Is it better to be happy or right?
 

If you think belief in God leads to a more fulfilling life but have some logical doubts about various claims made by all religions, would you choose skepticism or faith? I have been told that many of the most famous skeptics in history were miserable, while I see blissful and ignorant people all day long. Not that I know they are wrong about their god, but that I know they have never really questioned the beliefs handed down to them.

If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life. Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is the truth.

You can't make yourself believe something just because you think it would be nice to have that belief.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because it is the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion the existence of some kind of creator is more likely than not, but I dont think there is any way to know either way.


[ QUOTE ]
You can't make yourself believe something just because you think it would be nice to have that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can stop looking for inconsistencies though. And if they come up, someone will always give you some way to rationalize it away. If you already are an atheist it's probably too late, but I'm kind of sitting on the fence on the question. I've been thinking lately that maybe I should just stop asking questions and have faith.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

No, I am an agnostic. Because I don't know the truth about whether God exists, I don't believe either way. I also don't think anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve. Such belief or faith is not the genuine article.

As a former philosophy student, I wholeheartedly agree that the arguments are never-ending, and that you'd likely go mad if you tried to reach their end-point.

...Not the courage of your convictions, but the courage to question your convictions - that's what distinguishes a man from the mob.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
...Not the courage of your convictions, but the courage to question your convictions - that's what distinguishes a man from the mob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the quote. And, I don't think I can choose to be a believer, but maybe if I start going to church, making friends with Christians and just stop debating and trying to find inconsistencies, I could be assimilated. Maybe it's a fool's cause and I will never get there, but I have tended to acquire, or at least become sympathetic to the views of my friends in the past.


Your last line really answers my original question, it seems that you believe to question, to search for truth, is to be human in the best sense of the word. So, to stop seeking the truth on such a pivotal matter, even if you believe it would make you less happy is a poor choice.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Yes, and Pascal drove himself crazy by undertaking a similar project in order to become a faithful catholic. That is, he suggested that if you wish to be a believer, then you should do the things that beleivers do: take communion, go to church, say the prayers, etc. and eventually the trick is pulled and you're a believer.

Others later refered to this as intellectual suicide.

You seem to be very sincere in your search for balance between meaningfullness and truth. I wish you the best of luck and urge you to never fear asking questions.

Here's another fun quote: In heaven you may be joyful, but you can't have a rip-roaring good time! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Ignorance is Bliss....

Bliss can't be beat....

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it that every crispy that comes to my door 'selling' their religion uses this line? Like the only way to get a sense of 'meaning' and 'hope' is through a fairy tale? It's actually a very condescending question.

Why do so many people still follow a religion that's past is ridden with slaughter and child molestation? Even so much so that they tried to cover it all up and act like it wasn't a big deal. Wow, that would give me great meaning and hope to follow that blindly. Denial seems to be a big part of religion. Especially when the collection plate comes around.

No thanks.

b

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Unless you're causing yourself or another harm, it's better to be happy than to be right.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life. Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally feel I have everything I need: the world's easiest job, a huge backyard, and a girlfriend who can beat me at poker, so why would I care what happens after that? And who is anyone to claim that doesn't give me all the meaning I need out of life.

[ QUOTE ]
...but maybe if I start going to church, making friends with Christians and just stop debating and trying to find inconsistencies, I could be assimilated.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're shopping for a faith, put as many people of different faiths in a room as you can get and let them argue. Pick the one you want.

Bodhi, if you know a philosophy grad student named Rick who likes Duke basketball, punch him in the face for me. He's an arrogant jerk, which I suppose is redundant information seeing as how I already told you he was a philosopher.

Sam

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that every crispy that comes to my door 'selling' their religion uses this line? Like the only way to get a sense of 'meaning' and 'hope' is through a fairy tale? It's actually a very condescending question.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bernie, I wasn't trying to say that you can't derive meaning and hope outside of religion. I would say, however, that out of people I know, religious people are on average more happy than athiests. There are many exceptions to the rule. Not trying to convince you of anything here, just asking the question for my benefit and hoping people ca give me good arguements one way or the other. Also, I can't believe you actually talk to those people who come to your door, I don't know anyone who doesn't just ask them to leave before any discussion get started.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do so many people still follow a religion that's past is ridden with slaughter and child molestation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it realy fair to dismiss an idea as big as the gospel, a history changing idea, becaue many of its messengers are monsters. Every good idea will be perverted into justifying some type of inexcusable behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
Denial seems to be a big part of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That goes into my original question, if I believe that denial would leadme to a better life, why is there anyhting wrong with that?

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when the collection plate comes around.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I was to join a church, and make use of their facilities on Sunday's and derive something from the messanger, I would have no problem giving what I thought was an appriate amount to make a life for the pastor and to maintain the facilities. Also, If I felt that it would add to my overall contentment moreso than puchasing some material good or meal, I would have no problem contributing to some charity in the name of a church.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

On the surface this may be sensible enough. But how do you, in your self-imposed ignorance (I don't mean you specifically Bison), know you're not hurting anyone? What if you're unable to permanently maintain your shield of vapidity, and you later learn that you've been living in a manner detrimental to both yourself and others. Then you'd become unhappy.

I think happiness is important too, but I don't think it's a wise plan to eschew knowledge, wisdom, and skepticism out of a fear that some truths may be unpleasant. It is possible to seek truth and still find a way to be happy. In my view, this is the ideal. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

happy and right
 

I haven't read any of the replies yet.

I don't think that it is happy or right. Being an athiest and a skeptic has made my life immensely enjoyable as I enjoy questioning and learning and trying to find truth if it is exists. And I have no problem with just saying "I don't know." Sometimes, I can't explain a thing. That doesn't mean it is unexplainable.

Anyway, back to my point. My athiest/skeptic life does not lack meaning or happiness. I try to help an dimprove the world to the best of my abilities and make lasting contributions to the people I love and society at large.

I would pick knowledge over ignorance. Knowledge is power and helps you make more informed choices. Happiness comes by your outlook, not by ignorance. Knowing there is not a God does not make me less happy--it in fact makes me strive to do good and be better because I know my time is limited and I want to leave knowing I have helped the world in some way. My reward is not some eternal haven--it is the effects of my actions.

I am happy and I am right.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Small world. I played chess with that guy once, but I didn't punch him in the face. Too bad.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Personally, I take truth over hapiness, but that is not quite the right way to put it. I tend to not get upset or unhappy about things I can not change. (I do feel sad when I hear about sad things like children with cancer, which is something I cannot change, but things like the nature of the universe are different.)

Also, there are some religions that do not really have the concept of eternal existence per se, but rather espouse the values of striving for acceptance of and harmony with the world you live in.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life. Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is kind of like asking "Why would you not do heroine when it [purportedly] makes you feel so good?" or "Why would you want to know you had terminal cancer if there was no chance of recovery?" or (germane to this forum) "Why would you want to know that playing trash UTG is a losing proposition if you don't have the willpower to muck that T7s?"

Re: happy and right
 

[ QUOTE ]
I try to help an dimprove the world to the best of my abilities and make lasting contributions to the people I love and society at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more you love society at large the less you can stand the [censored] next door. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing there is not a God does not make me less happy...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really know this? Believing there is not a God is a big step further than not believing there is a God.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Once again I'll quote Harry Connick Jr. "And the preacher said .... The church is the shelter, not the faith son."
I enjoy thinking about and debating the specifics, but you have to think about what religion is there for. It is to make the world better, and enrich your life. I think all religions have some truth to them. So even if you have some problems with the specifics of a religion it can still help you have a better life. I'm a Mormon and have some pretty big disagreements with our religion. But it still helps my community and I be better. I think most religions can do the same. I think there is a story in the Bible along the same lines. Some sort of religious order gets in big debates about things like how tall an angle is and they lose the important message of the faith. Thinking about things like life after death and God can be mentally stimulating and worth while as long as you don't lose sight of the important messages that many religions have to offer.

Re: happy and right
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Knowing there is not a God does not make me less happy...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really know this? Believing there is not a God is a big step further than not believing there is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, I cannot disprove the existance of God. I also cannot disprove the idea that the inside of a black hole is filled entirely with jelly doughnuts. However, based on observation, current knowldege, and logical reasoning, I can conclude to a high degree of certainty that a black hole is not filled with doughnuts past its event horizon.

The most simple and most reasonable explanations are usually the most accurate ones. God does not need to exist in order for the universe to exist or to explain it. There is very little need for God in explananing the nature of the universe and based on the above reasoning, I can conclude to a high degree of probability that God does not exist.

Re: happy and right
 

[ QUOTE ]
The most simple and most reasonable explanations are usually the most accurate ones. God does not need to exist in order for the universe to exist or to explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You beg the question. If I ask you "Does God exist? I just don't know. There's no evidence for an affirmative or negative answer." And you answer "God does not exist because there's no evidence for God's existence," then you haven't given a straightforward answer.

I am an avowed agnostic, and I just wonder sometimes why atheists pronounce their disbelief as confidently as theists pronounce their faith. Occam's Razor or concerns of parsimony have no application here, I fear. I am not asking you to prove a negative, I merely suggest that we don't make claims which are beyond the scope of any possible empirical confirmation. Rules of inference for empirical study hold no weight in philosophy, and philosophy is exactly what we're attempting when we say we know God does or doesn't exist.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

As someone who has a very opinionated and strong-willed spouse, I can promise you that it's better to be happy than right.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it realy fair to dismiss an idea as big as the gospel, a history changing idea, becaue many of its messengers are monsters. Every good idea will be perverted into justifying some type of inexcusable behavior.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're not dismissing the idea. You don't have to support the messengers.

You do not have to be a 'part' of a denomination, and 'give' to them to have the same, relative belief system.

What other 'company' would you possibly support that would have done this? If microsoft was committing atrocities in trying to take over the world the way religion has, would you still buy their software? If you don't have MS, then use whatever system your using in place. Even if you liked and agreed with some of the 'company's' philosophy, but not there way of 'sending' the message. By patronizing them, you are condoning their past actions.

[ QUOTE ]
That goes into my original question, if I believe that denial would leadme to a better life, why is there anyhting wrong with that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Denial in itself can be extremely harmful later on when reality really comes to the surface. How far are you willing to take denial? Ever seen someone like this breakdown after years of denial? It's not pretty.

[ QUOTE ]
If I was to join a church, and make use of their facilities on Sunday's and derive something from the messanger, I would have no problem giving what I thought was an appriate amount to make a life for the pastor and to maintain the facilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget it also helps with the lawyer fees.

b

Re: happy and right
 

I agree with you Bodhi. To claim "there is no God" is a statement of faith. To be an atheist is to be a man of faith. I don't do faith very well, so I call myself agnostic. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Take the red pill or the blue pill. Personally I would rather be right. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance, which is unacceptable.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Take the red pill or the blue pill. Personally I would rather be right. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance, which is unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]


you never know.

that is why i would choose ignorance and it's not close.

both of you are correct, but...
 

I firmly believe in no God. I will stand by that until I am given evidence that contradicts it. On the other hand, I have seen much evidence to counter the exitance of God, though I have not seen proof of his non-existance. I believe what I do (or do not in this case) because the line of thinking which got me here has been proved correct so many times before, which leads me to believe that it holds here, even if I cannot prove it. The fact that this thinking has led me to prove and disprove other things is a major contributor to my continuing this line of thinking and hence my belief in no God.

As I said, you are both correct in the idea that I stand by my athiesism as much as others stand by their thiesm, but using the analogy I used earlier, just because I can't prove that black holes aren't filled with jelly doughnuts doesn't mean that the idea is philosophical or that all sides and beliefs in the matter are inherently equal. It also doesn't mean that accepting that both may be correct and just being in the middle until further evidence is given is the solution. As in poker and many things in life, you aren't given all the answers and you just have to make your decisions with what information you have. I stand by the idea that my beliefs are created in more sound judgement and thinking than others and the fact that I can't prove it does not deter me at all from that.

I hope I have not sounded mean or insulting. If I did, that was not my intenetion. I am just strong in my beliefs, particularly in this case.

Re: both of you are correct, but...
 

No, I didn't feel insulted. I enjoy a civilized argument from time to time! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I firmly believe in no God. I will stand by that until I am given evidence that contradicts it. On the other hand, I have seen much evidence to counter the exitance of God, though I have not seen proof of his non-existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What could ever serve as evidence for or against the existence of God? I don't think we can move from empirical judgements or generalizations to a priori conclusions. In western philosophy the impossibility of proving the existence of God was accepted centuries ago; logically ("logically" in the formal sense) the same should hold for arguments for the non-existence of God.

Re: both of you are correct, but...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What could ever serve as evidence for or against the existence of God? I don't think we can move from empirical judgements or generalizations to a priori conclusions. In western philosophy the impossibility of proving the existence of God was accepted centuries ago; logically ("logically" in the formal sense) the same should hold for arguments for the non-existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The many false truths and presentations by the church over the years and the contradictions presented by religious literature, combined with the changing face of what truth is being defined by what best suits the people preaching it presents a decent argument against God, and towards man creating religion to try and keep control. While the above is of course not concrete, there is no similar argument for God, just blind faith.

Re: both of you are correct, but...
 

That man created religion and God to satisfy socio-psychological needs is undeniable. The question "Does God exist?" however, is existential and has nothing to do with that. That man could have God and religion completely wrong, when at the same time there really is a God, is an excluded alternative.

Here's another way to look at it. The empirical consequences of a "No-God" theory and its negation are equivalent. Either way we end up with the same crazy world full of fundamentalists slaughtering each other and all the rest, so there is no pragmatic or theoretical reason to prefer one theory over the other. (unless, of course, you feel that the principle of parsimony is sufficient for an answer here) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life. Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

The key to this false dichotomy is the assumtion that meaning and hope are given to us from some outside force. Consider that perhaps life itself is devoid of meaning and we create meaning for ourselves as we experience things in life. If we begin with the assumption that the only meaning of life is that which we create, then we can create life as a meaningful endeavor; this leaves us free to fill our days with hope, joy, love or whatever most empowers us individually. Where we tend to get bogged down is when we forget that we made up that life is meaningful in and of itself, it is not!

FWIW, this approach is consistent with a belief in god or a belief in no god. If you believe that there is a god and it is our role to serve his will, you can say that life itself is without meaning and you derive meaning from serving the god you serve. Or you can say there is no god and life itself is without meaning and you derive whatever meaning most empowers you.

The question, "Why would you choose something that gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?" assumes that its meaningful (and hopeless and bad) that life is meaningless. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps life itself is meaningless and it's meaningless that it's meaningless. So don't wallow, Choose To Live!

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Interestingly, I approach this from precisely the opposite direction.

Right now I'm happy, I have no beliefs in a God and no restrictions in my life or on my actions placed there by a deity. I'm pretty satisfied with that.

On the other hand if God were to exist in the form given by one of many major religions there would suddenly be concerns in my life other than my own happiness. My existence would now involve another force whose commands I would have to follow, or suffer punishment (or maybe miss out on some prize).

This thought is singularly unappealing, restricting my actions - ones which now seem quite beneficial to myself and those around me - for the sake of a third party.

Still, however, I would rather be right. I would not be willing to turn a blind eye to the proof of the existence of such a being, even if I can't imagine what such proof would be. So, I would sacrifice a measure of my happiness to be right.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

I find that I'm usually happier when I'm right. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Dov

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

Eating
Sleeping
Relationships
Sex
Poker
Work
All I know is I can be wrong on many levels and still do all of the above well. Unhappiness, however, has a profound negative affect on all of the above.
Eh?
Russ

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you think belief in God leads to a more fulfilling life

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this. It's different for everyone. My belief in God doesn't fulfill me in any way, but my belief in Truth and myself does. Some people might find fulfillment in knowing that there is a Creator watching over them. I find fulfillment in knowing I'm right.

[ QUOTE ]
but have some logical doubts about various claims made by all religions,

[/ QUOTE ]

Who wouldn't? Church doctrines all have political and social agendas. I've been attending church with my wife for the last couple of years, and I don't think I've heard a sermon yet that doesn't have some underlying message.

[ QUOTE ]
would you choose skepticism or faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both, actually. My belief in God is something that is so self-evident to me that I have to accept it as fact. I can't prove this, however, but I accept it as fact, just as the sky is blue, and the grass is green. After reading a series of books by a self-proclaimed athiest (who went on several rants against "mysticism", as she called belief in God), I did alot of introspection. I really agreed with most of her ideas - and still do. I had trouble with this athiesm thing, so I had to come to my own decision on the matter. Either God existed or he didn't. It's not provable either way, so I had to make a choice. I don't remember how exactly I came up with my answer, but I've got it, and that's what matters.

[ QUOTE ]
I have been told that many of the most famous skeptics in history were miserable, while I see blissful and ignorant people all day long.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain you have also seen ignorant and miserable people, as well as skeptics who were happy and satisfied with their life.

Skeptics are probably cranky most of the time because they doubt everything, including themselves. As far as ignorant people, I don't think about them too much, and neither should you.

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I know they are wrong about their god, but that I know they have never really questioned the beliefs handed down to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really know someone's mind, but I see where you are going. You are going the wrong direction with this. You are looking at others, and what others tell you for solutions to your own questions. Now, it's perfectly OK to look to others for information, but never, ever, base yourself on comparison to other's - either their being or ideas.

I delivered pizza once upon a time. There was a new girl who worked mabye a couple of months who I overheard say "I want to get as good at saucing pizzas as he is." Now, that's praise, in a way, and nice to hear - but I immediately collared her and told her that's not how I got to be as good as I am. I told her that everything I do, I try to do it better than the last time I did it. Self-comparison. It's much more honest, and works better, too.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Belief in God doesn't automatically mean belief in Religion. There's a difference. Whether or not there's an afterlife, I don't know. I tend to think there is, but I haven't come to a firm belief in it yet. In all likelyhood I'll decide that there is an afterlife, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, indeed? Why not make your own choices instead?

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is belief in a higher being/power the only way you can achieve a sense of meaning and hope?

Re: happy and right
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you Bodhi. To claim "there is no God" is a statement of faith. To be an atheist is to be a man of faith. I don't do faith very well, so I call myself agnostic. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
So if somebody says to me that Chickens are actually Gods and can perform magic and I don't agree with that, then I am making a statement of faith??

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

This has probably been the best and most contraversial thread the forum has ever produced. I feel compelled to add my two cents.

Through trial and error my spiritual life has boiled down to one overridding principle: Do the right thing, no matter what. As I'm sure someone will point out, how do I/we know what the right thing is? My only answer to that is it appears to be built in. For me the answer is always there if I am able/willing to get beyond the clamor of getting what I want. It seems that about half the time, doing what is right is at odds with my wants. So, no payoff it would seem. Then why do I really like the guy I shave each morning? Why does the committee between my ears shut down when I lay down at night? Why am I a genuinely happy man? I really have no answer other than there is probably more to this universe than meets the eye. Simplistic, yes. Work for me, yes.

Just a poker player

"There is a principle that is a bar against all information, a proof against all arguments and cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bernie, I wasn't trying to say that you can't derive meaning and hope outside of religion. I would say, however, that out of people I know, religious people are on average more happy than athiests. There are many exceptions to the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that, religious people are healthier as well. Statistics clearly show that religious people are healthier and happier than Joe Average.

This caused psychologists to tear their hair for a while, and the doctors soon joined in. It's a weird but clear correlation.

But correlation doesn't show cause. A few decades ago a rather famous study showed that kids who took latin in high school did better in college. This caused lots of parents to force their kids into taking latin. Once again correlation isn't cause, smart kids are more likely than not-so-smart kids to chose latin all on their own. And not so surprisingly smart kids do better in college.

So, what is really causing health and happiness in the religious folks?

*drumroll*

A wide network of friends and good deep relationships with friends cause both happiness and health. Bridge players are about as healthy as church goers. There is still a small but significant difference in recuperation from serious illness between religious people and Joe Average, but we are fairly certain this comes from the patients positive expectations and not from divine intervention.


And to the original question: Wouldn't it be best to be both happy and right? I'm fairly certain there is no creator, and yet I can be broght nearly to tears by perfectly natural wonders. Physics is awe inspiring to me far beyond what fairy tales could ever be. The cosmos doesn't require a creator to be filled with meaning. Actually I find the idea of no creator more awe inspiring than the idea of a creator.

The lack of an afterlife doesn't really bother me. Immortality is found in our children as well as in the legacy we leave the world. 2,300 years later every high school kid still knows who Platon was. We have pieces of art that have endured for 40,000 years. How much more immortality do you need?

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

I find this thread Quite amuseing. To Question weather there is a God or not LOL.. Hey lets get to the Question.
Now say in your small neighbor hood everyone was In a gang well they are stronger in numbers against you as a single sole.
Now lets get a little larger the Town humm now we have church's, and Lodge's. quite simple larger number's are easyer to rule the roost than a single sole. cause they can cut a wider path.
Most folks I have seen to attend church realy don't care about the religon itself. but the fact that it gives them the opertunity to congragate, and what small towns call gossip. leads to advertisement for businessmen etc. and folks tend to stick to there own when it comes to groups.

Quite simple if you feel you can easyer to concore 1,000 people by yourself go head. if it would be easer to do it with 250 then get out of bed sunday lad.
If you think what im telling you is wrong single handly walk up to a church on sunday and try. Try to sell vacumes they will give you that snobby look and send you on your way. Now if you were a member of the church you would sell a few vac's and would have mad some $$$ leading to happyness. Doesn't matter your I.Q. lad just being in the right spot at the right time.
In closeing:
"is it better to be happy or right?" you can have the best of both cause alota folks, don't realy care for the religion, but only for the company it brings.

Re: happy and right
 

No, because we can empirically confirm that chickens are not Gods who perform magic.

Although official church doctrine used to place God and Heaven just outside our solar system (no sh*t), today God is "outside" of all the galaxies and space that we might ever observe. Consequently, there is no possible experience that could ever confirm or disconfirm his existence.

Re: Is it better to be happy or right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you choose something that gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it that people feel a belief in religion or God or whatever is necessary to have a sense of meaning and hope in the world? That's what I don't understand. The meaning of life (could be) what YOU make out of your life. If you choose to live as a bad person, a liar, cheater, a 'jackass', that's your choice. But it still means you are those things. Isn't NOT being those things enough meaning for life?

Maybe it isn't but it should be.