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

The Science of the Benefits of Religion

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 363 posts

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#261

Post by Jensson »

exporectomy wrote: post #231
dwaltrip wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 atheist…

Most Christians have already became atheists though. USA is lagging the rest of the world a bit, but the trend is clear all over.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#262

Post by smackeyacky »

exporectomy wrote: post #248
smackeyacky wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did I say that was acceptable?

When you said tolerating any violence was unacceptable. It takes violence to protect people from violence.

That's quite a logical leap. Would you care to lay out the exact steps from somebody saying they find violence unacceptable, to asserting that they definitely support state sanctioned violence?

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#263

Post by klipt »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly about secular humanism has caused this social problem? Do you have some research that indicates that walking away from "parental obligations" is in any way influenced by religious belief? Religion (speaking about Christianity here, but Islam is similar) prioritizes marriage and family within the traditional two parent structure. Organized religion provides a framework for pressuring people to confirm t…

I think it would be more accurate to say that hierarchical organizations make it easier for sexual abusers to hide, with the Olympics, sports, Hollywood, government, industry, academia stories we hear every week.

Or more simply power lets people abuse, and hierarchy indicates power differentials.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#265

Post by rlt »

roenxi wrote: post #257
sali0 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be a very hard headed atheist until I read the book "The Secrets of our Success" by Joseph Heinlein. That book speaks of how culture evolved along with genetics, and it made me realize how important tradition and religion really are to society. I am still atheist, but now very much encourage religious people to stay with their faith and continue their worship. There are definitely downsides to religion, but…

Same boat. > There are definitely downsides to religion... Pretty minor ones. The basic concepts are well battle tested good ideas. Saying religion is bad is like saying democratic politics is bad - no, it is great because even when horrible people are in charge the fundamental positive influence of the institution persists.

> Pretty minor ones.

Well, except for all the violence committed in the name of various religions over the millennia.

Maybe it balances out, but I wouldn’t say it’s minor.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#266

Post by Jensson »

zzo38computer wrote: post #239
Jensson wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

You don't think that having an entire community to support your irrational arguments makes a difference to your level of irrationality?

The problem is that their religious peers would take their side, find "good willed this" to be a more reasonable argument than the facts, and thus they as a group wont accept the truth. Without organized irrationality they wouldn't create a support group of irrational peers to back up their irrational arguments so in most cases they would have to adapt. And such irrational support groups doesn't often materialize randomly, religion absolutely helps them. There are a few of those who aren't religious, but I condemn the irreligious ones just as much, Homeopathy is just nonsense etc.

So for me the rest doesn't matter, if an organization is first and foremost organized irrationality I'll argue that the organization is bad. Maybe you don't use it that way, but others do, and that hurts everyone.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#267

Post by TulliusCicero »

roenxi wrote: post #257
sali0 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be a very hard headed atheist until I read the book "The Secrets of our Success" by Joseph Heinlein. That book speaks of how culture evolved along with genetics, and it made me realize how important tradition and religion really are to society. I am still atheist, but now very much encourage religious people to stay with their faith and continue their worship. There are definitely downsides to religion, but…

Same boat. > There are definitely downsides to religion... Pretty minor ones. The basic concepts are well battle tested good ideas. Saying religion is bad is like saying democratic politics is bad - no, it is great because even when horrible people are in charge the fundamental positive influence of the institution persists.

> Pretty minor ones.

I don't know how you could say that, considering the many horrible things taught because of or done in the name of religion over the millennia. Like, to use a recent issue, the biggest thing stopping gay marriage in the US at least was people's religiously driven belief that homosexuality is morally wrong.

I know many will say, "well it's only nominally driven by religion, people would've done [bad thing] regardless". But that's a clear double standard, if you don't also say that people would've done good things regardless.

I'm guessing the truth is both: sometimes people really would've done bad or good things anyway, the religion is just a cover. And other times, they really were driven particularly by religion.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#268

Post by eitland »

rlt wrote: post #265
roenxi wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same boat. > There are definitely downsides to religion... Pretty minor ones. The basic concepts are well battle tested good ideas. Saying religion is bad is like saying democratic politics is bad - no, it is great because even when horrible people are in charge the fundamental positive influence of the institution persists.

> Pretty minor ones. Well, except for all the violence committed in the name of various religions over the millennia. Maybe it balances out, but I wouldn’t say it’s minor.

Look at staunch atheists such as Stalin and you'll find that it has been not only balanced out but far in favour of many religions.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#269

Post by [deleted] »

api wrote: post #55

One of the more profound statements I once heard on the problem with modern secular philosophy was this throwaway comment I read online years ago: "Creationism is true if it will keep my kids off oxycontin." (I'm guessing the poster was from the rural Midwestern US.) I'm not saying I agree with that statement, but I can see where they are coming from. I found it to be one of the more profoundly honest and deep statem…

[deleted]

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#270

Post by Jensson »

eitland wrote: post #268
rlt wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty minor ones. Well, except for all the violence committed in the name of various religions over the millennia. Maybe it balances out, but I wouldn’t say it’s minor.

Look at staunch atheists such as Stalin and you'll find that it has been not only balanced out but far in favour of many religions.

That was in the name of communism though, not in the name of atheism. They viewed religion as just another corporation used to oppress workers.

If the argument is that communism is just as bad as religions then sure I'll buy it.

Post reply on HN