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

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#321

Post by temp8964 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #242
temp8964 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a choice between the mother's life and the baby's life, because of the medical condition, I would say let the mother make the choice. But if it's a choice between the mother's feeling / opinion and the baby's life, I would say the baby's life overwrites the mother's feeling / opinion. The reason is simple, nobody gets to decide to kill the other person just because he/she doesn't like it. And the existing of…

> But if it's a choice between the mother's feeling / opinion and the baby's life, I would say the baby's life overwrites the mother's feeling You are avoiding 100 percent of the actual dilemma. Nobody is OK with murder they disagree on what constitutes a human life. That is as they say the entire ball game which you have neatly sidestepped as if it were irrelevant. I suggest we return to it shortly. > The only excep…

It seems you are trapped in the idea that humanness is defined by brain function. Which is obviously wrong to me, but I am not interested in expanding the discussion.

Also it is important whether it is a consequence of the mother's voluntary behavior, because if it is not then the human embryo would not have end up inside her body. So yes, it matters.

Thanks, I am just saying atheist can be against abortion. No more argument with me is needed.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#322

Post by ad8e »

allturtles wrote: post #240

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…

I read the paper, and agree with your impression of its quality. With training, it is possible to navigate a shaky field like social psychology, so I'll provide my estimates here.

The paper was written in 2013, so it's not pre-registered.

The sample size of 39 is suspicious given its date. People became upset about junk papers two years before, so the authors should have known better. However, I would hesitate to draw conclusions about the integrity of the paper's authors, because each participant was paid $60, which makes expanding the sample size somewhat expensive.

The authors declared no conflicting interests, but I looked up the first author and he has major conflicts of interest.

The last author, DeSteno, is ranked very poorly at https://replicationindex.com/2021/01/19/personalized-p-value....

Combining these factors, I'd adjust the p-value from .02 to .45, if it were a pre-registered paper which you have pre-committed to read. This paper is worthless.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#323

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

Jensson wrote: post #270
eitland wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

To play the devil's advocate, I'll point out that religion has also inspired acts of charity, large and small, for millennia, a not insignificant number of the greatest works of art and philosophy in history, and provided a sense of community and fellowship for humanity. For all of the atrocities committed in its name, suggesting that nothing good came of religion is inarguably false. We'll see where communism/socialism and atheism stands in a few centuries but, to date, it's hard to say their track record is as good as religion if we're being intellectually honest.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#324

Post by mbfg »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #284
klipt wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's try another question. How does not believing in free will give you an advantage in life? Studies seem to show that a "growth mindset" is superior to a "fixed mindset", and I would guess a belief in free will tends to correlate more with a "growth mindset".

A strong belief in free-will correlates with an internal locus of control, which enables a "growth mindset", an external locus of control does not enable a growth mindset because the human believes they react to things. I do have to admit that for a good while, accepting absence was not good for both my mental well-being, or my actions, simply because I could not find meaning or reason to do anything when no choice i…

Agreed, and to add on, incarceration then, is about protecting society from harmful people, not retribution. It makes no sense to say, were going to keep this person in jail for another 10 years because s/he really deserves it. Rather, we can't let them out because it seems likely they will harm other people.

Obviously if you are person who was harmed in some way by this person, it's hard to hear and follow this plan. But as a society, we have to think in a more calm and deliberate manner, and try to make dispassionate decisions.

Further, if in the future, we find a drug for psychopathy, such that we can just give it dangerous people in prisons, and they become rational, healthy people, at that point it makes no sense to keep incarcerating them. Holding the treatment as a further punishment also makes no sense.

There is a point to be made that incarceration does potentially effect other people's drive to do bad things. Certainly their brain can be dissuaded by them seeing huge prison penalties paid for similar crimes they might do. But i'm not sure the correlation is all that high, and i'm not sure it's ethical to use one person to dissuade another. But that is a point that a society would have to decide on.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#325

Post by Digory »

allturtles wrote: post #240

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…

It’s bogus. Social scientists are locked in their own need to be social by seeming to be scientific.

A problem of sociology that now extends to our public-policy-facing sciences, as well.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#326

Post by hota_mazi »

rpmisms wrote: post #128
mensetmanusman wrote: post #4

Religion clearly has mental health benefits, especially in terms of robustness. The interesting question is whether it is a transcendent ‘supra-rational’ belief system, e.g. a cheat code at life, because even assuming nothing matters, it makes sense to believe if you want to ‘be statistically more joyful’ (of course, some don’t want joy in their lives, so maybe it wouldn’t make sense for them?).

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…

> I did have an atheist phase, but that depressed me so severely that I almost had no choice but to reconsider my belief.

Would you say then that you think it's more important for you to feel better than to believe true things?

> Without a religious structure, life has no set purpose.

Life has the purpose that you give it, there is no need for religion or deities for it.

I feel empowered by the fact that I give my life the meaning that I want, as opposed to that purpose being imposed on me by some supernatural deity whose existence has never been demonstrated.

And you know what? Even if at some point, the existence of such a deity is demonstrated, I will still choose to give my life my own purpose.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#327

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#328

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

smackeyacky wrote: post #275
klipt wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentives aren't specific to women though. Suppose you were a stay at home dad married to a high earning wife. You then meet a new woman you find more attractive. Under most Western countries' laws you can divorce your wife for no reason other than you no longer find her attractive, and she has to pay you alimony and child support to maintain your lifestyle while you're dating your new, hotter partner. What's th…

So, the no fault divorce system has to be absolutely perfect to be acceptable? To be honest, I don't see anything wrong in your scenario. People fall out of love for lots of reasons, making them miserable by making it harder to split up doesn't seem like a particularly good solution to me. The scenario you've raised would have to involve a very emotionally shallow individual whom the other partner would be better off…

> "So, the no fault divorce system has to be absolutely perfect to be acceptable?"

Didn't you just write in another post above "There is only one acceptable level of violence and abuse and that is zero."?

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#329

Post by klipt »

mbfg wrote: post #314
klipt wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's try another question. How does not believing in free will give you an advantage in life? Studies seem to show that a "growth mindset" is superior to a "fixed mindset", and I would guess a belief in free will tends to correlate more with a "growth mindset".

I'm not sure that question matters. The question of whether or not we have free will is independent of what would be better.

It matters to evolution. Maybe human communities who don't believe in free will just can't sustain themselves.

In which case, would you rather be part of a healthy community, or a dying one?

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#330

Post by [deleted] »

hota_mazi wrote: post #185
truetraveller wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You think that doing good only because you are being watched Never said "only because" of being watched. Being watched is an added measure. > Atheists do good because it's the right thing to do Many atheists, from personal experience, most don't really care to do good when no one's watching. Not saying it applies to all atheists, but for many. It's simply not rational. Why do good? For "karma"? So, the atheist has r…

We do good because it feels good to do good, but also because evolution allowed us to develop empathy. We feel a natural need to help other people because we hope that other people would help us if we needed it to. "Today, you. Tomorrow me". We hold the door to strangers, help them carry stuff, or pick them up they have a flat tire, and none of that requires the existence of a vengeful god who will send us into a lak…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN