Hacker News Reader

Comment by virmundi | Hacker News Reader

I agree. In the comment above I played it from two world views. The one you espouse is the same (or similar enough) as the Christian view I mentioned.

The agnostic view is there since I think, or at least assume, the majority of people on HN are agnostic. From such a view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat or, in this specific case, a creature of intelligence. Such an argument comes from emotion. That's as equal as anything else in an agonistic, amoral universe. I just want to people to realize that it's a simple choice, not an absolute. Further, I prefer people coming from such a world view to ponder what they view properly. I find many pull from a Judeo-Christian ethic without realizing it. I'd like people to either break from it for a new model, or, at least, realize there is common ground between them and their theistic peers.

View on HN

This seems a bit ethnocentric. Judeo-Christianity did bring some novel moral requirements, but the ones that it shares with most agnostics and atheists are not Judeo-Christian inventions. For example, Buddhists have been practicing compassion without any need for the Hebrew god for thousands of years, and Jains are some of the most extreme animal rights wonks you'll meet.

That is a valid critique of my context. I presumed a Post-Enlighment Western world view of a European atheist bent.

Unfortunately Buddhists and Jains don't get away any better. They have an underlying belief in a Universal truth. The Universe can punish (at least for Buddhists; I have trouble pinning Jains down on from a karmic perspective since I'm not terribly familiar with them).

Edit: critic -> critique

I'd like to note that agnosticism and theism are not opposing. Agnosticism simply declares that you view the existence and / or properties of one or more deities as unknowable [0]. That is not incompatible with theism. In fact, I argue that such is the definition of faith -- to believe despite not knowing.

[0] Or, for weak agnosticism, currently unknown.

I find your lack of [a good definition of] faith disturbing. -- Darth Webster

Seriously though, I think the "blind faith" usage of the term faith is its weakest form. "Trust" and "confidence" are good synonyms. Because as a rule, humans have faith in a great many things, and the vast majority of those faiths are not characterized by a lack of knowledge or evidence. Consider the following statements:

- The astronauts had faith in the laws of physics.

- My husband was unfaithful to me.

- I've lost my faith in humanity because FooBar was elected.

- Have you no faith in me?

- The war started when our allies broke faith with us.

- You should always negotiate in good faith.

- My dog has been my faithful companion for a great many years.

Think about the faith being represented by those phrases. Does the person who had the faith have it without intimate knowledge of the object of the faith? No! The faith existed because of what they knew about the object, not in spite of it.

> The astronauts had faith in the laws of physics.

You have used an analogy here, in order to aid your point, but it is not valid. Laws of physics do not intersect with faith. At all.

I'm not sure if you think your making a point against my definition. Replace the word "believe" with "trust" and it could fit perfectly as one of your examples:

> In fact, I argue that such is the definition of faith -- to trust despite not knowing.

I don't think that's such a big difference. Believing in something is trusting it to exist and to have the properties that you think it does. If the astronauts were wrong about the laws of physics, it would have broken their trust and thus their faith.

Hell, just for funsies, to drive the point home:

> belief - Trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief

You argue that the definition of faith is to (trust, believe, have faith) in something despite not knowing.

We agree in the main. My point is one of where we put the emphasis.

My counterargument, if it is one, is simply that when humans actually have faith in something, it's almost always "trusting what I don't know is going on, because of what I know of this object in other circumstances".

The husband "trusts" his wife to be faithful, not because he has a tracker on her and so knows where she goes at all hours, but because he knows who she is when she's with him.

A soldier "has faith in" in the general's battle plan because of the general's past victories.

I'm just arguing that all the really useful definitions of faith imply that the trust is actually rooted in knowledge and past experience, not merely blind, hopeful, stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-sing-la-la-la ignorance of reality.

Ah, I see. I don't think I necessarily agree with that definition of faith. For two reasons:

1. I don't think it serves much purpose if it's directly synonymous with trust.

2. Such a definition of faith runs directly against the definition of agnosticism, which asserts that such knowledge is unattainable.

I think the word faith brings to the table much of the denotation of trust, but with the connotation of doing it despite not knowing. After all, there are many husbands who find their wife cheating. There are many soldiers that end up dead, despite the best general's most careful planning. There's a level of the unknowable in all these scenarios, and faith is the continuation of belief in the face of these unknowns.

Or, put this way: The saying is that "trust is something earned". It's earned through proof of intention via past experience. I think faith removes this "earning" step -- it's trust without necessarily being earned.

> From [an agnostic] view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat

Sure there is. Mass production of meat is one of the major fuels for global warming, so if our fitness function optimizes for survival of our species, we better go veggie.

inb4 Prisoner's Dilemma

Not a bad answer, presuming humanity is a thing to preserve (not proven). Though it answer the question "Should we eat meat farmed in a mass production way" much more than should we eat meat at all. There is a theory that we can use cows to reclaim deserts (https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...). Given your argument, we could eat those cows when they come to market since they should have a positive impact on the problem.

Edit: grammar clarification.

I certainly agree that many people today hold to Christian ethics while rejecting the supernatural basis for it, not realizing that their worldview doesn't support their ethics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com