Live data from Hacker News

The Science of the Benefits of Religion

wired.com

301–310 of 363 posts

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

What I ment so say was some "externally given purpose" that makes claims about being objective.

I consider my values to be more of a general goal than a purpose in itself and make no claims about them being objectively good.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha same. Been informed by so many white liberals as to how I should feel, one wonders if they think they'd make a better brown man.

Yeah it's been crazy to experience - white liberals lecturing minorities on how they should feel or think is itself extremely racist and insulting.

I'd use prejudiced over racist since the same 'allies' are often very homophobic, biphobic and transphobic.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#303
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 [b…

Communists (atheists) done a lot more harm than any religion, and they hate gay marriage too. Anything powerful can be used to do a good thing and a bad thing. Any institution can be used to do an evil thing, neglect, or be corrupt, e.g. police (police can be abused to protect corrupt regimes), courts or event justice as whole (slaves were legal in many countries), church, etc.

Communists is not equal to atheists , in fact most of the atheists I know are not communists. Blaming to atheists the crimes committed in name of communism is like saying that as Hitler admired christianism all his crimes should be blamed on christians . And right the ones trying to impose their beliefs, and deny rights to others, in Europe and USA are the followers of some of the Abrahamic religions.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#304
post #48

But if we remove the theology—views about the nature of God, the creation of the universe, and the like—from the day-to-day practice of religious faith, the animosity in the debate evaporates. Of course, then it's no longer a religion. It's a social organization. It seems to be quite possible to overdose on religion. Some religions do that as policy, as a form of brainwashing. The religions with mandatory prayer seve…

My experience with Buddhism was that theology was very much not the point, but most people still consider it a religion.

I was a practicing Mahayana Buddhist for many years and I can assure you it is a religion. There is an entire pantheon with Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, ancestors are worshipped. There are temples, rituals, idols, altars, prostration, chanting, incense lighting, religious texts, etc. There is an afterlife via rebirth which you are trying to end via merit making (virtuous acts). Most of the religious practices are there. There is even a religious rite similar to the Christian sacrament of confirmation called taking the precepts where you make certain religious commitments, and you are given a Buddhist name after time of religious study.

I think it is pure fantasy that people believe Buddhism is not a religion. I think some people want to convert Buddhism into just philosophy because they want to take out the interesting content and drop the baggage (rituals, worship, etc.). Many are leaving Christianity with the hope of finding a spiritual community without all of the negatives of religion. However without the baggage there is no meaning or purpose and people will fill in the blanks with their own culture and religious upbringing.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#305
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…

> 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?

Contemporary academic philosophy has some rather crazy ideas in it. David Lewis claimed that every possible parallel universe exists (modal realism), and is just as real as this one – our universe is the "real" or "actual" one only because it is ours. Takashi Yagisawa takes that one further, and argues that possibility is simply another dimension like space and time (extended modal realism), and that my existence includes not just who I am in this world, but extends to equally include my existence in other possible worlds, and even impossible worlds (logically contradictory universes).

Daniel Kolak claims that only one person actually exists (open individualism), and everyone is the same person, it is just that most of us haven't realised this fact yet. Graham Priest rejects the law of non-contradiction, and argues that it is possible for a proposition to be equally true and false, at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way (dialetheism), and has even suggested that these true contradictions may exist in the real physical world, not just in abstract thought about paradoxes. Nick Bostrom argues that we may be living in a computer simulation, and if we are not, that's bad news, it is evidence that humanity is doomed, or at least that our prospects as a species are not as bright as many hope (the simulation argument). David Chalmers argues that conscious awareness is a property not just of humans and (higher?) animals, but rather that everything in the universe is conscious, even inanimate objects such as rocks, stars, planets, galaxies, even cells and molecules and atoms and subatomic particles (panpsychism).

Are these ideas "irrational"? Rationality is in the eye of the beholder. But they are just as much "out there" as those of many of the great religious philosophers–whether Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, etc.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#306
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, it's no accident that most major religions heavily encourage their followers to have a lot of kids. I noticed looking at my family tree, that basically all the secular branches have below replacement fertility, while the more religious branches have above replacement. Ironically it seems secularism is the ultimate proselytizing ideology, it seems it can't grow its own base through reproduction, it can…

How does secular society hold up the theory of evolution as a reason we no longer need religion? I don’t really see the relation. Some major religions have a creation story that relies on spontaneous creation and found it really important to not consider anything else. But what is secular society proposing exactly?

science theory do not offer any moral guide. we exist because our ancient was cruel do not mean we should be cruel. we got intellengence, we can chose we want.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#307
post #256

It's interesting to think of religion as a societal tool that has co-evolved along with humanity. Societies with more beneficial religions would prosper and societies with less beneficial religious would die out. It's thus no surprise that the religions that survived until the present day promote human survival. For example, it's no accident that most major religions heavily encourage their followers to have a lot of…

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…

Would you encourage radical muslims to stay with their faith and continue their worship? What about even more marginal religions? If not they which exactly religions are you going to encourage? What's the "good list"?

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#308
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Science is done by humans and we're not very good at changing our opinions, in particular at institutional levels. However there is a difference between a priori stating that your dogma is infallible like religions typically do, and at least trying to follow the scientific process.

[deleted]

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#309

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 m…

Besides, associating meditation to religion is like assuming fasting == religion. They are both practices that can exist without mythology, sacred texts or believes of what happens after death.

> Besides, associating meditation to religion is like assuming fasting == religion.

Meditation and fasting are both integral parts of Sanatana Dharma (called hinduism by westerners).

Dont mix these with you perception of Christianity.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#310
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides, associating meditation to religion is like assuming fasting == religion. They are both practices that can exist without mythology, sacred texts or believes of what happens after death.

> Besides, associating meditation to religion is like assuming fasting == religion. Meditation and fasting are both integral parts of Sanatana Dharma (called hinduism by westerners). Dont mix these with you perception of Christianity.

Intersection != Equality

I fast. I meditate. I'm not religious.

One may be religious and not fast nor meditate.

Post reply on HN