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

341–350 of 363 posts

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#341

Post by xyzzyz »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #328
smackeyacky wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. "?

This is exactly the kind of refusal of admitting the existence of trade-off I was speaking of. To pursue a noble goal of reducing abuse and violence to zero, other noble goals are sacrificed. This sacrifice, while very real, is not acknowledged, because the narrative claims we can satisfy all of our goals perfectly at the same time. This might even be possible, but, quite apparently, not using the currently proposed approaches. Nevertheless, the narrative rejects the idea of admitting that the current approaches are anything less then perfect, because it would mean admitting the existence of the trade off.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#342

Post by iammisc »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #302
forgingahead wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah they're just racist. The thing is a white liberal can become a homosexual should they choose to have sex with someone of the same sex. They can even theoretically become trans.

No matter what a white man or woman does or how they feel about attraction or their gender.... He or she will never be brown. Sorry I'm not putting up with this intersectionality shit.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#343

Post by exporectomy »

smackeyacky wrote: post #262
exporectomy wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For the state to not tolerate any violence, it must prevent violence among its citizens and from foreign attackers. The only way we have that works is using violence to restrain criminals, or fight against enemy armies. We don't have any perfect safety shield that can protect everyone without harming the attackers, or to prevent people from doing violent acts without physically restraining them (violence).

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#344

Post by commoner »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #339
commoner wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought learned responses were tied to some form of conditioning.

https://dictionary.apa.org/learned-response

Anyway, my point is that a religious framework isn't needed to have a gut feeling about something.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#345

Post by michaelmrose »

temp8964 wrote: post #321
michaelmrose wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As an atheist it would seem dualism would be out of bounds so given that your brain is you in a very literal sense what other factor do you believe defines humanness? I think therefore I am seems like the strongest possible argument here.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#346

Post by [deleted] »

xyzzyz wrote: post #341
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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. "?

This is exactly the kind of refusal of admitting the existence of trade-off I was speaking of. To pursue a noble goal of reducing abuse and violence to zero, other noble goals are sacrificed. This sacrifice, while very real, is not acknowledged, because the narrative claims we can satisfy all of our goals perfectly at the same time. This might even be possible, but, quite apparently, not using the currently proposed…

[deleted]

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#347

Post by mbfg »

klipt wrote: post #329
mbfg wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have their been substantial societies that didn't believe in free will that we can examine?

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#348

Post by MisterBastahrd »

commoner wrote: post #344
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought learned responses were tied to some form of conditioning. https://dictionary.apa.org/learned-response Anyway, my point is that a religious framework isn't needed to have a gut feeling about something.

Yes, which isn't intuition. Intuition is when you have a correct feeling about something even though you have no knowledge of the situation.

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#349

Post by commoner »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #348
commoner wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought learned responses were tied to some form of conditioning. https://dictionary.apa.org/learned-response Anyway, my point is that a religious framework isn't needed to have a gut feeling about something.

Yes, which isn't intuition. Intuition is when you have a correct feeling about something even though you have no knowledge of the situation.

That's too strict of a definition, in my opinion, and I don't understand how conditioning is related to the crying baby example. Intuition can produce incorrect judgments and doesn't need the person to be clueless. Here's a dictionary definition:

> (knowledge from) an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/intui...

Re: The Science of the Benefits of Religion

#350

Post by rpmisms »

hota_mazi wrote: post #326
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…

> 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 li…

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

Believing in a higher power and believing untrue things aren't codependent. I believe in science, and the power of man's reason. None of that contradicts my belief in a higher power.

Post reply on HN