Which ones and what is the evidence?
Religion in Star Trek
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
^ The 1969 New York Mets? 
Happiness and hope though based on fantasy is preferable to sterile existence based on truth? A false dichotomy. But if it were accurate, I think it does reflect many people's preference.
But again, it is a false dichotomy. I once was a fairly conservative theist. Now am neither. My life is not stark or sterile. There's wonder and joy and sorrow aplenty. Even though I don't have all the answers based on literal interpretations of a 2000 year old text now.
Be well.
I thought by the time of star trek humans had evolved past religion. like when kirk fought Apollo
Apollo proved that Gods existed.
And, there's always a bigger fish.....
Kirk says to Apollo, “Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.”
Which indicates that at least the monotheistic faiths are still practiced -- although it's my understanding that the second sentence was added at the insistence of NBC's Broadcast Standards people (censors).
Just as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so is any sufficiently powerful being indistinguishable from a god. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I still wanna know why a greater number of irreligious people availing themselves of the tool that is divorce is a bad thing?
If it's divorce in itself that's bad, it's like saying hypodermic needles are bad, because they invariably hurt.
If it's using incidence of divorce as an indicator of less stable relationships, that's still nothing much. Stability can be good and it can be harmful; it is a neutral term.
If it's using incidence of divorce as an indicator of happiness, I'm simply not sure that correlation is correct.
What is the mechanism?
Does religion make it easier for two people of faith to be comfortable with the other, permitting long-term happiness despite countervailing pressures (temptation, age, unsexy prohibitions on behavior)?
Or does religion achieve higher stability (which cannot be equated to happiness) in marriage simply by increasing the emotional or moral difficulty of divorce? If so, then wouldn't religion undermine happiness, by keeping people in unhappy and in some cases very unkind relationships?
Could be either, could be both, but it's not some issue that can be resolved with a simple statistic. I need happiness data.
If it's divorce in itself that's bad, it's like saying hypodermic needles are bad, because they invariably hurt.
If it's using incidence of divorce as an indicator of less stable relationships, that's still nothing much. Stability can be good and it can be harmful; it is a neutral term.
If it's using incidence of divorce as an indicator of happiness, I'm simply not sure that correlation is correct.
What is the mechanism?
Does religion make it easier for two people of faith to be comfortable with the other, permitting long-term happiness despite countervailing pressures (temptation, age, unsexy prohibitions on behavior)?
Or does religion achieve higher stability (which cannot be equated to happiness) in marriage simply by increasing the emotional or moral difficulty of divorce? If so, then wouldn't religion undermine happiness, by keeping people in unhappy and in some cases very unkind relationships?
Could be either, could be both, but it's not some issue that can be resolved with a simple statistic. I need happiness data.
As noted, there is nothing wrong with divorce. T'Girl needs to check her facts better though, assuming she is interested in such things.
Religious people do not have a lower divorce rate than secular people. Ironically, conservative/born-again Christians have a particularly high rate - much higher than atheists/agnostics.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Religious people do not have a lower divorce rate than secular people. Ironically, conservative/born-again Christians have a particularly high rate - much higher than atheists/agnostics.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
My, aren't you a little snippy today.
People of faith are more likely to engage in pre-marriage counciling. While a justice of the peace will marry any one who walks through the door, most pastors require one or more sit down sessions before agreeing to perform a marriage. Rabbis usually will require the same.There is more of a "eyes open" at the begining of the marriage, and when there is a divorce the marriage will usual have lasted longer.
Marriage does provides a stabilizing effect on the overall society, divorce negates that stability. While there is a time and place for divorce, what is good for the individual isn't always good for the group.
T'Girl, did you bother to click the link I provided? Pre-marriage counseling or not, religious people are more likely to get a divorce than secular people. The Bible-belt has the highest divorce rates, highest teenage pregnancy and the most abortions. Your claims are false.
As to stability, that is not necessarily a good thing as stability can equate with stagnation. At any rate, staying in a bad marriage isn't good for anyone.
As to stability, that is not necessarily a good thing as stability can equate with stagnation. At any rate, staying in a bad marriage isn't good for anyone.
What I want to know is if anyone has looked at how old those people were when they got married. I suspect that if you look at the Bible belt compared to the rest of the country, and you look at the average age of marriage of ALL believers or nonbelievers, you'd find the average age of marriage to be lower. You also have lower socioeconomic status and education figuring in as well. (This is NOT to claim all Southerners are ignorant and poor. Far from it.)
My question would be how many of the marriages are breaking up due to marrying too early, when the couples were not mature enough to make those kinds of choices. (Heck, even that site points out the age link as well as the socioeconomic status.)
The other thing that I personally feel is problematic is a misunderstanding of what it really takes to have a successful marriage, and this is something both Christians and nonbelievers have a problem with in my opinion. While romantic and sexual feelings are a part of it, I think that if people think love is euphoria, or happiness or peace or any of those emotions, that they will have a rude awakening when they first see the reality of married life. I think that love is more of a decision, one that has emotions behind it, yes, but something that requires the mind, body, spirit, and heart all to be working. To assume that love is ONLY the romantic feelings, or only the friendship will lead to disillusionment when the relationship runs into trouble.
So my thought is that we should consider that there may be other socioeconomic factors in play rather than JUST religion--remember that correlation does not equal causation.
My question would be how many of the marriages are breaking up due to marrying too early, when the couples were not mature enough to make those kinds of choices. (Heck, even that site points out the age link as well as the socioeconomic status.)
The other thing that I personally feel is problematic is a misunderstanding of what it really takes to have a successful marriage, and this is something both Christians and nonbelievers have a problem with in my opinion. While romantic and sexual feelings are a part of it, I think that if people think love is euphoria, or happiness or peace or any of those emotions, that they will have a rude awakening when they first see the reality of married life. I think that love is more of a decision, one that has emotions behind it, yes, but something that requires the mind, body, spirit, and heart all to be working. To assume that love is ONLY the romantic feelings, or only the friendship will lead to disillusionment when the relationship runs into trouble.
So my thought is that we should consider that there may be other socioeconomic factors in play rather than JUST religion--remember that correlation does not equal causation.
Nerys Ghemor, the link I provided mentioned exactly the same things you did regarding the Bible-belt. People do indeed marry younger there and the socio-economic conditions and education are indeed poorer.
As to the misunderstanding of what marriage actually entails, I would put that at the top of the list as to why divorce is prevalent everywhere we look. It sounds smart-ass but I believe so many people get divorced simply because so many people get married. Unfortunately, there is somewhat of a social stigma concerning unmarried people - particularly women. Remove the stigma and there would probably be fewer bad marriages and consequently, divorces.
As to the misunderstanding of what marriage actually entails, I would put that at the top of the list as to why divorce is prevalent everywhere we look. It sounds smart-ass but I believe so many people get divorced simply because so many people get married. Unfortunately, there is somewhat of a social stigma concerning unmarried people - particularly women. Remove the stigma and there would probably be fewer bad marriages and consequently, divorces.
Discouraging people from marrying based on a rash decision is a good idea, I think. But I also think that on the positive side, if we were more clear as a society about what a lifelong relationship really IS and is not, then people who did marry would be more likely to stay together.
I still say that correlation does not equal causation, although there is a plausible mechanism (basically all stemming from antipathy toward contraceptive measures as well as the desire to eliminate premarital sexuality in general and teenage sexuality in particular, which only winds up pushing it to the margins).
It could be argued that it's good for any children of the union, depending upon the severity of the marriage itself, of course.
Nerys Ghemor said:
Probably true. Really, there should be a greater social recognition of cohabitation. Ironically, I can provide some personal, anecdotal evidence of the recognition of homosexual, non-married cohabitants, based on the lack of legal marriage alternatives in most states; if only I were female, my (cohabitant) girlfriend could put me on her insurance plan, but as I am not, I'm SOL. Funny old world. (Naturally, I'm also considering filing a lawsuit. I would not be surprised if my Bible-belt state has given me or her a cause of action, out of bigotry, that I can turn to my advantage. On the other hand, just getting married would probably be cheaper and easier. -_- )
Stabilizing effect? How so? Single people are a danger to society?
Exactly.
I don't see any innate benefit of religion. Still.
^^^ No need to go on- this is the definitive post on this particular matter.
^^^ No need to go on- this is the definitive post on this particular matter.
It's a start but it is far, far from the final word on this matter. It fails to address the problem that people feel forced into marriage because of social and legal pressures. Those pressures need to be removed. Stop stigmatizing unmarried people, stop trying to limit marriage to the traditional one man and one woman variety and stop giving traditionally-married people special benefits. Then, you will have far less people entering marriage contracts for the wrong reasons.
Similar threads
