Hacker News Reader

Comment by mb_72 | Hacker News Reader

"...create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life."

'God' does this all the time already. Friends of mine recently had a baby girl; she is missing part of one of her chromosomes. The family is very religious, and is being torn apart trying to understand how their 'loving God' could have done such a thing. So this 'morality' you speak of is making a tragic and difficult event far worse.

You are also neglecting the 'unnatural' processes that allow many worthy people have children via IVF.

'Natural' science and medicine had it's place back in medieval times, but not now. Same goes for religion.

View on HN

Eh like I said I was not as concise as I would like to have been in my comment :

IVF is not creating a completely new, engineered organism. Not really what I am talking about.

And man, the idea that religion has no place in the modern world would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. Religion serves a veokry important role in society and we abandon it at our peril.

I am sorry to hear about your friend, but this is really not comparable to engineering a new unique organism. And I'm sure her pain would be just as great or worse without a god in her life. Christians realize that there are trials in the world. Re: the book of Job.

As someone that doesn't abhor religion, the following isn't meant as argumentative, but rather curiosity:

> Religion serves a very important role in society and we abandon it at our peril.

What "important role" might that be? I don't see the necessity of religion and don't think there's anything inherent of religions that can't be supplemented by the surrounding culture.

I think that reasoning about morality without an irrational, faith-based approach leads to a "slippery slope" if you will of reasoning. Essentially, I believe that the fundamental utility of religion is that it provides a framework for morality which is external to logic : therefore it allows one to establish moral barriers which cannot be cross regardless of any logical rationalization. This is important when considering things like eugenics - there are rational lines of thought that lead you to very very ugly conclusions. If you have an arational "hard stop" at the personal and societal level, we avoid these situations.

This seems similar to the Jordan Peterson view that religion, mythology, and even good fiction serves to encode generational wisdom on how best to organize a society.

Maybe similar. While I agree with that view, I think religion is more than that.

My practical argument is not that it encodes generational wisdom, necessarily, but rather that it is a source of moral reasoning that lies external to pure logic, which sacrifices what is right for what is practical, or expedient, in many cases

Empathy stops people from doing awful things pretty regularly. Moreover, many religions allow people to subvert their empathy w.r.t. people who don't fit heteronormative standards. Hell, some sects of Christianity are pretty awful to women.

I don't see a use for religion other than to allow people to skirt their responsibility in having/maintaining a mature line of empathy.

Empathy can also lead you to make destructive decisions and fallcious moral reasonings.

Truly though, any sect of christianity that abuses non heteronarmative people or women is not living by the law of the bible.

I know this sounds like a "no true scotsman" fallacy but really, If you read the bible, 100% of awful christian behaviour is in spite of the bible, not inspired by it.

I think logic builds a stronger moral foundation than religion ever could.

Almost all of the worst atrocities in history have be committed due to faith/some other non-logical idealism. In this way relgion does very little to create a "hard line that can't be crossed" in fact it's often used as the justification.

Empathy can be derived from logic and is sufficient for deriving modern morality.

I'm not saying all religion is bad, just that it doesn't have utility over and beyond logic. Logic is more than sufficient to establish all of the perceived benefits of religion with none of the inherent risks/downsides of organised religions.

In my travels around the U.S., I encountered many institutions helping the disadvantaged, and almost all of them were religious, mostly Christian or spiritual. I don't know any other organization or entity feeding, clothing, listening, aiding those who need it, day in and day out, giving time and effort and resources without expecting anything in return. No photo ops or social media posts.

With Christianity supposedly in decline, especially in tech, how will we replace it?

Some would argue it's the role of the state to look after the disadvantaged. This model works very well in much of the OECD. Conflating religion and welfare is not a winning combo imo. Further, the state can do so in a way that doesn't impose, foist or solicit religion on the poor.

I've never seen religion foisted or solicited in any way you suggest.

I HAVE seen the state fail to help after burning through millions in many places.

If I wanted to provide help to the poor without involving my religion, I would do so by donating to charities that aren't religious, or I would do so away from church. Religious institutions help the poor in part as a recruiting drive. That doesn't mean the poor don't benefit, of course, but it is opportunistic IMO.

> I HAVE seen the state fail to help after burning through millions in many places.

Sure, but that's a red herring. It's fair to say both have a checkered past.

Sikh temples unconditionally offer free meals to all without concern for a recipient's religion or economic status.

Religion and charity are voluntary. You can choose to donate to charities that will most effectively utilize your donations. You don't have that choice with a state, and the outcomes are not always good. Even in Democracies, the state social services are often such inefficient massively entrenched institutions that they are resistant to change.

Religions also serve as bulwarks against increasing state power. Depending on your perspective this could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm more concerned about the great harm an unrestrained state can inflict on the world than what good it may be able to do.

>If I wanted to provide help to the poor without involving my religion, I would do so by donating to charities that aren't religious,

That's what I'm referring to, you'd donate to professionals, but would you do any of it yourself?

That's a great call out, actually. I haven't, but I should.

By just helping people?

Who is going to do it?

Who wont?

The US made the welfare state a dogmatic evil. In other places it's percieved as necessary, and it does replace the role of religious institutions of taking care of the underprivileged.

So, learn from europe and other social democratic states. Stop believe in the dogma of the invisible hand, and that what makes money is inherently good.

> IVF is not creating a completely new, engineered organism

IVF seems pretty un-natural...

It's not too clear what "completely new, engineered organism" line you're taking here.

Religion needs a major update, tbh. People are following something written thousands of years ago, which is asinine. Either make a modern version or abandon the whole thing in favour of just being a normal human. It doesn't take much - be kind, understanding, don't hurt others, that's like 90% of it.

i heard someone make this interesting observation: handicapped people could be a test of god for the rest of us.

but your friends may also consider this:

any suffering in this life is rewarded in the next life (the life after death)

god doesn't give us tests that we couldn't possibly pass.

if you are compassionate, i hope you won't ridicule your friends for their belief but try to help them come to terms with their situation using their own belief to strengthen them

> god doesn’t give us tests that we couldn’t possibly pass

I get that you’re framing this in a context that OPs friend might take solace in, but when you put it like that it just sounds like a cruel joke to me.

i appreciate that you take this in the spirit that it was meant.

it just sounds like a cruel joke to me

what would be the alternative?

when anyone suffers, they need help to end that suffering, but also hope and encouragement that they will get through it, because some things just can't be fixed with material means.

if you look at this as if there is a god out there that goes: hmm, this family needs a test. how about i mess up their baby?

that would indeed be cruel. but that is not what i believe is happening. i don't know what that particular child suffers from, but by now we can explain many birth defects to some humans mistakenly or intentionally doing something wrong, like poisoning water with chemicals or malfunctioning nuclear reactors, or what not. i don't believe that any of these are pure acts of god. but they could all be prevented if humans as a whole were more diligent. (i don't mean that any individual could have done anything by themselves, but that as humanity we need to work together to avoid and remove things that cause people to suffer[1])

this is a consequence of free will. bad things happen, because if god were to prevent them, then we would not have free will.

nevertheless on an individual level god does promise that whatever suffering we experience is rewarded in the next life, and that we are all given the capacity to pass the tests that we experience and get through that suffering.

[1] that is in fact happening. we have eliminated many diseases and quality of life on average is improving globally. there is more work to be done, but we are getting there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com