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

331–340 of 363 posts

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#331

Post by cratermoon »

Animats wrote: 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…

> it's no longer a religion. It's a social organization.

That's a rather narrow definition of religion. Perhaps consider one suggested by Paul Tillich in his writings - "faith is not simply the will to believe" - such as The Dynamics of Faith and The Courage to Be

- concern with the nature of ultimate reality

- doubt is included in every act of faith

- courage to make a personal commitment

- the will to believe does not create faith

- venture: acting when the outcomes are beyond one's own control

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#332

Post by eikenberry »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #292
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…

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.

> They are both practices that can exist without mythology, sacred texts or believes of what happens after death.

While I agree with your main point, that they are equating things that and not the same, you seem to be to be making the same mistake. None of the things you list are required for religion either.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#333

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

derac wrote: post #212
dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: post #140

So much of the US population cruises along unconsciously on an implicit set of Judeo-Christian values and morals. Increasingly many citizens claim to have left religion behind and subscribe to an exclusively scientific worldview, but the majority of their upstanding behavior still stems from religious beliefs. Pressed to reveal its true character, a purely scientific worldview produces no inherent sense of meaning, m…

Our culture / morality are clearly influenced by Judeo-Christian morals. I don't think churches need to be burnt. However, IMO morality has a deeper source than organized religion. Human beings experience pain, hunger, will to live, and so on. We want to live in a society that allows us to thrive and we can deduce that if we were to kill people randomly then the same could happen to us. This applies to any other mora…

> "However, IMO morality has a deeper source than organized religion."

Toxicity on social and other online media, the prevalence of scams in online marketplaces, the willingness of people (even on HN) to be employed by businesses that cause environmental and social ills as an externality, etc. all point there being a very limited radius of innate human morality, even among modern civilization. While that isn't to say that religion is a good solution, it's hard to argue that some powerful mechanism to reinforce feelings of human fellowship and community at from the individual level to the societal level wouldn't be beneficial.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#334

Post by TulliusCicero »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #293
TulliusCicero wrote: post #267

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…

Those things would have been done in the name of something else too. Religions here is just a pretext. Killing the american natives, the tutsi, the jews or the cambodgian intellectuals intellectuals were among the worst things humanity have ever done, and the religion of the perpetrators had nothing to do with it. Terrible humans will use any rationalization to do terrible things. Most muslim women in my country don'…

> Those things would have been done in the name of something else too. Religions here is just a pretext.

...and there it is. I literally addressed this in my comment already.

> Terrible humans will use any rationalization to do terrible things.

Sure, but you can say the same thing the other way: fantastic humans will use any rationalization to do good. Good people aren't going to suddenly turn into monsters if they don't believe in an All-Powerful Judge in the sky.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#335

Post by TulliusCicero »

drran wrote: post #298
TulliusCicero wrote: post #267

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 (atheists)

Those aren't the same thing, even if the demographics somewhat overlap.

In any case, I'm no fan of authoritarian socialism either, because yes, they did some really horrible shit in the name of their ideology.

But most atheists aren't communists/authoritarian socialists.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#336

Post by kelnos »

eikenberry wrote: post #332
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #292

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.

> They are both practices that can exist without mythology, sacred texts or believes of what happens after death. While I agree with your main point, that they are equating things that and not the same, you seem to be to be making the same mistake. None of the things you list are required for religion either.

I think you have the sense of things reversed. The point is that mythology, sacred texts, and afterlife beliefs usually aren't a thing unless religion is involved.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#337

Post by joe_the_user »

api wrote: post #315
joe_the_user wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secular philosophy has failed to produce enough value for ordinary people living ordinary lives embedded in the ordinary matrix of threats and opportunities presented by every day life. I don't there's much, if any, evidence for this claim. Religion is in a steep decline in Europe but there's little evidence for more anti-social behavior. The American mid-west, where your quote comes from, in contrast is especially r…

I think you misunderstood me a bit. I was not agreeing with that quote, or disagreeing for that matter. I was commenting on the phenomenon. On religion and social health I do have to ask which way the arrow of causation goes. Is Europe healthier in many ways because people are less religious, or are people less religious because they experience less crises and dysfunctions that drive them toward religion? When someon…

I think you misunderstood me a bit. I was not agreeing with that quote, or disagreeing for that matter. I was commenting on the phenomenon.

I understood you as "entertaining the possibility" of your original quote. I don't think that you can take such a statement in terms of "big if true" without looking at a larger context.

On religion and social health I do have to ask which way the arrow of causation goes. Is Europe healthier in many ways because people are less religious, or are people less religious because they experience less crises and dysfunctions that drive them toward religion?

I don't think there's a strong arrow of causation either way. The US is very religious (for a developed nation) for it's historical/social and economic reasons and Europe less-so similarly. The one thing I'd say is that, statistically, there's little plausible evidence that "turning to religion" helps the US' problems.

When someone's father just died of an overdose or their marriage is failing and their family is breaking apart, which secular philosopher would you recommend that they read?

It seems half this thread has been riding the strawman of "secular philosophers". I could mention a variety of secular sources that make an effort to provide hope or reconciliation or whatever from the Sartre and Camus to the latest self-help, non-religious stuff claims to provide a lot.

But the real way these argument are faulty is that they assume religious approaches are somehow the tried and true approach for dealing with tragedy and that assumption is just unjustified. If we throw the gates open to discussion of how to deal with all of life's difficulties it's a big topic and one I'm going to claim I have all the answers to. But I don't want let the assumption "religious is well known for dealing well this stuff" just slip in. That's not my experience. I've seen religious people spend a lot of time blaming the people who've experienced these tragedies. I've seen people turn away from religion and not find it useful and I've with a variety of personal tragedies without religion and done just fine. That's anecdotal but it's mostly refusing to accept your presupposition.

Religion may be the opium of the masses but opium isn't usually isn't a cure for what ails it's average user.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#338

Post by MisterBastahrd »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #163
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…

> 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?

The entire "self-help" genre.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#339

Post by MisterBastahrd »

commoner wrote: post #232
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>” 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.

That isn't intuition. That's a learned response.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#340

Post by PartiallyTyped »

mbfg wrote: post #324
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agreed with all of your points!

A treatment for psychopathy could be possible through magic mushrooms as they seem to promote neuroneogenesis, and restructuring of the brain in depressed patients, so that is a very promising angle, and a lot of further research needs to be done on hallucinogenics because they seem to have profound effects on our perception of reality.

With psychopathy, one of the major problems is with the mirror neurons of the brain, their absence prevents the person from being empathetic, so very targeted treatment would be needed, but in the end, it is better than suffering and rotting in prison.

Post reply on HN