The Science of the Benefits of Religion • Hacker News Board

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#231

Post by exporectomy » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 4:56 AM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #218

rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s time to recognize that many of the things you list as bad have a purpose as well and benefits. Remember, organized religion developed in harsh societies were people were always struggling to survive. If you think about a village in Bangladesh, where there is no government with unlimited resources to come save you, imposition of strict rules, suppression of individual preferences, etc., makes sense. What’…

But what do we do if the core factual claims turn out to be false? Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, nothing happens after you die, there is no anthropomorphic super-entity like the biblical god or Allah from Islam, and so on. If it this turns out to be the case, we can’t just pretend otherwise. Can we make a better religion that doesn’t depend on false myths?

Most Christians have already shed a lot of now-disproven beliefs. Angels aren't literally flying in the sky over our heads. Literal stories get re-interpreted as metaphors or the definitions of words changed. Contradictions get solved by picking whichever one agrees with the culture at the time. And there are a lot of contradictions, so if logic was enough to un-believe a Christian, they would all have become atheists already.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#232

Post by commoner » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:04 AM UTC

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #209

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is your example specific to secular values? I'm sure there are many doctors who are religious. > there’s this pervasive notion that you can’t assert anything without some citation or study to prove your point Yes. That's to prevent people from making false assertions. I can't believe you're arguing that people shouldn't need facts to back up their statements.

>” I can't believe you're arguing that people shouldn't need facts to back up their statements.” I never said people shouldn’t need facts to back up their statements. I am trying to say that there are other ways to make assertions without having to cite peer reviewed studies. And, that when people get stuck in a mindset of dismissing any idea that doesn’t have a citation to justify it, when subjects come up that aren…

Intuition can be secular. It is possible to conclude that the crying baby is feeling pain, or make many other types of hypotheses, without providing citations or using a religious framework.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#233

Post by dang » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:05 AM UTC

jhgb wrote: post #137

dang wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not take HN threads into religious flamewar hell. We don't want it here and we ban accounts that do it. This post was particularly flamebaity. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN, we'd appreciate it.

I'm sorry if it came across as "flaimbaity". It's a sincere question. Weighing the benefits and costs of things is a common thing to do when considering whether to do those things, and in this case, I just can't help but feel that they completely brushed over that aspect. But I will read your link.

If you say it was a sincere question then I believe you, but it didn't come across that way - I'm afraid it came across as snarky provocation.

We're trying for a forum in which people exchange ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. Especially when the topic is divisive (as religion always is), it's deeply necessary to err on the side of the latter. Hopefully reading the site guidelines will clarify that! Note this one:

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#234

Post by exporectomy » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:07 AM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #219

robbedpeter wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is overhyped ragebait masquerading as news. The reality is more nuanced - not everyone is on board with the idea that the government gets to mandate medical practice, and those people get framed as stupid or stubborn or antisocial. There are deep and rigorously rational and ethical reasons to be against the current vaccine narratives promulgated by this administration. It's ignorant and disingenuous to dismiss t…

I will like to say I've been to anti-vaccine mandate rallies. I have found all of them with no exception to be anything matching the description. Everyone I talked to believed in one or in most cases many conspiracies up and down the list. There was alot of anti joe-biden pro trump activity and a lot of Evangelical Christian crap (main speaker led everyone in Christian prayer). Lots of Bill Gates and Fauci hate and l…

I'm a counterexample. I was hesitant about getting vaccinated for covid because it was developed so quickly and all medical interventions carry some risk, so you shouldn't completely abandon decision-making. I eventually got vaccinated because it felt like the risks favored that. But at that time, in my country, only 1 person this year had died from covid and also 1 person had died from the vaccine (yes, the vaccine does kill people occasionally). In a covid-free country, the relative risk of vaccine is much higher.

Also, orthodox Jews are idiot conspiracy theorists? Yes, I guess so. People neglect to include Jews when they criticize religious people because they have their favorite demonized religion (Christianity) and somehow venerate the others.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#235

Post by exporectomy » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

bmicraft wrote: post #211

rpmisms wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up strongly religious, and I still believe strongly, but left the organization due to the people in it. I did have an atheist phase, but that depressed me so severely that I almost had no choice but to reconsider my belief. Without a religious structure, life has no set purpose. Sure, you can make a purpose for yourself, but it feels empty compared to a created, beautiful universe by a benevolent being who got…

As somebody that never felt they had some higher purpose I can't say that I feel any need for it. I can understand you feel like you lack something when lose a higher purpose you've had all your life, but that (for lack of better words) sound like you have developed a dependency on that purpose. What you describe is common for many people leaving religion, but it is also something that is overcome by most after (some…

"never felt they had some higher purpose" ... "my values of making the world a better place for future generations". Sounds like you're now having an epiphany :)

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#236

Post by mbfg » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #151

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between religion and other groups is that it provides an impenetrable shield to those who wield it, and virtually anything can be deflected a-la > God's ways are mysterious fashion. Any differing positions appear as attacks against the person's religion, which - when it carries sufficient argumentative power - can shake the foundations of the person's world model. This, in turn, prevents them from acce…

“ society needs to accept that free-will is an illusion “ The funny thing about pushing the ‘free will is an illusion’ argument is that it sounds exactly like a faith argument. How is one going to ever prove that free will does not exist when most of us are running real time experiments during most of our waking hours. For some reason, the universe gained consciousness even though it could have outputted zombies that…

>> How is one going to ever prove that free will does not exist

if i can perfectly predict what you are going to do before you realize what you are going to do, that would be at the least an indicator.

Can we do that? not at present. Is there research results that pushes that idea somewhat? Yes. Is it conclusive enough, no way.

But i don't think you can rule it out either.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#237

Post by exporectomy » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

smackeyacky wrote: post #213

rayiner wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poverty is a much bigger driver behind low economic mobility. You can test this, by looking at economic mobility rates for bottom quantile kids who differ along other dimensions. And it’s not just right wing people noticing that these days: https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/01/new-harvard-study-w... > Of all the factors most predictive of economic mobility in America, one factor clearly stands out in their stud…

Chetty also notes that his study can't be used to determine whether single parent families are a cause or an effect. Racial segregation and quality of schooling are also noted as being correlated with lower social mobility in that study. I object to the notion that there is some acceptable level of violence and abuse we need to tolerate for the dubious good that any institution might claim. There is only one acceptab…

> There is only one acceptable level of violence and abuse and that is zero.

You don't actually believe that because governments commit violent using their police and military and you accept that.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#238

Post by ekam » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:21 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #179

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One can find examples of both religion and secular philosophy promoting irrational thinking. Can you please give one example of secular philosophy promoting irrational thinking?

We used to believe that diseases were the result of bad smells and physicians used to go from cutting up corpses to delivering babies without substantial sanitary measures. The difference isn't lack of irrationality. To err is human after all. The difference is how science and religion move forward in response to new data.

I’m skeptical of this last sentence; I’m not sure that science is so responsive to new data either. After the myriad papers published on the replicability crisis, citation rings and the like, academic institutions have failed to change substantially with regards to either structure or process.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#239

Post by zzo38computer » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:27 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #230

zzo38computer wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except the person who is religious will always have a limit to their rationality, because they choose "believe in magic" instead of "knowing and not knowing". I do not agree. Being religious does not necessarily mean that you will be "magic" instead of rational. One who is rational can do and figure out things fully rationally, independently from the relgious things and from "magic", just as much as you can speak t…

A person might believe and be rational, but it seems like believing makes being rational harder, so you have less rational people among believers. Whenever you can shut down any discussion with "god willed this" or similar then rationality will suffer. How do you get around that problem? I feel the only way to fix that is to remove that ability from them, ie state that God is just nonsense and they can't just invoke…

> Whenever you can shut down any discussion with "god willed this" or similar then rationality will suffer.

Yes, but being religious does not automatically mean that you have to shut down any discussion with "god will this" (although some religious people are, not all religious people are).

There are less rational people among both religious and nonreligious. (Although, the nonreligious will not say "God willed this", that does not necessarily mean that they will not say a different answer that is just as worthless as the religious answer.)

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#240

Post by allturtles » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 5:28 AM UTC

I have no problem believing that religion may serve useful social and cultural functions. Unfortunately, this article is founded on findings in social psychology, and we already know that social psychology is largely bunk[0].

What are the chances that this "meditation leads to kidness" result (with a total of 39 participants) would actually stand up to attempts to replicate it? The claimed effect size - "8 weeks of meditation resulted in such a large effect—increasing the odds of acting to relieve another person’s pain by more than 5 times"[1] - defies belief.

[0]: https://replicationindex.com/2020/01/05/replication-crisis-r...

[1]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52853b8ae4b0a6c35d3f8...