Is Religion, Per Se, "good" Or "bad For Societies?

[wenglund]

Wade,

I CAN DO ALL THESE THINGS WITHOUT OATH OF FEALTY TO ANYONE or TO ANY INSTITUTION.

What do I lack? I can do much better, since it is my own resources. I can decide better.

I am not saying they are bad, but I think I am better equipped to decide what is good for me.

I can accept that you can do all these things, and that is great.

However, the point that I am making is not that denominational Christianity, and Mormonism in particular, is the only way to achieve happiness, health, maturity, and love, but that it is a viable means for doing so, and as such, that is "good".

As for whether one can do better for oneself by oneself than via an organization or institution, I suppose that depends upon individual preferences.

If we liken religion in some ways to secular economies, there are some individuals who prefer to be entirely independant and self-sufficient. Those individuals will happily grow their own food, make their own tools and clothes, and build their own homes, and provide their own heat and light and water, etc.. For them, such independance is better since they know what is best for themselves and they prefer to rely on their own resources.

On the other had, there are many individuals who have found that their capacity to maximize happiness (individually and collectively) is greatly increased through organizing with others, and taking advantage of the principles of trade and specialization as well as synergy. They aren't limited to what little food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and services they can produce for themselves, but they can walk into a super market or department store or home builder or public utilities offices or a host of other product and service providers, and have access to a far greater array of choices (qualitatively and quantitatively). In other words, their standard of living, and the standard of living of others so joined, is significantly increased through organization.

The same, to some degree, is true in principle with religion. Some people may prefer to be self-reliant and self-suffiient, while others see an advantage in organizing and relying collectively on one another's talents and abilities--like a body, as Paul analogizes, where people who can "see" best become the eyes, and people who "hear" best become the ears, and people who love and care best become the heart, and people who think best become the mind, and so on and so forth, each performing their respective talents to the betterment of the whole body.

Can the eye say to the rest of the body: "I have no need of thee"? Well, again, that depends upon the eye. If it thinks it can hear, love, and think, etc. well enough on its own, and the body can see well enough without the eye, then the eye may have no need of the body. If the eye thinks it would be better served to organize with those who best hear, love, and think, etc., and that the body would be better off with the eye, then the eye may well have need of the body.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[katherine the great]

Consider:

1. Many immigrants leave their families in their native countries, and send money back home. While this may provide the needed support for the family back home, I do not think it accurate to expect the lone immigrant to necessarily experience an increase in happiness.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think your reasoning was off base on that particular comment (questioning why immigrants choose to come to the US over countries with more "happiness").

I don't think his reasoning was off base at all. I think your definition of happiness is too narrowly applied. If a person loves his/her family enough to work hard and send them money for their support, this act of sacrifice is going to add to their overall well being and happiness because they are taking care of their family.