Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

It isn't possible to exist as an ego without some form of spiritual belief. Existing as some sort of 'happy' ego, insofar as that is possible, requires that to be developed. Even if it is as simple as we float along responding to instincts - sometimes we have to make choices about what instincts to enable and to make such a decision we need faith-based assumptions.

If a model like Maslow's hierarchy is useful, it is reasonable to add in a spiritual layer. However, anything related to faith is automatically controversial.

---

This comment does not assume an organised religion is involved.

View on HN

Just so happens I started following a fitness youtuber this week, that appears to be a "Born again Christian". Seemingly unrelated pursuits. Yet having watched a few of his videos, he's made some astute observations ... ideas he's taken from being a Christian and integrated them into his fitness journey. Things like the idea of Logos, and the "power of words" and their translation into direct action. The importance of Love, etc. I mean there's some powerful core ideas in Christianity. Many religious ideas have been refined over thousands of years. It's basically wisdom on how to work on your mental state, and how to orientate and integrate yourself into a social hierarchy. How to delay gratification, and restrict and reflect on your actions. Makes his videos more interesting, and cohesive, since there's at least some philosophy behind it, and it's more than just trying to look good.

If anyone is interested:

https://www.youtube.com/@BrianPruett/videos

Why not? Why would one require faith at all to define themselves in life?

Well, I can't think of a theoretical way to do it and I've never met or heard of anyone where a good argument doesn't eventually reveal some incompatible value judgements that are not based on objective truth. So I'm going out on a limb and saying it is probably not possible to have opinions or make choices without having arbitrary values and beliefs.

If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap. You'll notice in most religions the conversation is some variant of: "don't commit suicide" "why not?" "God said so. Live.".

> If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap.

What about “I enjoy living”

Then congratulations; you've started to tease out the framework that makes up your own personal faith. Based on what you've said so far you aren't a committed Buddhist (their official answer afaik is "to reduce the suffering of others" and they view "because I like living" as a misguided justification).

If any justification for living is a faith, and your argument is that you can’t exist as ego without a justification for living, then using words like “spiritual belief” or “faith” just alienates people who are atheists.

Why not just say “justification for living”

I'm an atheist. I assure you I'm not alienated by the concept of faith. There are entire religious orders based on atheist beliefs (I'm thinking of buddhists, again - they make for good counterexamples on religious topics).

> Why not just say “justification for living”

Because we have several perfectly good words for it. Faith. Beliefs.

Words with enormous baggage are perhaps a stupid choice

Faith has specific meaning, so does belief. You might go a bit longer if you try to understand the words you’re erroneously signifying

Are you suggesting that there are words which do not have a specific meaning?

If you want to break out a different dictionary be my guest, but faith means, and I quote [0] the first entry in the Cambridge dictionary, "great trust or confidence in something or someone". Spiritual, FYI, is "relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religious beliefs".

[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith

Nobody gives a shit about the dictionary. Framing other people’s worldview as one of faith and spirituality because you think you have a clever semantic argument is not wisdom. If you can’t tell that this line of reasoning is likely to induce annoyance and misunderstanding, then you’re demonstrating social ineptitude more than anything.

If you ever have to explain that the words you’re using don’t mean what others think they mean in order to maintain your points validity, you’re not discussing anything of worth. You are discussing semantics. like I said, your view is just porno. Which is a perfectly cromulent descriptor for some definitions that I don’t care to explain.

And no, don’t bring up the authority of the dictionary. Because we are now here discussing definitions rather than actual concepts so any rightness you had is forfeit to the fact that people don’t agree with your semantics.

> ... like I said, your view is just porno ...

If it makes you feel any better, the Buddhist monks take vows of celebacy and swear not to discharge semen. They really are the best for counterexamples. Unless you have very odd tastes in porn.

Of course, a lot of serious spiritual types do similar things. I'm not as sure what the specific vows of the Catholics are.

No you don’t get it. The semen discharge is just an aspect of porno that you haven’t consumed yet as part of your growing world view.

So far you've argued that the dictionary is an invalid tool for determining what words mean and now you're in the awkward position of arguing about how pornos don't involve sex.

Usually I'd ask you to explain yourself, but in this case I don't think you can. So instead I'll just close off with the observation that you probably would benefit from sitting down, relaxing a bit and thinking a little bit about your beliefs. Life is pretty good, but you don't want to get old and then have big spiritual revelations - it is too late to do much with them. It is worth talking about this sort of thing seriously rather than just pushing nonsense.

No, you just don’t get it. You don’t understand. You’re so pronographically limited in your understanding that you can’t see the framework. Your spirituality is just one bit of money shot prelude. If you don’t get it, you really risk going limp and messing up the big finish before you die. Spirituality and faith is important but just a piece of your porno.

Sounds to me like your whole world view is just beginning to understand that it’s just an ingredient of a porno script and a cherry pie recipe.

You sure invented a funny definition for faith, that you seem to conveniently fit anything to. Things are much simpler than you imagine - maybe in your mental framework, life is impossible without superstition. Doesn’t mean it is - it certainly isn’t for many.

“Arbitrary values” are a far, far concept from “faith”. One can absolutely live a life without superstitions.

As for the “god said so” argument, that just demonstrates lack of understanding of the basic tenets of whatever culture or religion one follows.

Faith does not mean superstition. I swear youtube atheism debates have confused many to knee jerk react to specific words.

Faith can operate on low levels such as: You arrange to meet with a friend at the park tomorrow.

You don't know for a fact that you will still be alive, or that your friend will, or that an accident won't befall either of you, etc. You operate on faith that your and their word will be made reality.

This is faith. It doesn't need to involve god, it doesn't have anything to do with superstition. You just take a belief and you act as if it will pan out.

no, that's not faith, by any definition of the word (religious, secular or etymological).

You _can_ have non-religious faith on _people or institutions_ (not necessarily religious, but faith isn't the same as _any set of arbitrary assumptions_ (which is your example). Basic assumptions (in particular those you have evidence for or don't require an internal justification to exist) aren't faith.

Most definitions of the word also require _commitment_ to something or someone, as part of the definition of faith - so someone who blindly trusts a specific car manufacturer and always buys that brand has faith in it, whereas someone who just expects their brakes to work does _not_ have "faith on the brakes".

Trusting someone's word over something trivial isn't faith, it's just trust.

Trust is what makes you believe your friend is not lying, it's cast upon them specifically, it is related to their history and integrity.

Faith is believing that all the other conditions, the ones that we do not think about, will align. It is important to highlight that it is working on a low level, because we take this for granted all the time. Actually it might not be until you lack this low level of faith that you see its presence (through its absence).

Either way, your linking of faith to superstition remains completely bogus.

Just because you want things to mean something doesn’t make them mean that.

As best exemplified by your conflation of faith and superstition.

At the limit it is possible to exist without an ego at least that's what self transcendence means to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com