Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 823 posts

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#641

Post by angrais »

sudosteph wrote: post #335
angrais wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've confused me. Are you saying that "leftists" cannot quote king because he was Christian? Why's that matter? Also, quotes can be used for many purposes outside of their origin, e.g., love thy neighbour, etc.

No, I'm saying that I know actual leftists (not sure what your quotes are for) who will only post King quotes when the topic is "White liberals are unhelpful" and "anti-capitalism", typically only posting quotes which don't include religious terms. Then, they will unironically claim that his legacy is being erased by the folks who only ever quote him from "I have a dream". To which I say: yes - his legacy is being er…

My quotes are because it can mean something very different from where I am from; for me it's quite an American term. Unsurprising given the forum we're on of course.

It's always left me a bit uneasy when people speak of "legacy being erased" as it's often untrue. In this way, I disagree with both yourself and those individuals you quoted. For me, leaving out details is commonplace in all aspects of life. That doesn't entail erasure. I doubt that people consider the complete background of authors when sharing inspirational quotes. The "I had a dream" speech and quote is powerful and meaningful to the individual because of what it reads, not necessarily who wrote it. That's why you'll see people quote people who are arguably did good ... but also a lot of bad, e.g., Winston Churchill.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#642

Post by betterunix2 »

rsj_hn wrote: post #451
betterunix2 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required, and for all that proselytizing activity of the ancient rabbis there is very little in the Talmud that actually discusses seeking out converts and Jews are not actually required to do so. The New Testament makes proselytizing a requirement for every Christian (the Great Commission). Likewise, Christians are called on by the New Testament to engage in apologetics…

> Proselytizing is not forbidden. It is also not required, Very few religions require proselytizing. I think Mormons are expected to go on missionary trips, but that's all I'm familiar with. In most religions, missionaries are selected from the group and sent out, so the job of proselytizing is a corporate, not personal job, and the role of "missionary" can mean anything from establishing universities and hospitals i…

Maybe I misunderstood the great commission, or maybe I am only familiar with the kind of Christianity practiced by the Christians I have known in my lifetime. Perhaps saying that the great commission calls on every Christian to proselytize is not universally accepted among Christians. As I said, I cannot really comment on Christian perspectives because I am not a Christian. I do not think there is much doubt that Christianity is a religion that actively seeks converts, and Eastern Orthodox churches are not an exception (they have missionaries too). It may not be the central motivation of every church, and it may not be required of every individual Christian, but proselytizing of some kind is a requirement of Christianity.

It is doubtful that Jewish proselytizing occurred to any significant degree under Christian or Muslim rule, which would have been the majority of the lands where Jews lived during the medieval period. It was made illegal by various emperors, kings, and councils. Jews were already suffering the persecution of Christian rule toward the end of the classical period -- among other things, the Sanhedrin was abolished (its last act was the creation of a fixed Jewish calendar; the biblical system you mentioned was based on observing the moon and having religious authorities make announcements of those observations, which could not continue without the Sanhedrin). Judaism remains open to conversion by people who want to convert, but there have be no active efforts to find or win converts for at least 1000 years, and I suspect even longer than that.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#643

Post by GreekPete »

Barrin92 wrote: post #568

I think the real issue is laid out at the end >"If matters of good and evil are not to be resolved by an omniscient God in the future, then Americans will judge and render punishment now. We are a nation of believers. If only Americans could begin believing in politics less fervently, realizing instead that life is elsewhere. But this would come at a cost—because to believe in politics also means believing we can, an…

I don't know if you saw it, but Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray had a debate about this topic a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aALsFhZKg-Q

TLDW: we don't know if Peterson is religious or not but he thinks that Christianity must stay. Harris (obviously) is an atheist and thinks religions must go. Now, Douglas is interesting. He's an atheist but thinks that Christianity must stay because much-much worse ideologies would take its place. Peterson and Douglas like to prove their point by pointing to existing ideologies that are already very dangerous.

Personally, I don't have any argument to offer. Since seeing this debate, I thought about this topic a lot but I still didn't come to a conclusion.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#644

Post by tolbish »

tonymet wrote: post #463
keiferski wrote: post #447

If you are interested in this topic, I really cannot recommend reading A Secular Age by the philosopher Charles Taylor enough. It’s a huge book but the basic takeaway is this: the modern secular world is a thing that was created over the course of many centuries and cultural developments. It is not merely the subtraction of so-called primitive beliefs. The “subtraction thesis” is the predominant model of how most peo…

I'm concerned of both aspects. For one, thinking that secular belief is essential or natural – as if it's defined only by the material world and observations on it. Secular belief also assumes its universal (why wouldn't it be since we all live on the same earth). This leads to totalitarianism (with a small t)

That's like saying math leads to totalitarianism (with a small t because that sounds more scary) because some people assume its universal and will therefore kill in its name.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#645

Post by plaidfuji »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #609

False correlation. People realizing that belief in imaginary beings somewhere out there is false is a good thing. Any correlation at the same time of a rise in people becoming political or ideological zealots has nothing to do with the failure of religion in modern science based societies.

Agreed that weakening religious ideology is good, but disagree that it’s uncorrelated with changing politics. A large part of evangelical political backlash is explicitly rooted in the disappearance of religious symbolism and language from American public life. Exhibit A would be the absurd furor over Starbucks cups not saying “Merry Christmas”. The current intensifying political divide has a lot to do with devout Christians feeling insecure about their diminishing societal influence and the author manages to completely ignore that glaringly obvious fact.

The interesting argument IMO is that current secular ideology seems to trend toward “ignore all religious holidays” or “remove all religious symbolism from society” when a perfectly rational and arguably more populist alternative would be to include and celebrate them all.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#646

Post by zxzax »

betwixthewires wrote: post #460
zxzax wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. There is nothing in the context of "science itself" besides that particular scientific research or process. That's what it's defined as. Did you mean something like: a layperson might be inclined to place higher value on scientific research performed by a personal friend or colleague? That's probably true in some cases, but it's not "scientism."

You sure are doing a lot of not understanding in here. Let me break it down for you: the vast majority of people who say things like "trust the science" don't have the first clue about what the science actually says. It's a dogmatically held belief to them. That isn't to say that the problem does not occur in other types, or that they're wrong about what they believe just because they don't understand it.

>You sure are doing a lot of not understanding in here.

I mean, yes? I don't pretend to know everything about everyone.

>the vast majority of people who say things like "trust the science" don't have the first clue about what the science actually says. It's a dogmatically held belief to them.

I can't agree with this, if they would change their mind about it, it's not a dogmatic belief. You seem to be generalizing about a large number of people, have you asked all of them if they would be open to changing their mind, given new evidence?

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#647

Post by conformist »

tonymet wrote: post #260
hackyhacky wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted. This is a poisonous reversal of reality, to the extent that I wonder if you're just trolling. Fact is, more religious people, especially the evangelical Christian sect that is most vocal and influential in America, is not about examining implicit beliefs, nor is it ope…

Did not intend to troll. The “cognitive tools” are the ability to discern which beliefs are religious in nature: taken on faith, ritualistic, ethical , etc. Again I’m not saying that religion is better or worse. Actually this is a defense of religion as a framework for defining belief. I’m arguing that secularism when taken on face value lacks the tools to recognize it’s own belief system.

It decidedly does not generally lack these tools. A main point of many popular secular(ist) believe systems, e.g. such represented by humanist societies, is to question implicit assumptions and understand what fundamental philosophical believes one has, and they are built around how to do this.

People are often not secularist because they don't reflect, usually they have specific reasons that they are aware of and that they might question in the future.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#648

Post by ttt0 »

_teyd wrote: post #539
coldtea wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, people don't acquire the beliefs by considering and weighing evidence; they acquire them by being told them, usually at a young age, by people they trust, and making them part of their identity. That's why people are so resistant to changing such beliefs. Second, the set of beliefs acquired in this way is not just a few isolated ones, but a whole network of beliefs that cover every aspect of life and are all…

This idea that science and technology is just another random religion is so frustrating, but I encounter it online way more often than I would expect. I don’t need to personally review and understand the details of why electricity and the internet work, because I am literally typing this message on an electronic device and sending it via the internet. No faith needed, and anyway.. I can go build a simple computer and…

> This idea that science and technology is just another random religion is so frustrating

That's not my idea, take it to people who are treating science as such. You know, "believe the science" crowd, that will just take at face value whatever media happens to say at the time.

Electricity and the internet are out of scope for religion. Religion is closer to humanist subjects, sociology, psychology, ethics etc.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#649

Post by kec »

sometimesshit wrote: post #79
ardit33 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. when I lived in Sweden, I noticed that Swedes in general have less stuff. Smaller housing, fewer cars, less ability to buy stuff, and even go out. The average engineer salary was almost half (about 60%) of those in NYC and SF, while prices coffee/going out in Stockholm were almost the same as in NYC. Rent prices were lower though. But, their quality of life seemed higher overall. Less stressful in general, more…

Ardit, You need to measure purchasing power using PPP rate, but even still NY and SF known to be expensive areas with high tax rates. SF engineer could earn 200k year but this money could be much low as 80k in another state if you compare purchasing power. It's complex. The Americans can always buy a car but never foods. This become a meme in my home country. There are always trade offs.

The swing from most to least expensive state is about 25%, not 75%. There’s a disparity between say California and Arkansas but it’s not that high.

Re: As religious faith has declined, ideological intensity has risen

#650

Post by vxNsr »

andrepd wrote: post #566
vxNsr wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fucking people whom you have not married, This is false, it says don't covet your neighbors wife. > working on Saturdays This has been shown time and again to boost productivity immensely to say nothing for mental health. You seem to have a bone to pick but don't understand the thing you're arguing against.

Oh, I understand alright, it's you that are already set on a conclusion and then pretend to be discussing it. > false, it says don't covet your neighbors wife. It says "don't commit adultery" too. Like I say, god almighty creator of heavan and earth and the whole universe has things to say about me and my gf fucking before we're married. I call bullshit :) And the "dont't covet" verse is also great: don't covet your…

There's some major projection going on here.

You're wrong again, both with your interpretations and what it means to worship something.

Let's unpack: adultery in this context doesn't mean premarital sex, it means sex with someone who is already married. And in the context of the bible, you are likely married to your gf so actually you're already keeping this one, good job!

> And the "dont't covet" verse is also great: don't covet your neighbour's property (already this is problematic but okay), which includes: cattle, his donkey, his wife, or his servants.

This is just false. commandment 9 is don't covet neighbor's wife and commandment 10 is don't covet neighbor's property.

> I don't want to worship a set of commandments

This isn't about choice my friend: You don't get to choose to obey the "laws" of gravity. They just are, whether you agree with them or not they are the laws of the universe. god's commandments are the same. whether your small mind is able to comprehend what they mean or not the laws will make you a better and happier person (which just based on this thread you clearly are still in search of). Truthfully though, the 10 commandments don't even apply to you as a gentile. you only need to worry about the 7 noahide laws, and those are honestly a lot easier, because they all just boil down to: don't be a dick. [Admittedly, you might still have trouble with the first 2 because they also deal with accepting a higher power, and you seem bent on believing despite all evidence to the contrary that you alone control the universe. If you've ever been part of AA you'd know that accepting there is a power other than you in control is essential to happiness and satisfaction in life]

Post reply on HN