Hacker News Reader

Comment by evgen | Hacker News Reader

I think the appeal comes from being able to accept reality without needing to hide behind a child’s fairy tale and to know that leading a moral life does not require the fear of an invisible sky god, but can arise from simply accepting that others around you are actually human beings deserving of the same respect and consideration that you yourself seek. This approach does lack the shallow judgements and easy rule following of a theistic life, but some find that objective reality forces them to walk a harder path.

View on HN

> simply accepting that others around you are actually human beings deserving of the same respect and consideration that you yourself

This sounds good, feels good, and maybe is good for you personally, but it's not universal.

Others look at world and infer that the natural order of things is about competition and survival of the fittest. For these people, it's about what's best for them, their families, and perhaps their immediate social group.

Without universals, it's difficult to get others to act collectively so that all benefit, instead of doing what's selfishly best for the individual.

When fairy tales and sky gods are universal for a population, they become the organizing force to make people act beyond their own self-interest.

But without fairy tales and sky gods, what is universal? How can you make the strong yield some power and resources for the greater good?

This thread starts out with buddhism, I’m not really knowledgeable in it, but from what I gathered it is far less about rule following and fear than for example christianity and more about guidance in the moral questions you mention that an atheist should “figure out”, cultural objects also seem to display respect and gratitude for an old leader rather than fear of some omnipotent figure.

> from what I gathered it is far less about rule following and fear than for example christianity

That probably depends on which sect of Christianity you're talking about. Protestants generally believe that one's actions do not actually cause one to be saved; instead it is faith in Jesus alone that provides salvation. This bothered people for the obvious reasons, with various attempts to walk back the extreme antinomian interpretation, e.g. "one's actions demonstrate that he has faith in salvation".

On the other hand, in Buddhism the escape from samsara is fundamentally tied to one's actions, not simply one's thoughts or beliefs.

What I feel about Buddhism is that it’s not about demonstration at all, i.e. in case of Christianity (old testament) people are trying to get back god’s trust or approval after expulsion. In case of Buddhism it is your choice to get rid of the suffering and the teachings provide a way.

I agree that fear of an invisible sky god is not required. But wrestling with the questions I listed may still be required. Caution: this may not lead you to 'shallow judgements' nor provide 'easy rule following'.

YMMV - or, efforts may predict results. Just as there may be 'jobseekers' who have hardly sought, so there may be 'seekers of the truth' who, upon finding that the supreme divinity wasn't physically manifesting on their first command, then decided that the system was bogus, and shut the shop down from then on. But we can still have dogs, which will at least come over on command. (Is this why it's 'god' spelled backwards?...the secret's in the runes?). And dogs are love.

Whereas if one took a different attitude, saying that God > job (crazy, I know, in capitalism), then possibly a similar amount of effort might be expected. Then if a little seeking is permitted, it becomes only a question of trying different entrances. I hear good things about Kierkegaard (e.g. 'Works of love'); but no doubt there are many entrances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com