Hacker News Reader

Comment by all2 | Hacker News Reader

> Drug overdose and abuse seem to me to be a symptom of something way more troubling.

A general feeling of disconnectedness? Perhaps some existential dread in there. The United States (by and large) used to be lashed to religious moorings, which provided some sense of purpose and moral grounding, as well as fending off pesky questions like "what happens to me when I die?"

The statistics that claim the US is still largely religious are hallow. People wear labels of their religion as a means to exclude or silently signal 'better-than-you', when the purpose and message of those religions has nothing to do with that.

I don't mean to say lack of religion is the primary cause of our opioid epidemic, rather a significant contributing factor.

I would venture a guess that things like easy access and over-prescription also play a role.

View on HN

Something else to consider: In many oriental countries such as Japan and China, people used to live with minimal influences from religions. There are buddhism presence here and there, but buddhism itself is very non intrusive than abrahamic religions.

I lived in northern Europe for a couple of years and it seems to me northern/western Europe is also much less religious than US, without a opioid epidemic.

I'm honestly shocked how American doctors seem to give out opioid prescriptions for any illness or pain. I've not once heard from somebody here (Germany) that was prescribed opioids by their dentist after a surgery. They usually tell you to take some tylenol and rest at home, I've never heard of somebody getting opioid for that. But I've heard it mentioned multiple times regarding american dentists.

There surely are more examples where the docs seem to be a lot less careful about giving out these drugs. Also I think, and that's not only regarding the US, but all of the world, people should be getting way more education about what these drugs are, what they cause, how they should be taken and how you should stop taking them / what risks it bears if you don't.

> People should be getting way more education about what these drugs are, what they cause, how they should be taken and how you should stop taking them / what risks it bears if you don't.

My experience is that it's too complicated for people. My parents can just about understand don't take more than 8 paracetamol/tylenol per day, or don't take advil if you've got high blood pressure, but any more complex than that and they just can't really understand it.

They can't (or don't want to) understand that certain antibiotics mix poorly with alcohol (Don't drink on antibioitics) or that some painkillers are _not_ suitable for hangovers (headache == tylenol). They don't understand how statistics of side effects work (10% of people have one or more of the following side effects means "It won't happen to me"), or that some supplements can interfere with medication (warfarin and St Johns wort), and that this is bad, even though they're not medicines.

>The statistics that claim the US is still largely religious are hallow. People wear labels of their religion as a means to exclude or silently signal 'better-than-you', when the purpose and message of those religions has nothing to do with that.

Among people younger than about 60 or so I've noticed the reverse being far more true. People don't broadcast how religious they are. People are much more likely to broadcast things like what you're saying which is fairly insulting. You're message basically boils down to "most people who believe they are religious are just in it for the virtue signaling and therefore are doing religion wrong" which is pretty insulting to anyone even remotely religions.

I personally don't think religion has a large effect on opioid use or suicide but if it does have one it's a positive one. Nobody ever got hooked on drugs or attempted suicide because their life was fulfilling and on a track to get better. People do drugs and kill themselves because they are in despair and feel like there is no way out of their situation. If anything religion would act as a positive outlet for those feelings.

> I personally don't think religion has a large effect on opioid use or suicide but if it does have one it's a positive one.

That was my point.

As for insulting people, that isn't my intent. I have only my own observations to go on, and I don't know other people's situations or story, especially religion. My personal experience has been rather shallow. No one asks hard questions, no one talks about God unless they're forced into it, especially at church.

Part of my (rather sad) interpretation of my experiences is that I have questions that are hard, that no one wants to answer. And I'm not able to ask those questions and get a useful answer. So, my interpretation is stained.

What do you mean by hard questions? Does it include things like "what happens after we die?"?

I think those questions are best answered by religion, but religion is being attacked, or at the very least, excluded in most thought-provoking venues.

Take for example the school that reject have Chick-fil-A on campus because of its (Chick-fil-A's) religious leanings[0]. Or the fact discussing religion on this very website is generally frowned upon - though that seems to be a reaction to people's recent animosity towards religion.

[0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/school-blocks-chick-fil-...

----

That said, I think religion can have a very real effect on opioid use/suicide, depending on the religion. See for example Utah, where the opiod rates, suicide rates and pornography rates are above average. I think that's a result of a complex interplay of factors. I think the gist of what's going on is that the "mormon" culture has squashed many visible vices - smoking, alcohol consumption and physical infidelity. Combine that with a streak of being judgmental / people trying to fit in (TGF, not in all places), and you get an over expression of harder to see negative effects: pornography consumption (though maybe Utahns just pay more for it... being more honest about it?), opioid use, and depression leading to suicide.

----

With all that said, (disclaimer: I'm a member) I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has plenty of missionaries who love to talk about (and answer) the hard questions (if I'm interpreting your post right). And I'm willing to talk about them too (my username as a gmail account). I'm not sure the answers will be satisfactory to you, but I've found them useful.

> Take for example the school that reject have Chick-fil-A on campus because of its (Chick-fil-A's) religious leanings[0]. Or the fact discussing religion on this very website is generally frowned upon - though that seems to be a reaction to people's recent animosity towards religion.

That article you linked seems to suggest that the school doesn't like Chick-fil-A's leanings towards gay rights. Do you tie gay rights into a religious ideals?

Is it animosity towards religion, or is it animosity towards anti-gay forces? I for one have certainly met militant atheists, so I'm not going to pretend that militant atheism doesn't exist, but they're a very small minority of people.

Most atheists I've seen are willing to listen to me talk to them about religion. They're curious, growing up with a life without religion, and they are interested in what growing up in a religious family is like. But where the line is drawn is when rights of others are trampled upon.

Interesting. I did not realize the history behind Chick-fil-A. I stand corrected - that was a poor example. The extent of my knowledge there was the christian underpinnings of Chick-fil-A's founder and the statements made in the article.

Yeah, I'll again say that I've 100% met militant atheists before and they're quite an annoying bunch. But...

> The extent of my knowledge there was the christian underpinnings of Chick-fil-A's founder and the statements made in the article.

In the majority of these cases, people usually don't care about religion, as much as political views. IE: They may be pro-choice (while religious are typically pro-life), and that's what they're really annoyed about.

Or in this case, the Chick-Fil-A situation is 100% a gay rights issue more so than anything else.

Even the "Satanic Temple" is really just a bunch of trolls / a political group who are mostly concerned about separation of church-and-state issues. The "Satanic Temple" just uses the same tactics as right-wingnuts do: "Trigger the snowflakes". In any case, the entire strategy is to try to make the other side look bad by trolling and acting worse. I severely doubt that anyone in the Satanic Temple actually worships Satan, they seem to be atheists / secularists for the most part.

------------

Again, militant atheists who look down upon religion certainly exist. But they aren't commonly in major positions of power in my experience. So I'm always weary when any group blames things as a "War on Christians".

CFA was not blocked for its religious leanings, but "based on the company's record widely perceived to be in opposition to the LGBTQ community".

> Part of my (rather sad) interpretation of my experiences is that I have questions that are hard, that no one wants to answer. And I'm not able to ask those questions and get a useful answer.

That's unfortunate. However, there are people who are not at all afraid of the hard questions.

I see from your profile that you're at UW Madison. As it happens, I know such a person there. (He's almost certainly going to become my son in law.) If you want someone to deal seriously with the hard questions, contact me at mikestimpson (at) yahoo (dot) com.

>used to be lashed to religious moorings, which provided some sense of purpose and moral grounding, as well as fending off pesky questions like "what happens to me when I die?"

I don't buy this for a second. There is a notable, consistent correlation with economic viability (lack thereof) and perceived/real economic inequality and the negative effects these have on a population. Drug use, mental illness, even infant mortality.

This is what is happening. People don't have good jobs, they don't have a good education (and in some cases their education doesn't net anything), and they don't have a "purpose." You don't need to invoke whimsical images of non-sense to guess at why people feel useless and/or are seeking drugs.

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652881/

* https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/drug-abuse

* https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/mental-health

We are actively wasting multiple nations' resources and people's own personal lives over absurd policies and to cater to a very tiny portion of the population who is already rich beyond anyone's dreams.

> and they don't have a "purpose."

I guess I didn't state my case clearly. My point was (in part) that religion can provide purpose if people lean into it the right way, and that having a purpose can stave off the desire to be numb - emotionally and physically.

>My point was (in part) that religion can provide purpose if people lean into it the right way

There isn't evidence that being involved in a religion alleviates or negates any of the effects/correlations that were presented earlier.

It might seem reasonable to suggest that religion gives people purpose, but again, it actually doesn't really affect what we're talking about. There are extremely religious communities who have extremely high drug use and mental issues per capita. There are extremely religious communities who do not have those issues in the same significant manner. The main factor setting them apart is the economic environment.

The only things (relevant to the current discussion and context) that help out with these issues tends to be economic stability and viability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com