If there was nothing beyond this life, would the believers feel cheated?

Before you launch your answers and projectiles at me, let me just expand on the question a bit. It is quite evident that believers in general are happier, and have better peace of mind than atheists. Despite the protestations of atheists, there is no doubt that anxiety is rooted in loss of faith and meaning. If believers are happier; have more peace of mind; why not believe? Why stubbornly insist on atheism? But, on the other hand, if it could somehow be established that there is nothing beyond just this life; no god; no soul; no heaven and hell; would the believers feel they'd been cheated? Or would they say: "So what; at least we were happier believing what we believed?"

 

No, how could we feel cheated? We'd be dead and that would be the end of us. Now, clearly, at least some of us experience or see something at the end of our lives. Steve Jobs is famously quoted as saying. OH WOW. OH WOW. What did he see or experience? Did he realize that for once in many months, he had no pain? Did he see the light that scientists claim is nothing more than the misfiring of synapses and the faithful claim is an invitation into Heaven? We'll never know--but--the point is, he saw or felt something. If a believer sees these things and believes them to be God, then what harm is it if s/he dies and then merely ends? The last glimpse or sensation in life is a fulfillment of his or her belief and the believer can die in peace and happiness.

Now, if someone were able to provide incontrovertible there were no soul or afterlife at all when we were living, then yes, I think it would go beyond feeling cheated. I think it would cause immense psychological damage to people who had once believed that there was something that made the suffering of this world worthwhile. And, even if there were incontrovertible proof, there would be people unwilling to believe this proof and who would continue on in their faith, putting their fingers in their ears and singing "Amen" at the tops of their lungs.

I don't understand why atheists feel as if they need to destroy religion for other people (although that's not in your question and I'm not taking it that way). A believer's faith doesn't hurt anyone but the believer, if there is no truth behind it.

 

I put in bold a small part of your post but looking back could include a lot more. I am not an atheist. I lean toward there may or may not be a God. Or Gods.
No projectiles here but seriously "It is quite evident that believers in general are happier, and have better peace of mind than atheists"?
How do you know that? Is it because believers tell you so? Therefore it is true because you are told so?

"But, on the other hand, if it could somehow be established that there is nothing beyond just this life; no god; no soul; no heaven and hell; would the believers feel they'd been cheated? Or would they say: "So what; at least we were happier believing what we believed?"

Personally I think a lot would feel cheated. As in, "I wasted my life for this?"

 

So we have on the one hand the belief regardless of the end, or rather, regardless of what's on the other end. As long as one's life is lived in belief, and they die in that belief, what does it matter? I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. As long as one dies without the faith being lost, I would say the believer dies happier.

But if in some way, during this life, some doubt was allowed to creep in, that would be an inconsolable loss. Certainly a betrayal. And that is why, as you so aptly put it, it is wise to stick ones fingers in the ears, and sing "Amen" at the top of the lungs.

Herein lies the problem, though. Stopping the ears won't do the trick. The mind is still functioning. Any self respecting individual will sense a self deception in having to shut down ones thoughts. When all around there are voices, and arguments, and so-called proofs, all proclaiming otherwise, the believer forcibly suppresses any negative thoughts from rearing their heads. It's a mighty struggle; and a heroic one.

 

Does it have to be a waste? Are there no benefits to be derived from a life lived in faith, even if the faith is proved unfounded?

This may depend on what sort of believer one is, or was before the faith was lost. If they were the kind who believed only for the reward, the type who bargain with god for every bit of belief, they would certainly have to mark it as a loss in their Balance Sheet. But if they were the kind who believed only because their heart inclined that way, without expectation, or even desire, for any special favors, they can only notch it up as a stage in the growth of a human life.

I began with the question, "would the believer feel cheated?" I should perhaps add the further question: "Is it necessary that there be anything beyond this life to make faith worthwhile?" There's a saying, I believe, that the reward of a good deed is in the doing it. Can we say, the reward of the faith is in the believing?

 

Nah I have had some fun in life so if there is nothing after life so be it

 

Here is where you fall into the same logical fallacy that a lot of atheists fall into. You assume that the faithful do not think, simply because they have faith. You think that faith requires external signs, such as voices, etc. to "forcibly suppress any negative thoughts from rearing their heads." The fact is that there are many people of faith with master's degrees or higher, who do a great deal of reasoning and thinking, who do not need to turn their brains off in order to have faith. If there were proof that there was no God, then I agree, there would have to be a fighting back of reason, but belief without needing proof, in the context of religion, is faith. While each and every person with faith struggles with that faith at some time in his or her life (such as when a loved one dies), the fact is that most people with faith are not "forcibly suppressing" anything as much as they are affirming their belief that there is something better than this life out there.

 

If they're not "forcibly suppressing," would you say they're forcibly affirming?

Most people with faith, as you say, are affirming their belief. And belief, or rather faith, is belief without proof. Without proof, mind you, for two reasons. If there was proof, it would not be faith anymore, just as we don't need to have faith in known facts. But without proof because, secondly, there can never be any proof.

So it may be a fallacy on my part to assume that the faithful do not think, but the highly educated faithful degree holders cannot be reasoning and thinking over a matter which is based on faith to begin with, and which consistently fails to yield proof.

The faithful do think, just as the unfaithful think. We all think, as we are forced to think, of the human situation. The constant battle with doubts, both of believers and of atheists, certainly calls for continuous thinking. But, whereas atheists have to rest their case on the one certainty -- that there is no proof (as yet) of god -- the believers have to rest their case at the point where thinking has to surrender to faith, simply because there is no certainty.

 

I don't think that force is necessary, whether it's suppression or affirmation. I think that a person is either capable of opening his or her mind to faith or he or she is not. It has nothing to do with either person having an inherent flaw, but rather that some people have a more mystical or a more practical bent of mind.

I have a master's degree (which I earned with a 4.0 average) and am in the final year of a second. Come again?

 

Can there be a greater self contradiction than this? You said, and I concurred, that it was a fallacy on my part to assume that the faithful don't think. They do think; and you are a very good example of a faithful who is very highly educated, and who does think; and thinks very well, I must say.

Yet, by your own admission, thinking cannot go beyond a certain point.That point, where thinking must give up, is the point at which faith begins. If you claim that thinking does cross the line where faith begins, you then have to admit that all facts, all logic and reasoning, all personal experience, all recorded experiences of past believers, have failed to bolster up religious belief. On the contrary, that belief has slowly and steadily eroded.

I say this not as an affront to you or to belivers in general; I say this to show that if faith is going to go the route of thinking, it will have to face up to all these objections. But it shouldn't have to do this. Faith is under no compulsion to defend itself. So it must necessarily shut the door to further argument. "No thinking beyond this point," the sign should say. "Enter here only if you are willing to commit yourself entirely to faith. You cannot then turn around and seek arguments or evidence to support your belief."

 

Ah, I accept your explanation. You're right--there is a point at which thinking becomes useless. Some people call "giving it up to God." I won't say that all research has failed to bolster religious belief, but it's currently impossible to prove ineffable, omniscient, and omnipresent God as a native, living intelligence. I don't expect it will be possible to prove His existence in my lifetime, anyway--and since it's almost equally as difficult to prove a negative, I expect my faith is safe. Unfortunately, a lot of atheists do not make the distinction of saying that beyond a certain point, the faithful do not think. In my experience, the faithful are accused of not thinking at all, as if we are pleasant little drones unable to think on our own.

 

I have yet to meet a believer as graceful in discussion as yourself. My respect for believers did not suffer any decline through this discussion. Now, if only atheists would learn not to confuse disputatiousness for thinking....

 

Your words indicate that you're happy with your like. When you come right down to it, this is what we're all seeking: Happiness. And for a person who's indeed found happiness, the usual impulse at the end of life is not to look forward to even more happiness, but to look back in satisfaction at a life well lived. This would be something along the lines of a life like that of Steve Jobs, who said: “Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful… that’s what matters to me.”

This also reminds me of the final words of Wittgenstein, who said: "Tell them I've had a wonderful life." For such people, it probably wouldn't matter too much if there was or wasn't anything beyond this life.

But for every one such person, there are millions who live an unfulfilled life. In fact unfulfilled is a mild term for the majority of lives. They live lives of suffering and desperation, with hardly any hope of relief. Among these, the ones who have some kind of faith can only look forward to a better life in the hereafter. If there was any doubt about there being a heavenly reward or recompense, it would the ultimate betrayal.

What would be the result if they ever came to such a realization? It's scary to think of it. I believe even the world leaders would prefer that people live in such hope, because if the masses ever concluded that this is the only life, there would be a repetition of the French Revolution, magnified a hundredfold..

 

Wow. I don't know where you got this from, but it is most definitely not true. I am much happier as an atheist than I ever was as a believer. The constant trying to figure out what god really wanted and was really trying to day. Is this religion the right one or is this other religion the right one. I think it just goes to show that you don't get out much.

You said in another thread that you live like a monk and don't go out much. If you don't socialize then how do you know if atheist are less happy. It sounds like you are making assumptions based on what other people have been telling you. It sounds like the often used, "How can you live a good life without a higher purpose which you can only get from being a believer." I don't think you have any real experience to decide.

I am very happy as an atheist. Most of the people I know are very happy being atheist.

 

Okay, there is scientific evidence starting with Durkheim that shows religious/spiritual people have a lower rate of suicide than those who are not. Other evidence points to a lower rate of unhappiness due to the unity that comes with being part of a large social group. I don't have links right now and can't produce them, since I have to leave for school in 20 minutes and still need to shower. There is less evidence of it now than there was when Durkheim wrote about it, but the trend is/was that people with high religiosity, particularly in churches that did not preach the "personal Jesus," had less depression. Both Baptists and people of the Jewish faith had lower effect than Roman Catholics. I don't believe that Durkheim studied Muslims--I'd have to go back and check but can't right now.

So please, don't mock people when you're not in possession of the facts. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient when putting down the vast majority of people in the world.

 

I would really have to look at those studies before I would I could say much about them. It seems like a rather broad scoped question, and I'm really not sure what the point of the question is, nor what the answer means. Happiness of followers of one ideology contrasted to the happiness of another in no way says anything to the truth of the idea. The most I can see it saying is that religion is the opiate of the masses. Even if believing would make someone happier of what use is that if they don't really believe it? I can't choose to believe in something that I don't believe. I could convince myself that I believe something, but I would still know that it was a direct result of my desire to believe it.

 

I think we're confusing belief and truth. If your point is (although I don't know that I would agree with it on the whole) is that (religious) belief carries with it some beneficial psychosomatic effects for the human condition, then you are not arguing about the ultimate truth of God or Gods only that the "belief" in them is good. I find this a strange proposition in the extreme. If I said that the belief in Leprechauns seemed, through some experimental studies, to produce positive health benefits in human beings, would you decide to believe in Leprechauns? Can we "decide" to believe in something? Or are we presented with evidence to the point where, unless some future evidence seems to disprove it, we provisionally conclude that something is factual? The religious mind certainly doesn't approach it that way. Faith, the irrational belief in something with NO corroborative evidence, is the hallmark of religious thought. Why is faith seen as a virtue if that same virtue, when applied to a million other silly pseudo-sciences and beliefs (Alchemy, Astrology, Voodoo, Nostradamus, John Edwards, etc....etc....etc...) would reveal the believer as a credulous fool with no critical faculties? "Stubbornly insist on Atheism"? A strange construct. Atheism is not a belief but a method applied to a belief that concludes, with no forthcoming evidence, that the absolute fact of God can be discounted until such evidence presents itself. Present your evidence for God not the evidence for the beneficial belief in the same.

 

Wow. I don't see where I mocked anyone and you need to get the chip off your shoulder about it. I didn't say anything condemning and mocking anyone. Just because I challenge the supposition that atheist are unhappy doesn't mean I am mocking.

The suicide thing is interesting. I fail to see how incidents of suicide represent unhappiness as a trend. Religious people don't commit suicide as a rule because their religions say that committing suicide is a trip straight to hell. In the Judaic religions anyway. The promoted view that suicide will send you to hell would tend to force religious people to put up with suffering beyond what is prudent. In other words. you can't say that an atheist committing suicide indicates that they are more depressed or less happy than a religious believer when religion teaches people that suffering is the way of the world and that trying to escape that suffering will get you punished by god with an eternity of suffering.

 

What has to be remembered is that religious belief and areligious belief start their arguments from different assumptions. Faithful people (of which I better be one, as I'm a military chaplain) start with the assumption that God exists, and then expect the areligious to disprove the existence of God, while the areligious start with the assumption that God doesn't exist, and then expect the religious to prove the existence of God. Meaning we're not even starting at the same point, much less traveling the same road in different directions.

 

Faith is very important to our health, in my opinion. Studies have shown that religious people live longer and, like you have said, happier. Now if there is no heaven or afterlife, what exactly do I lose? Nothing, I actually have gained something. However, if there is an afterlife or heaven, who do you think will have a better chance of getting in? Me, the person who faithfully believes in God or the athiest?