Hacker News Reader

Comment by keiferski | Hacker News Reader

Don't know if I believe in God in the typical sense of the word (specifically the traditional idea of omnipotence), but I do think it's quite logical to assume there is some form of higher power. The idea that human beings are the end-all to reality, the highest form of consciousness and most powerful being, just seems hopelessly self-centered to me.

When did this happen? Probably in college when I studied philosophy and realized that the typical atheist arguments from Dawkins etc. were not taken seriously by actual thinkers.

I haven’t read enough of their work but I think whitehead / the process philosophers are probably on the right track.

View on HN

> The idea that human beings are the end-all to reality, the highest form of consciousness and most powerful being, just seems hopelessly self-centered to me.

I don't understand how this needs to be connected to the idea of God. Couldn't one believe that there are alien life forms with more power and higher consciousness without believing in God?

In contrast, the Christian followers of God believe he made us (humans) in his image and sent his son explicitly to save us (humans). Isn't that a more self-centered view?

Why does it need to be a competition? I think both "typical materialist atheism" and traditional Christianity are self-centered views of the universe. Hence my comment. Modern atheist movements/positions in the West are themselves heavily in debt to Christian metaphysics and psychology in the first place, so it is not really surprising that they have similar structures.

And the idea isn't so much about aliens, more powerful beings in the universe, etc. rather that (I think) we can't understand or know a lot of fundamental things about reality; therefore, it seems logical to me that there is some higher form of intelligence or creative being beyond human understanding. Otherwise it implies that humans are the end-all, which I think is self-centered.

Arrogance, self-centeredness, "militancy" (laughable when applied to elderly armchair thinkers who call for no-one's death) are all criticisms of humans and have nothing to do with objective reality.

But while we're looking at it,

> The idea that human beings are the end-all to reality, the highest form of consciousness and most powerful being, just seems hopelessly self-centered to me

It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that they were made in God's image.

It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that He made the world just for us, and put us above all animals.

It is hopelessly self-centered to literally centre the Earth, and have the Sun rotate around us.

The atheist position is that there's nothing special about us. We're a growth on a wet rock that's nowhere in particular in space. We lucked out with opposable thumbs and language and have been burning through our resources ever since. No intervening supernatural third party is coming to rescue us.

> It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that they were made in God's image.

Much less self centered than assume we’re developed from a mud on our own, without any external intervention.

> It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that He made the world just for us, and put us above all animals.

Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who

> It is hopelessly self-centered to literally centre the Earth, and have the Sun rotate around us.

Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system. Cosmologically and historically it was only an intermediate view held by many nations regardless of their religious views. Generally, the Earth is a truly unique planey unless found otherwise.

> Much less self centered than assume we’re developed from a mud on our own, without any external intervention.

No. "From mud" is strictly less egocentric than "in God's image" for any possible interpretation.

> Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who

No such thought necessary.

> Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system.

It is absolutely not. Have a quick peek into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle. If you put Earth in the middle, then all the other planets move along squiggly lines and do not travel on the clean ellipses prescribed by gravity. Atheists joke about 'why not intelligent falling?' in response to 'intelligent design', which I think is a bit much. But yeah, put us back in geocentrism and you do need something like intelligent falling to fill in the gaps.

I really don't get the point of comments like this. You didn't engage with anything I wrote in a meaningful way and instead just used the opportunity to blather on about your own opinion. Just like the top voted commenter in this topic, who clearly didn't read the initial question.

Reminder to self: never discuss religion on HN, you won't get any intelligent answers.

I will try harder to connect the dots more explicitly.

Do you think an idea being 'self-centered' has any bearing on whether that idea is true or false?

What are the typical atheist arguments from Dawkins, etc.?

Why are they not actual thinkers?

1. Maybe I was unclear. To me the idea that human beings are somehow the most intelligent life form in existence, is only an idea that can come from a very self-obsessed mind. This is a common attitude for people, as a society species wide thing. So I find the typical atheist attitude toward “higher powers” to be very lacking. Agnosticism is a much more rational position.

2 and 3: I’m not going to answer these for you, just google it for 5 minutes or ask an LLM. No one with knowledge of the philosophy of religion takes the New Atheists very seriously. They were pop culture writers with mostly bad or oversimplified arguments.

> a growth on a wet rock that's nowhere in particular in space

Atheist don’t think life is special, let alone miraculous is a good reason to reject atheism. A better way to live is to see everything as special, worthy of deeper inspection because the glitter of divinity sparkles everywhere one looks for it. Think of how that orientation drove so much of our scientific discoveries. Is it really bad to think of oneself as a little bit special (yet prone to sin from which we are too animalistic to extricate ourselves from). Perhaps you are the one who is too self aggrandizing in your sense of certainty about what is alas unknowable in the typical sense?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com