I used to buy Jung's theory that human beings had innate spiritual/religious needs.
However, Iceland and Norway, two strongly atheist countries, score very high on the happiness index. Australia also holds a spot close to that statistical intersection.
Furthermore, people take a myriad of paths to gain personal fulfilment - often not religious or spiritual. Confucianism, for example, gave social structure to many Eastern civilizations without ramrodding theology down peoples' throats.
Conclusion: if there was any universal truth to what Jung had to say, then it doesn't have to abide by conventional religions, spiritualities, or narratives.
I think the universal truth is that human beings have certain innate needs that in many cases are met by spirituality/religion. That doesn't require that these are the only ways to meet them.
I'm not seeking converts, and as I understand it Jesus and God does not actually want that either, evangelism has been a cruel mistake or joke on Christianity, couldnt have done more harm if it'd been invented by the Devil himself, but I just think that's a pretty grim picture.
How I wish more Christians would understand this. As I believe I just wrote in another post, the best evangelism is the example of how you live your life.
On a more serious note, I can't with good conscience hold any organised religion in good faith, or as a benevolent source of societal organisation, as organised religion is one of the main contributing factors towards worldly strife.
I think it is more that human organizations contribute to worldly strife. Plenty of strife has come from the influence of governments, corporations, and other entities. I wonder how much good most of them have done relative to the good often done by religious groups.
Finally, I think unorganised religion, if you could call it that, is much worse than organised religion, most of the atrocities committed these days in the name of religious belief are not committed by the larger communities or institutions but random individuals, with random ideas.
Most of the atrocities seem to be committed by small fringe groups. Truly unorganized religion cannot muster the coordination and firepower - literal or figurative - to do much harm.
this is not to say that some religious beliefs don't come more naturally to me... I have little trouble grasping concepts such as powers of nature and the ability to anthropomorphize them into something to be in awe of... I can understand the desire to beg the sun to please come back in the dead of winter and to plead with the sky during a drought. karma makes sense to me and so does reincarnation... those are ideas that somehow resonate with me as being correct. I do believe in treating others as I would wish to be treated as well because that feels right... trying to be good on terms that make sense and fit to me. I wouldn't say that I've always been able to live up to my own beliefs, but I try, and that's got to count for something.
I was going to say I agree entirely, until I saw the highlighted. That assumes others are like me: like what I like, need what I need, etc. If I treated my husband like I wish to be treated, I would make him coffee in the morning, but he hates coffee, so I wait and have it at work.
also a note: if you have to work on selling your religion, is it really worth believing in?
Exactly. If God and the Bible aren't enough to convince someone to see it your way, how can you hope to do better than they?
My problem with this kind of research is that it only vouches for the utility and not the validity of spiritual belief. If you tell an atheist they should practice spirituality with the argument that it'll make them happier, I doubt it would be well recieved as it provides no basis for belief in the supernatural other than wishful thinking.
Don't discount the utility argument. Many techniques the lack factual validity are useful, especially in addressing issues that involve subconcious though that can be elusive when approached head-on. This is why it is important not to insist on the literal or historical veracity of one's beliefs, but rather to hold them as metaphors for deeper truths, about life and our place in the universe, etc.
I believe in God, and I am sure of two things:
1. As [MENTION=1180]miss fortune[/MENTION] pointed out, that isn't you, and
2. I am confident that if my beliefs are in error, God (not you) will correct them, and if your beliefs are in error, God (not I or anyone here) will correct them.
I do not presume to have enough wisdom to judge the spiritual path of another, a lesson you have yet to learn.
