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

Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#891

Post by Jetrel »

Kinrany wrote: post #818
temp8964 wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you can elaborate and distinguish different kinds of "worship", your accusation is overblown. Maybe he used this word simply because it was the best choice available to capture and communicate the underlined meaning?

1. To believe in something unobservable by conventional means. 2. To value something over anything else. The word "atheist" clearly implies the first, and he never explains what meaning of the word "atheist" he uses in his "there are no atheists". So this is either a rhetorical trick, or a tautology that defines "atheist" as, roughly, "someone who doesn't value anything that much", but never goes anywhere with this d…

To try to chip in on this with something useful:

I like the atheist movement, but there definitely is one major logical inconsistency in it. The whole driving motive behind atheism is that folks have looked at existing religions, where people believe in provably false statements, and – you know, that's "bad". It's bad because it's factually false.

The key thing is that the valuation of objective truth here goes way beyond just a calculus of hedonic means and ends - but is treated as something with inherent moral value. For most of these people (speaking from personal experience as one), if you're given a red/blue pill choice between "hedonic misery but knowing the truth of your existence" versus "ignorance and bliss", most of us are morally obligated to chose the former.

It's a bravery and honor thing. I don't want a security blanket of false beliefs. I want to know the truth.

But that right there - if we're rejecting the hedonic "means and ends" justification - has no logical justification whatsoever. The only reason we want to know "the actual truth" is a completely unjustifiable woo-woo piece of "just because we do". It's like an axiom - there's no proof for it or justification for it. It's just there. We value the truth for no freaking reason - we consider it just somehow morally good in some inherent, unprovable way - dare I say, because it's "sacred", somehow.

I don't mind making a religion out of pure truth-seeking. That seems like a great idea, honestly. But let's recognize it for what it is.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#892

Post by Gustomaximus »

lootsauce wrote: post #606

“Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble…

If this were true wouldn't the religious be more "different" as in less likely to desire money or beauty etc. Yet I see no difference there.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#893

Post by jimbokun »

rmah wrote: post #687
lootsauce wrote: post #606

“Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble…

In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". He says people "worship" (with a variety of subtly different meanings) a variety of things and then, implies that because we can use the same word, "worship", to describe those activities, they are equivalent. I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless.

And he makes his point very clearly and saliently and powerfully, and you know exactly what he means.

It's nowhere near as insulting, intellectually dishonest, and useless, as pedantic comments like yours.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#894

Post by jimbokun »

Kinrany wrote: post #808
pkghost wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not disagree more. Wallace's use of language here is instructive, poignant, and immensely useFUL. I'll bet you're an engineer, data scientist, or other technical professional, not simply b/c you're here, but b/c your response to Wallace's use of ambiguity and multiple layers of meaning reveals as much about the nature of your own relationship with language, which I'd guess prefers that things should be clear,…

Regardless of words being context-dependent and having uncountable number of meanings, in the context of a single argument a word should generally only have one meaning.

If you are writing a research paper or a legal contract, yes.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#895

Post by jimbokun »

hexane360 wrote: post #787
nyghtly wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the full speech for anyone who took an interest in this excerpt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI In my opinion, it's one of the best graduation speeches of all time.

I much prefer Stephen Colbert's Northwestern commencement speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tiaooiIo0 And a transcript: https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/06/colb... > But if we should serve others, and together serve some common goal or idea - for any one you, what is that idea? And who are those people? > In my experience, you will truly serve only what you love, because, as the prophet sa…

Interesting, there's a similar theme there, except with "love" instead of "worship".

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#896

Post by wolfhumble »

asdff wrote: post #827
baryphonic wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Frankly, growing up in the church left me with a broken moral code. It was only once I left it in my teens and had to work things out for myself that I feel like I could properly ground myself ethically. Having a moral system imposed on you can do that. How did you derive your moral code yourself? Any action you take has side effects in the outside world, and so some minimal, common understanding of morality is nec…

You don't need religion to learn about morality. Watching Mr. Rodgers or reading Winnie the Poo would do. As you get older you can get into Machiavelli and start really becoming a principled person.

I never grew up with watching Mr. Rodgers and only really know about him through the recent film about him, but it definitely seems that his Christian faith shaped his children programs, see: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/how-mister-rogers-faith-sh...

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#897

Post by nfw2 »

ggggtez wrote: post #738
elmomle wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear that that "worship" here refers to where we practice focusing our heart's yearnings, not to a set of religious rites. Synonyms of this meaning of "worship" include "revere" and "venerate".

No. Because he opens his thought with saying that "Atheism" doesn't exist. Atheism isn't a rejection of "yearning" or "reverence". It's a rejection of religion. He's just playing word games, and you are falling for it.

He is playing word games, but he's not trying to trick anyone. When he says atheism doesn't exist, it's just a stylistic flourish. It's not the point of the passage; he's not trying to argue that everyone believes in god.

The point of the passage is that everyone needs a source of meaning in their life, and that religious is more psychologically healthy option than the alternatives.

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#898

Post by srveale »

baryphonic wrote: post #195
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #46

Having the Church community while growing up was great. But the fact that admission to this community required total philosophical adherence is just bizarre. Frankly, growing up in the church left me with a broken moral code. It was only once I left it in my teens and had to work things out for myself that I feel like I could properly ground myself ethically. Having a moral system imposed on you can do that.

> Frankly, growing up in the church left me with a broken moral code. It was only once I left it in my teens and had to work things out for myself that I feel like I could properly ground myself ethically. Having a moral system imposed on you can do that. How did you derive your moral code yourself? Any action you take has side effects in the outside world, and so some minimal, common understanding of morality is nec…

I find the argument that religion is required to understand and practice morality doesn't hold any water. In fact, I'd say religion makes it harder.

Religion gives you a set of rules, and usually involves some horrible cosmic punishment if you break those rules. But those rules are easy to derive without the need to invoke the supernatural. E.g.

- "What goes around comes around."

- Lying tends to produce more lying, leading to consequences for the liar

- Turning the other cheek gives you peace and endears you to others

- Charity is its own reward

- The 7 deadly sins are all eventually toxic to the individual committing them

- etc.

These would all be true even if religion never sprouted up in our world. Religion coopts basic, secular morality and claims it as its own divine truth. It's done this so effectively that people like you become confused about how non-religious people learn to be good people, and some go as far as to equate spirituality with morality.

My question to you (I'm assuming you're Christian) would be, how do you know that you shouldn't kill someone who works on Sunday? The bible explicitly says that you should (Exodus 35:2). If you know that your morality doesn't line up perfectly with the bible, then how did you arrive at it? There are prominent Christian figures you agree with, and plenty that you do disagree with. How do you decide which is which?

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#899

Post by forrestbrazeal »

kaptain wrote: post #889
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you personally abandon fundamentalism and end up still identifying as Christian? I grew up learning from Ken Ham (literally shook his hand at summer camp), but I'm now a genuinely atheistic apostate and I can't comprehend what you have left of Christianity when you abandon a literal understanding of the Bible. Young Earth Creationism pseudoscience is one reason, but there are tons of others. Ham, I think, is…

The issue I have with (2) is that Ham's construction of the three choices doesn't take into account that what the modern mind and it's assumption about what is "factual" (and valuable) is substantially different from the ancient audiences that listened to these texts. On the point of creation, while Ham contends we MUST take it literally or the entire veracity of the Bible falls apart, there is an inconsistency even…

For a fascinating and impeccably researched deep dive into this and many other questions of Genesis interpretation, see John Walton’s “The Lost World of Genesis One.” https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0...

Re: Gallup: U.S. church membership dips below 50% for first time

#900

Post by nfw2 »

rmah wrote: post #687
lootsauce wrote: post #606

“Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble…

In that quote, Wallace is just morphing, conflating, and fudging the definition of the word "worship". He says people "worship" (with a variety of subtly different meanings) a variety of things and then, implies that because we can use the same word, "worship", to describe those activities, they are equivalent. I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless.

You know who also sucks at writing? William Shakespeare

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

In this quote, Shakespeare is just fudging the definition of "name". He says people and flowers both have something called a "name", implying their names are equivalent. This is intellectually dishonest because people's personal names are subtly different than the names you use to describe objects. I find this quote insulting and useless.

Post reply on HN