Comment by kuroguro | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kuroguro | Hacker News Reader

I wonder where on this scale would "having a soul" would land. The crony beliefs, as described, seem to be only socially based.

I've been thinking about it for a while and I just can't crack it. Plenty of non-religious people in my friend and acquaintance circle believe that after they die their souls will leave this world and... well they won't actually die, I guess.

I just don't see the social value in that. The subject comes up so rarely that it doesn't really matter. If I had to guess how it works, it looks more like some sort of self-defense mechanism than anything - avoiding thinking about (potentially) depressing things that aren't actionable.

So I guess my problem is that I can't find a way to fit that in the proposed framework, unless I missed something?

_edit_

If my assumption about how it works is correct (self-defense) than it would have near 0 social value, but a lot of practical value (not worrying about things beyond one's control). Yet it still sounds like a crony belief - it's most likely not how the universe works imo.

"Having a soul" is likely a natural cognitive bias, which is very likely to predate any actual religion or belief system. It is "witnessed" personally during near-death experiences, just like karma is "witnessed" in other altered states of consciousness. These states are relatively rare, but frequent enough to fill a void of not knowing what happens after death in almost all tribes and societies. Then the emotional part kicks in: it's easier to survive a loss of somebody if one believes in that kind of after-death experience.

Of course, religions and this kind of grass-root spiritual beliefs are mutually reinforcing too, but the latter seems to predate (and direct) the former.

Have you ever heard of the term "christian atheist". Your post reminded me about a video by the Youtuber Innuendo Studios titled "I hate Mondays".

(The following is my opinion taken from anecdotes about myself and reading about other philosophical works. I am not an expert on this subject).

The idea of "having a soul" is a core belief that is needed to hold up ideas of morals and debt. It's an idea perpetuated because people want to be flattered and people in positions of power can use it to influence the masses. As an example, think about when a person refuses to vote "for the lesser of two evils" in the US presidential election. From a utilitarian perspective, voting for the lesser does have benefit: it mitigates damage. But to the voter, it doesn't feel that way. "Having a soul" Does provide social value. Not voting for the lesser of two evils preserves ones integrity.

Granted I'm not saying people should transition to Realpolitik.

Definitely a good point, but I have trouble believing that that's all there is to it. Having a soul / the afterlife seems to span most of human history and religions and it isn't always tied to morals. Humans seem to spontaneously come up with the idea on their own so I would lean towards something more innate in how the mind works.

Soul in particular is pretty closely tied with other religious beliefs, in tandem with the concept of free will, which, imo, illustrates your practical false belief concept even better. In order for us to do pretty much anything, we need to choose to do it, and believing we can't choose to do something is a pretty big obstacle to actually doing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com