Happiness and Religion

[ThoughtCriminal]

Your desire for pleasure and your aversion to pain will influence behavior. The adjective 'moral' is a clumsy addition. Morality isn't about pleasuring yourself and avoiding pain at all costs. Sometimes you need to suffer a great deal for what benefits you.

Happiness is a fine thing to have, but it isn't the underlying drive behind being human or moral behavior. My own existence is the proof of that, since I am rarely happy and will try to avoid pleasures if I think they are morally wrong.

I certainly can't argue with any of that.

TC

[oracle13]

Happiness is a fine thing to have, but it isn't the underlying drive behind being human or moral behavior. My own existence is the proof of that, since I am rarely happy and will try to avoid pleasures if I think they are morally wrong.

Well, firstly, could you be happy with yourself if you acted in a way you would consider immoral?

There is an entire school of thought that denies altruism.

Secondly, your existence may or may not be proof that happiness is not the underlying drive for human behavior, but it isn't proof that it is not the underlying drive for moral behavior. At least utilitarian ethics gives some kind of first principle to ethics. It goes a lot further in finding the standard for moral behavior than your empathy/antipathy theory, I would argue, which puts huge emphasis on being kind and alleviating suffering but can have no mention on what they entail. Surely the moral action doesn't depend on the subject but rather the object.

In addition, I will also avoid pleasures if I think they are morally wrong, ie: if I think that my pleasure will not outweigh another's suffering, if that's what the desired action would entail.

[Morality Games]

Well, firstly, could you be happy with yourself if you acted in a way you would consider immoral?

There is an entire school of thought that denies altruism.

Secondly, your existence may or may not be proof that happiness is not the underlying drive for human behavior, but it isn't proof that it is not the underlying drive for moral behavior. At least utilitarian ethics gives some kind of first principle to ethics. It goes a lot further in finding the standard for moral behavior than your empathy/antipathy theory, I would argue, which puts huge emphasis on being kind and alleviating suffering but can have no mention on what they entail. Surely the moral action doesn't depend on the subject but rather the object.

In addition, I will also avoid pleasures if I think they are morally wrong, ie: if I think that my pleasure will not outweigh another's suffering, if that's what the desired action would entail.

See The Moral Argument for my thoughts on my own theory and Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is mega-reductionist monster with an obviously false psychology. People who thought about themselves a bit could see that.

[ThoughtCriminal]

See The Moral Argument for my thoughts on my own theory and Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is mega-reductionist monster with an obviously false psychology. People who thought about themselves a bit could see that.

The problem with utilitarianism, historically, was its commitment to hedonism. If you take that away, you have a perfectly sound consequentialist framework that just needs a more realistic and comprehensive utility function in order to work. I have suggested that we should be optimizing for what benefits us, in terms of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

TC

[thrashee]

Over and over happiness is being qualified when the claim that happiness versus truth would be taken.

No matter any of the supposed reasons that have been offered, it's still the individual's choice to make. Sure, you can pick happiness over truth, and live in delusion. Does that make you any less happy?

To the point regarding what you desire versus that which is in your interest: can you be happy pursuing something that is NOT in your best interests? Sure you can. Smoking, risky sex, drinking, drugs.

I think the only point regarding what's in your best interests is simply that you may end up harming yourself, at which point it could be argued that you will no longer be happy.

This isn't necessarily true. If a smoker winds up with lung cancer, does that mean he won't be happy? Not necessarily. In fact, a smoker may decide that he'd rather have had all those years enjoying smoking than never having smoked at all.

[linda_mary_13]

Because truth makes happiness both possible and worthwhile. Like J.S. Mill, I would rather be an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig, because Socrates is capable of determining what is true. Once he knows what's true, he can decide what to do so as to achieve his goals, happiness being one of them.

Believing what you know isn't true -- faith -- for the purpose of increasing your happiness is like shaving your head to make it easier to brush your hair.

TC

Faith is the belief in the unseen. It is NOT as you have stated, belief in what you know isn't true.

[Rogue Cardinal]

Faith is the belief in the unseen. It is NOT as you have stated, belief in what you know isn't true.

If you believe in something that you cannot prove because you cannot see it and you cannot show it to others......then it could be argued that you are insane. You wouldn't apply this line of thought to ANY other aspect of your life.

He didn't say that it was belief in something that you know isn't true. He said it's a belief in something you cannot know.

You believe in God because you were taught to. IF I am am wrong please explain how it is that you believe in God. What possible reason do you have? What is it that your God showed you that he refuse to show the rest of us?

[thrashee]

If you believe in something that you cannot prove because you cannot see it and you cannot show it to others......then it could be argued that you are insane. You wouldn't apply this line of thought to ANY other aspect of your life.

That's not fair. Faith is certainly not limited to a faith in God. You can have faith that you'll have a successful career, that you'll meet someone who will eventually be your spouse, or that you'll lead a rewarding and enriched life, but you certainly may not be able to see or show any of these things.

He didn't say that it was belief in something that you know isn't true. He said it's a belief in something you cannot know.

Strictly speaking, he did:

Believing what you know isn't true -- faith -- for the purpose

You believe in God because you were taught to. IF I am am wrong please explain how it is that you believe in God. What possible reason do you have? What is it that your God showed you that he refuse to show the rest of us?

I won't argue your first line here, as you were polite enough to ask for a response. I would like to address your final statement, though.

The problem is in the question. God hasn't shown anything to her (or to me) that It hasn't shown to you, it's a matter of reception (interpretation). You and I both know that there is nothing that has been demonstratively given to her or I--some kind of affirming secret--that the rest of the world isn't privy to.

[Rogue Cardinal]

That's not fair. Faith is certainly not limited to a faith in God. You can have faith that you'll have a successful career, that you'll meet someone who will eventually be your spouse, or that you'll lead a rewarding and enriched life, but you certainly may not be able to see or show any of these things.

Actually you are wrong. There are reasons that shape the faith you are talking about. I have faith that I will have a successful career because I am passionate about what I do. I am well skilled to do the job at hand and there is simply no reason for me to not have faith in MY ABILITY. I have always known I'd be great at what I do because I love what I do. I WORK to be great at it.

Because I am successful at my job and because my wife is successful at her job there is no doubt that we will live a rich and rewarding life. WE have WORKED for it. It was always out there to take all we had to do was do the jobs at hand. We could have been lazy but we chose not to be. Hence we have everything in the world that we want.....accept for that Ferrari....but that's not impossible, if I keep succeeding the way I do I have all the faith in the world that I will get one.

I HAD faith I would meet someone because I have always been outgoing and a charmer with the ladies. It was never a question of if. I would happen because I paved the way for that to happen. I actively did things to ensure that finding my significant other was possible.

I can have "faith" in these things because I have to actively set out to do the job at hand. The polar opposite would be a person that can't get past the work part and they would have no faith and thus not reap any benefits of life.

In each case I had to DO something to ensure that the end result would be met. What we are talking about you are calling faith. I call it CONFIDENCE. I have that in spades. Now if we apply the same terminology to God....well I have no confidence in God because I see no evidence as to why I should believe.

To the contrary of what my life is the Bible acts like I can only have what I have if God deems it so. I say.....I got what I got in life because I ceased the bull by the horns and got what was mine. Confidence.....not faith.

Strictly speaking, he did:

My bad. But to me....I have to somewhat agree with him. You have nothing to base your belief on when it comes to God. so how could you possibly KNOW it to be true. You really can't. for that matter there are tons of different thoughts with in Christianity about what it is you are supposed to do and how to go about things. Most of which don't even agree with the actual message of Jesus. If the TRUTH was so apparent why is Christianity a house divided many times?

I won't argue your first line here, as you were polite enough to ask for a response. I would like to address your final statement, though.

The problem is in the question. God hasn't shown anything to her (or to me) that It hasn't shown to you, it's a matter of reception (interpretation). You and I both know that there is nothing that has been demonstratively given to her or I--some kind of affirming secret--that the rest of the world isn't privy to.

Nothing has been shown to me. I have a book. The book is extremely flawed. Modern Christianity doesn't even understand it's roots. And the vast majority of Christians that I come into contact with, I live in the Bible belt so it's a lot, don't really know squat about their religion.

I have no more reason to believe in your God, than I do Zeus, Thor, Odin, Mythras, Atan, Allah or any other God. For the exact reasons you dismiss those religions as mythical or false, I can do the exact same with the Christian notion of God.

[thrashee]

Actually you are wrong.

You bring up the very real and valid points that in each case that I mentioned (with perhaps the exception of having a spouse), you were the determining factor in your destiny. It's a very good point, and it was an immediate gotcha on my part.

That being said, even knowing all those things about yourself, even knowing that you could DO any number of things to eventually reach those goals, does it stand that if you HAVE done all of those things, then you are guaranteed to have them? I would submit no. There are no real guarantees regarding these things. Some people quite literally have done everything within their power, and still don't achieve various goals.

So I submit that you still rely upon some faith on these things.

My bad. But to me....I have to somewhat agree with him. You have nothing to base your belief on when it comes to God. so how could you possibly KNOW it to be true. You really can't.

It's incorrect that people who have faith in God have nothing to base their belief upon. The distinction that needs to be made here is that you are intermixing proof of something (knowledge) with believing in the reasons for which you should believe.

In other words, those with faith have faith in the supposed reasons they claim they believe in God. Back to those interpretations. Something may happen to a believer--a "sign" from God--and the person believes that it's a sign, therefore that belief increases their own belief in God.

Is it completely escaping the bounds of logic and scientific proof? Absolutely. Does that mean it's not a reason to believe? No. A scientifically sound one it may not be, but it's a reason all the same.

So...if you mean, you have nothing scientifically in which to base your belief in God, then any theist who claims otherwise, I'd like to smack in the face.

[Rogue Cardinal]

You bring up the very real and valid points that in each case that I mentioned (with perhaps the exception of having a spouse), you were the determining factor in your destiny. It's a very good point, and it was an immediate gotcha on my part.

That being said, even knowing all those things about yourself, even knowing that you could DO any number of things to eventually reach those goals, does it stand that if you HAVE done all of those things, then you are guaranteed to have them? I would submit no. There are no real guarantees regarding these things. Some people quite literally have done everything within their power, and still don't achieve various goals.

So I submit that you still rely upon some faith on these things.

Sometimes life deals lemons. I chose to make lemonade. People make excuses as to why they cannot achieve certain things. I come form humble beginnings. I have achieved everything that I have set before myself. There was never a doubt in my mind that these things couldn't be done. there might have been to others watching. But from my perspective there was only one end that could ever be....that which I deemed necessary. Sure things pop up that became obstacles. But like all obstacles there are ways around.

I have guaranteed my goals. And let me tell you they have been lofty at times. All things ARE achievable if you plan accordingly and follow through. Sometimes you have to adjust. I, nor my wife, have ever had a reason to NEED a God.

People that tell you they have done everything and then weren't succesful.....simply haven't done everything. They lack the perspective to get around the issue and thus give up. I don't quit.

I am the determining factor in my life. My life is what I make it. I take full responsibility for it. God didn't help me do anything. I don't expect him to start doing anything now either.

It's incorrect that people who have faith in God have nothing to base their belief upon. The distinction that needs to be made here is that you are intermixing proof of something (knowledge) with believing in the reasons for which you should believe.

In other words, those with faith have faith in the supposed reasons they claim they believe in God. Back to those interpretations. Something may happen to a believer--a "sign" from God--and the person believes that it's a sign, therefore that belief increases their own belief in God.

Is it completely escaping the bounds of logic and scientific proof? Absolutely. Does that mean it's not a reason to believe? No. A scientifically sound one it may not be, but it's a reason all the same.

So...if you mean, you have nothing scientifically in which to base your belief in God, then any theist who claims otherwise, I'd like to smack in the face.

I would wager that almost all that have faith were taught how to have it. had they never been introduced to the notion of faith they wouldn't even know about God.

If you had been born in Pakistan....you'd be a follower of Allah instead of God. Why? Because you would have been taught how to follow Islam.

The only reason it's beyond the realm of science is because science deals in REAL things. Most "signs" I've ever come across are EASILY dismissible.

[thrashee]

I, nor my wife, have ever had a reason to NEED a God.

People that tell you they have done everything and then weren't succesful.....simply haven't done everything. They lack the perspective to get around the issue and thus give up. I don't quit.

I am the determining factor in my life. My life is what I make it. I take full responsibility for it. God didn't help me do anything. I don't expect him to start doing anything now either.

On a personal note, I think you and I agree on all of this about personal responsibility. I actually applaud most of what you wrote regarding that.

I can only say that for myself, personally, I don't need God. It's just what I believe. That being said, I'm not a Christian, and I cannot even begin to discuss what most Christians believe, as I reject most of it.