About six months ago, I reported on two major studies that confirmed the point. I started to rummage through my records to find it, then I thought, just for fun, I will do a quick google. That was enough.

Just type in believers happier than non-believers, or Christians happier than non-Chritians, or Church goers happier than non-church goers, or conservatives happier than liberals—you get the drift. The results are pretty much standard—invariably, the answer is, yes.

Then test it the other way. Try getting a response with “non-believers happier than believers” etc, or atheists happier than Christians etc…. What you will find is that the results reverse the order of the words and send you right back to the same reports that confirm that “believers happier than non-believers,” Chritians happier than atheists.” I couldn’t find a single one in any context that refutes the point.

You ask interesting questions Pubdef. I think I gave you an out-of-context answer on that thread.

Someone who thinks about that question is much happier believing the answer to be yes – just look at the posts here vs. the ones on PZ’s board.

OTOH, I think you can go through life being relatively happy without thinking about the question. Consider the Bible story about Lazarus the beggar and the rich man.

I read it as the rich man was a fairly happy fellow who didn’t think too much about God and what God wanted us to do.

For what it is worth, I can provide plenty of evidence that church goers are happier and more peaceful than their atheist counterparts. Also, they do a better job of forming communities and well-ordered societies. Just compare the ideas in Communist Manifesto with those in the Declaration of Independence.

Your first and second sentences raise my hopes that you could answer a question I asked in another thread In “There’s probably no God …”, comment 127, I asked, essentially, whether there is any data that shows a significant difference between theists and atheists regarding daily life and behavior, and overall “happiness.” Your third sentence, of course, is all about theory, not data; so, can you in fact provide any evidence on this question?

I don’t think we are going to get much further, and I am getting behind on my chores so this will be my last post on this topic.

I actually agree that some of the biblical laws are very useful for an ordered society and it is obvious when we look at history that our western society is built to a degree on those laws. I’m glad we don’t still adhere to ideas like the divine right of kings though. The question for me is whether these laws are, as you suggest, divine in origin or whether they are just the things that have worked for ordered societies and as such have become formalised as part of various religious doctrines. Were they created divinely or naturally.

“Go with the evidence. Find happy people. Watch what works. Observe what causes unhappiness and resentment and take note of what brings peace (especially peace in the heart)”

I do, that’s why I tend to avoid church and deeply religious communities.

Gee, I wonder if anybody as ever tried sort of put that idea to the test?

Both sides violated Biblically based principles and the natural moral law. One side asked for the Biblically-based freedom to secede, and the other side chose not to honor that Biblically-based freedom. Both sides violated the inherent dignity of the human person by holding slaves.

I don’t think that really captures the idea of “objective.” The objective moral law is on the outside of us, so to speak. It is not part of our genetic code.

—-”Why should I believe your assertion that there are some natural moral laws fashioned by a supernatural creator, that this creator is exactly what you believe him to be and that these laws are what you believe them to be?”

Think of it this way. If we don’t believe that, then we have no other to provide a rational justification for our freedoms, which was the main point of my argument. I don’t expect to persuade you about the truth of the Judeo/Christian world view, but I submit that you are free only because others built a well-ordered society around that principle. I think that point deserves to be acknolwedged.

—–”Precisely, on what evidence should I believe your claim that these moral laws you subscribe to are any more than the whims of men presented as the word of god?”

The best answer I can give is that they work wherever they are tried, and that no civilized society has ever been built without them. Since they work, and since they are confirmed in the Judeo/Christian playbook (which also claims revealed truths that are consistent with these same sound social principles), that seems like a pretty good indication that they are appropriate.

—-”I don’t claim to have an answer but I would like to know why I should subscribe to the moral laws that you advocate and not to someone else’s. They may not be your personal revelations but it is you who are advocating their divinity.”

I am advocating nothing more or less what the founding fathers advocated. If there is no natural moral law, then there is no unifying principle around which warring nations (or states) can settle their differences. All societies have recognized this natural moral law, even though they were not wise enought to structure their governments accordingly. —-

—-”As far as the constitution goes, if the first commandment is something that Americans are expected to abide by then presumably is is un-American to not be a Christian.”

Well, we would all be better off if all Americans did observe the first commandment, but the law does not require it. Indeed, the Judeo/Christian ethic is the only one that provides for other world views to flourish under its banner. That is a big, big, deal.

—-”I never suggested the US constitution was wrong I just suggested that it might not actually require Americans to be Christians but instead it might grant the freedom NOT to follow the first commandment.”

It is a Judeo/Christian principle that anyone who chooses not to follow the first commandment should have the political freedom to ignore their creator. No one in the United States has ever been given a political mandate to save their soul. The Judeo/Christian principle supports the “inherent dignity of the human person,” which allows everyone to practice his or her religion. Again, no other belief system is consistent with that kind of freedom.

—-

—-(Atheism and Agnosticism) argue that true morality should be the product of rational thought not the whims of theologians masquerading as objectivity and divinity.”

Yes, that’s true. That is why they never come up with anything. If you have the time, ask an atheist to explain his moral code and provide his rationale for it. He’ll probably say something like, I believe that our moral code should be based on “reason.” You will not even get the chance to ask him if his code applies to all people at all times and in all places because he will not yet have told you what it is.

—-”If this objective divine morality exists then why do so many people disagree on what it is?”

They don’t. Almost everyone knows that we shouldn’t lie, cheat, steal, and murder, oppress, betray, mislead, covet, and commit adultery. The problem is that many people would prefer to do these things anyway, so they pretend not to know better.

—-”I’m not even claiming that God or God given moral codes do not exist, I’d just like to know how to tell them apart from the ones that aren’t.”

Go with the evidence. Find happy people. Watch what works. Observe what causes unhappiness and resentment and take note of what brings peace (especially peace in the heart)