Hacker News Reader

Comment by nvrspyx | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

By just helping people?

Who is going to do it?

Who wont?

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.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com