote Marx, saying that abolishing religion is curing the masses of their opium addiction, and curing them of their delusions. I would argue that irreligious people are just as delusional, but with different failure modes. Apathy, nihilism, and lack of a sense of self dominate the irreligious; moral absolutism dominates the religious.
Obviously there are many other factors for happiness. To say anything about the effect of religion on happiness, ideally you would compare people in the same region, in similar circumstances.
Certainly as a Scot I would not naturally associate "religion" and "happiness"....
Edit: I'm talking about my experience of religion in Scotland, which is a bit grim and dour, not the rather cheerful kind that they seem to have in the US :-)
> Religious people are happier than non-religious people.
Dumb people are happier than smart people -- pick your own causality.
> This replicates fairly well across many countries.
In some countries you'll likely be killed if you express your non-religiosity.
In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.
> This should be a fairly convincing argument all on its own.
Of what, pray tell?
> It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism ...
This is clearly not true, even if (as you suggest) attempt to morph capital-G god into a metaphor.
> Religious people are also more charitable.
I believe this has been debunked, but in any case if the motivation is 'not spend an eternity being tortured' it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.
Yes. I did some subsequent research and couldn't find terribly much that I felt was conclusive. I could argue that it doesn't matter hugely, as the absence of conclusive evidence, and the question of which way causality lies, was the parallel I was drawing to the 'religious people are happier' claim.
> In some countries you'll likely be killed if you express your non-religiosity.
This is a half-truth, those same countries you'll be killed for expressing non-belief or belief in a different accepted religion. This is extremism and shouldn't be linked to what the vast majority of the rest of world practices.
Absolutely. If we agree that everyone believes in either 0 or 1 religion, then we'd agree that everyone disbelieves in n or (n-1) religions, where n is several thousand (depending how you slice and dice the various sects and cults).
I'm not sure what the vast majority practice, though Pew [1] has done some good research on beliefs amongst the second most popular religion. Attitudes towards the execution of apostates is especially interesting reading.
In any case, if you live in almost any of the countries listed in that section you'll definitely be happier (and probably healthier / less likely to die) if you're religious than if you're not.
Religious populations that murder irreligious people are bad, and not worth defending. That is likely a type of suffering caused by religion.
My argument is that participating in religious activity makes an individual person happier, on average, when looking at the data. That should be convincing, given the data I presented.
> It is entirely possible to be religious without rejecting rationalism ...
>This is clearly not true, even if (as you suggest) attempt to morph capital-G god into a metaphor.
I would have a tough time convincing you that it's true, especially considering that you don't appear to be trying to argue in good faith. But consider the Unitarians. They are mostly focused on personal virtue ethics through religiosity that rejects fundamentalism. I can say that looking at athiest strongholds, such as r/atheism, does not look like a more rational congregation than you might see at your local Unitarian church. The Unitarians are trying to better themselves; r/atheism is mostly focused on tearing down their oppressors.
The claim that religious people are more charitable has not been debunked in this thread, and I would be surprised to see that the evidence points that way in the literature. I've researched it a good bit. "But it's because they give to church" does not fully explain the difference.
>but in any case if the motivation is 'not spend an eternity being tortured' it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.
Altruism is not incompatible with self-interest. Additionally, most Christians are not fundamentalists. You can conceptualize Hell as the suffering that you are dealt as a result of your own failures. By giving to charity, you avoid one of these failures, and in doing so also make the world a measurably better place. (Meanwhile the statistically uncharitable atheists still think of themselves as superior, for some reason...)
We have to differentiate between unintelligent and uneducated. For the latter, there are several studies showing that lack of education can mean lack of imagination of alternative. For example in The Idea of Justice Amartya Sen described the phenomenon of rural uneducated Indian women reporting less content with their own health after they received basic health education: Suddenly they were aware that there actually was an alternative to many of their miseries.
FWIW I am trying to interpret, and presenting my case, in good faith.
I don't accept the claim that religious activity makes everyone involved (at least on the believers' side) happier. In almost all cases there's no control to compare to - you have to compare different people, rather than the same person(s) with & without religion, and then you're back to the causality question.
The question of charity I've responded to in a sibling thread.
> it suggests it's self-interest, not altruism at play.
I know I am picking on one small part of your argument, but I really hate this line of thinking. So what? Who cares why someone is charitable? I assume most people not doing it in "self-interest" feel good when they do it - does that invalidate the charity? Nobody does anything in a vacuum.
I imagine some atheists may be frustrated to be told that they're not as nice (charitable) because of their rationality.
In any case, to your question 'who cares why someone is charitable?' I'd suggest that it's important if your definition of charity is something along the lines of a voluntary offer of assistance.
If you're coerced into providing assistance -- either by promises of eternal happiness, or threats of eternal suffering -- then it's not so much charity as taxation, or perhaps a promise of remuneration.
In (as far as I know) no countries would you be killed by atheists if you're non-atheist.
To be fair, Russia in 1920-1930s was pretty close to that. One surely may argue that communism is also a religion, so they were simply getting rid of the competition.
I think it's not so much that he argues they are religions, but that he uses a definition of religion that encompasses them: viz., the belief in an order that is not of human invention but that imposes human moral norms.
But that definition is possibly the only fully consistent and coherent one I've seen that covers everything commonly regarded as a religion; it just covers quite a bit extra, too.
Yup, fair point. While weakening the points made by rational people is certainly not the worst thing they've done, the administration there is definitely making us all look bad.
Churches label themselves as charities, so by this reckoning donations that swell a property portfolio and a pastor's impressive lifestyle are considering "charitable". (Never mind that some churches lean heavily towards barely-disguised political activism.)
The amount of money spent on genuine good works is rather lower.
I'm sure genuinely giving people exist in religions, and they may even be encouraged by belonging to them.
But the standard rhetorical implication is that all religious people are like this and all non-profit spending falls into this category - when the reality is very different.
It's also important to note that you don't need religion to be charitable or help other people.
There isn't a single "good" that church does to other people that couldn't be done by secular means.
On average, religious people are more charitable than non-religious people, even when you discount the money they give to the church. This is a good outcome and is evidence that religion is good.
Seeing as how most religions require a minimum 10% tithe, their followers would of course seem to be charitable. But is it really charity if it is a requirement? I’d call it a tax.
> But is it really charity if it is a requirement? I’d call it a tax.
It's not a tax. You can't get your passport revoked if you don't pay tithing. You won't go to jail for tax evasion, either. In fact, probably nothing will happen. You can continue to go to church every Sunday without paying tithing and most congregations would still welcome you with open arms. Ecclesiastical leaders might remind you that tithing requires faith and that you would receive more blessings if you paid your tithe, but as long as said leaders do not profit from said tithes, I don't see a problem with it as there is no conflict of interest.
> It's also important to note that you don't need religion to be charitable or help other people.
Right, and you don't need a running club to motivate you to run or a school to help you learn. But for a lot of people, they sure do help if being charitable/running/learning is your goal.
Drunk people (as opposed to those who enjoy a glass now and then) may be happier, or sadder, but only for the moment. But then I'm sure you knew that already!
Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has strife? Who has complaining?
Who has wounds without cause?
Who has redness of eyes?
Those who tarry long over wine;
those who go to try mixed wine.
Do not look at wine when it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup
and goes down smoothly.
In the end it bites like a serpent
and stings like an adder.
Your eyes will see strange things,
and your heart utter perverse things.
You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea,
like one who lies on the top of a mast.
“They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt;
they beat me, but I did not feel it.
When shall I awake?
I must have another drink.”
Interestingly, when we start talking about countries, not individual people, the trend reverses: atheistic countries are the happiest.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/the-2018...