Better for Society?

[anonymous1515]

If there were some way to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong, yet it was also found that religion is good for society, should we continue to practice religion anyways? In other words, what do you guys think is more important: truth or happiness? If you found out that Christianity was untrue, yet you also knew that it was good for society, would you keep the information to yourself?

I know this is a Christian forum, but please try to refrain from posting responses like "it is impossible that Christianity is wrong, so I can't answer the question." If you don't want to answer, then just don't answer.

 

[fallenphantomangel]

That's a really hard question....if christianity was disproved then all religions would be brought into question.

 

[fallenphantomangel]

That's a really hard question....if christianity was disproved then all religions would be brought into question.

 

[mattlock73]

If there were some way to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong, yet it was also found that religion is good for society, should we continue to practice religion anyways? In other words, what do you guys think is more important: truth or happiness? If you found out that Christianity was untrue, yet you also knew that it was good for society, would you keep the information to yourself?

I know this is a Christian forum, but please try to refrain from posting responses like "it is impossible that Christianity is wrong, so I can't answer the question." If you don't want to answer, then just don't answer.

Truth is always the better option. Happiness cannot exist in a lie.

 

[Zaac]

If there were some way to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong, yet it was also found that religion is good for society, should we continue to practice religion anyways? In other words, what do you guys think is more important: truth or happiness? If you found out that Christianity was untrue, yet you also knew that it was good for society, would you keep the information to yourself?

I know this is a Christian forum, but please try to refrain from posting responses like "it is impossible that Christianity is wrong, so I can't answer the question." If you don't want to answer, then just don't answer.

As a Christian, it is not my calling to dirty the already muddied waters of the unbeliever with hypotheticals that do anything other than lead a person toward Christ.

God does exist. And as time is short, it serves no purpose to deal in hypotheticals that he does not.

 

[Bablefish]

If there were some way to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong, yet it was also found that religion is good for society, should we continue to practice religion anyways? In other words, what do you guys think is more important: truth or happiness? If you found out that Christianity was untrue, yet you also knew that it was good for society, would you keep the information to yourself?

I know this is a Christian forum, but please try to refrain from posting responses like "it is impossible that Christianity is wrong, so I can't answer the question." If you don't want to answer, then just don't answer.

In order to answer your first question, you must first give the context in which this so-called "happiness" is to exist. What is happiness? What is truth? Where do they take place? Who says that the society in which we live is even the way that humans were meant to live? Therefore, why should what is good for this society even matter? Clarify your definitions and perhaps we can have a real discussion. It may sound like I am creating more problems than necessary but as you are an individual and not merely an automated opinion poll, you already have your own opinions to these questions and, therefore, if a real discussion were to take place, one must know by what definitions we are to respond. Set the limitations. Thanks.

 

[exxxys]

If there were some way to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong, yet it was also found that religion is good for society, should we continue to practice religion anyways? In other words, what do you guys think is more important: truth or happiness? If you found out that Christianity was untrue, yet you also knew that it was good for society, would you keep the information to yourself?

I know this is a Christian forum, but please try to refrain from posting responses like "it is impossible that Christianity is wrong, so I can't answer the question." If you don't want to answer, then just don't answer.

I think it's better for society to be secular. This way one group does not feel oppressed, and one group is not favoured over the other. I believe Christianity is untrue. I do not keep this from the public, but no one would like to hear it. That's fine for me.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

There's some truth to that. Were it demonstrated that God did not exist, we could find no basis, except in material control, upon which to maintain a democratic, free, and just society. There would be no basis for human rights, equality, or anything else we consider fundamental to our humanity. The strong would do what they can and the weak would suffer what they must. The only justification would be self-preservation.

 

[katautumn]

If there were some way to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong

First of all, you set up a very interesting premise for your thread. But, it can be debated from either angle, as there is no possible way to demonstrate beyond a reasonably doubt that any higher power exists or that any religion is universally correct. We're all going on faith - belief in that which cannot be proven with empirical evidence.

yet it was also found that religion is good for society,

I don't know if religion is good for society, per se. I think religion is good for most people.

should we continue to practice religion anyways?

Why not? People have been doing it since the beginning of time.

In other words, what do you guys think is more important: truth or happiness?

In terms of faith, there cannot be universal truth so we're all sort of happily buying into a state of blind naivety, for lack of a better term.

But, I'm not a Christian so I think I tend to be a little less insistent upon proving that my way is the only correct way. There is no great commission in Wicca other than to not harm others.

 

[intricatic]

I think it's better for society to be secular. This way one group does not feel oppressed, and one group is not favoured over the other. I believe Christianity is untrue. I do not keep this from the public, but no one would like to hear it. That's fine for me.

There is no such thing as "secular". Just as your own personal belief might spice your outlook on life, and thusly effect the way you vote, the way you live, the way you understand and relate to other people, so Christianity does for the Christian. "Secular society", in this sense, is simply an excuse to treat those things as if they are irrelevant. They obviously are not, otherwise this thread would not exist.

As far as the OP: I don't believe Christianity has anything to do with being good for society as a whole. It's a religion that centers around the individual. If it's proven false, it's proven false;

32 If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”
(1 Corinthians 15)

 

[anonymous1515]

So far, everyone has an interesting take on the question. It was asked that perhaps I clarify the question a little more, so here is what I was thinking:

By saying "what if it was found that religion is better for society" I meant that if, for example, there were well designed studies that demonstrated that among religious people there was less crime, less anxiety about death, higher levels of generosity, etc.

If this was the case, would it be better to promote religion even though you knew it was false?


As an aside, AmericanCatholic posted something that I think I should respond to:

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

There's some truth to that. Were it demonstrated that God did not exist, we could find no basis, except in material control, upon which to maintain a democratic, free, and just society. There would be no basis for human rights, equality, or anything else we consider fundamental to our humanity. The strong would do what they can and the weak would suffer what they must. The only justification would be self-preservation.

Emphasis Added

I think this is more your opinion than actual fact. Even atheists can find perfectly good reasons not to run amok, enslaving the poor. Similarly, both atheists and the religious can find good reasons to practice democracy, freedom, equality, and human rights.

Also, Napoleon meant that religion is an opiate for the masses - it keeps people from feeling depressed about being so poor because they feel rich "spiritually". Thus, they don't lash out at the rich people getting good treatment at the expense of the poor. Napoleon saw religion as a tool by which to enslave the masses, not a tool to promote democracy and freedom.

 

[anonymous1515]

As a Christian, it is not my calling to dirty the already muddied waters of the unbeliever with hypotheticals that do anything other than lead a person toward Christ.

God does exist. And as time is short, it serves no purpose to deal in hypotheticals that he does not.

Thanks for explicitly posting what I asked people not to. Either answer the hypothetical question or don't...but don't post things like "Blasphemy! I am so incredibly pious that even being asked to suppose that God doesn't exist offends me."

 

[Zaac]

Thanks for explicitly posting what I asked people not to. Either answer the hypothetical question or don't...but don't post things like "Blasphemy! I am so incredibly pious that even being asked to suppose that God doesn't exist offends me."

You're welcome. Like I said, time is short and mine is to be pleasing to Jesus Christ FIRST, not anonymous1515.

Ain't no need for me to help further confuse people with hypotheticals when there are enough folks running around who already reject the Truth.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

I think this is more your opinion than actual fact. Even atheists can find perfectly good reasons not to run amok, enslaving the poor. Similarly, both atheists and the religious can find good reasons to practice democracy, freedom, equality, and human rights.

Also, Napoleon meant that religion is an opiate for the masses - it keeps people from feeling depressed about being so poor because they feel rich "spiritually". Thus, they don't lash out at the rich people getting good treatment at the expense of the poor. Napoleon saw religion as a tool by which to enslave the masses, not a tool to promote democracy and freedom.

It's not so much either fact or opinion, but the philosophical consequence of removing God. If there's no God or religion, then there's only our individual perspectives of what is right and wrong. In other words, right and wrong are relative to the extent to which we can impose it on others. There can be no appeal to justice because there would no higher authority to which to appeal. The only arbiter for justice would be power; and so life would become defined by the rule of the strong. And on what basis, other than political expediency, could you demand the strong to live according to your principles?

 

[Armistead]

Many people live in cultures and are happy without religion. However, it seems all humanity worships something, even if it's just the culture or nature itself.

There are many groups that provide a social culture and happiness without religion..In many ways, religion has caused most of the problems of the world..due to man using it for his own means. Atheist argue if all accepted no religion and just lived not to harm others..that we would have a perfect world. Then again, most of our legal system stems from religeous belief.

However, you must define what happiness and truth are. It differs with people.

Christians prefer to look at things from an eternal perspective and that is where true happiness comes., other than that, happiness is just a matter of the mind and last a very short time.

 

[anonymous1515]

It's not so much either fact or opinion, but the philosophical consequence of removing God. If there's no God or religion, then there's only our individual perspectives of what is right and wrong. In other words, right and wrong are relative to the extent to which we can impose it on others. There can be no appeal to justice because there would no higher authority to which to appeal. The only arbiter for justice would be power; and so life would become defined by the rule of the strong. And on what basis, other than political expediency, could you demand the strong to live according to your principles?

Ah, the infamous "without God, people have no reason to act morally." Before answering your question to me AmericanCatholic, let me pose one to you. Do you only act kindly to others because you are scared that God, the ultimate authority, will punish you if you don't?

Secondly, as Armistead pointed out, atheists have perfectly good reasons to believe that people do not necessarily need God to act morally. The term "social contract" is popular among atheists - which is basically the equivalent of the Golden Rule. If you don't harm me, I won't harm you. Since humans are relatively smart, and have good memories, we tend to hold grudges against people that behave badly. Furthermore, if I act badly, people are likely to not help me out when I need it. Thus, I act nicely to others in the hopes and understanding that others will reciprocate the action. This phenomenon is also documented and well studied in evolutionary biology, and is called reciprocal altruism.

Now, you asked "And on what basis, other than political expediency, could you demand the strong to live according to your principles?" Well, I suppose that reciprocal altruism falls loosely under the category of political expediency. However, this is not the only reason that humans act morally towards each other. Most of us, with the exception of psychopaths, have a sense of empathy. We are able to place ourselves in the situation of others, and thus feel badly for others when they are experiencing troubles.

Thirdly, even ancient societies (yes, before the time of Christ, and even before the time of Moses) realized that societies do not function if people rape/murder/steal from each other. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, it is hard to imagine that Moses could have led the slaves out of Egypt and into Israel if they were busy stealing, murdering, and raping each other. Human morals have existed long before Biblical characters had them 'revealed' by God.

 

[Stinker]

"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 is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
John Adams (1735-1826)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What Adam's meant was that our 'religion' gave us our morality. Our founding fathers also knew that Christianity meant far fewer laws would have to be passed because of the New Testament's teaching of their being no hiding our acts from the Lord. No loophole laws to created to cover the last loophole laws, etc.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Do you only act kindly to others because you are scared that God, the ultimate authority, will punish you if you don't?

I act kindly because there is a higher order of justice with which I ought to comply.

atheists have perfectly good reasons to believe that people do not necessarily need God to act morally. The term "social contract" is popular among atheists - which is basically the equivalent of the Golden Rule.

The "social contract" is effective only for those who are relatively equal in power and have an interest in respecting the rights of others; unless you suggest that the social contract is somehow mandatory. Yet there are those who do not share that sentiment, and if they are not bound by your social contract, by what other standard will/can you hold them to justice?

Most of us, with the exception of psychopaths, have a sense of empathy. We are able to place ourselves in the situation of others, and thus feel badly for others when they are experiencing troubles.

Empathy is a polite way of saying "Better you than me." In the end, people will take what they want from you if they can regardless of how you feel about it.

 

[marksman315]

I think it's better for society to be secular. This way one group does not feel oppressed, and one group is not favoured over the other. I believe Christianity is untrue. I do not keep this from the public, but no one would like to hear it. That's fine for me.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but secular societies are not any better when it comes to oppression compared to non-secular. The Soviets tried it, and they oppressed everyone that was not in line with the government's way of thinking. It's estimated that 20-30 million Soviet people died because of Stalin's oppression.

To answer the OP, I believe living in truth is better than to live in blind happiness. The happiness cannot last forever, but a foundation on truth is a good start to build real happiness.