Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukifer | Hacker News Reader

I think this is an important observation. Those who support the surveillance state are likely doing so for similar psychological reasons as the desire to believe in God: the reassurance that someone somewhere is watching, and meting out justice. And unlike with God, there is no disputing the existence of NSA; whether you have faith in their integrity and supposed mission is another matter.

See also this excellent Venkatesh piece on the relationship between observation and authority: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/03/22/social-dark-matter-on-s...

View on HN

Oddly, I believe in God, but I don't see God as a being that sees all or even knows all (Note: I follow in the tradition of A.N. Whitehead on theology. I hope that explains the premise). And similarly, I don't believe it is good for the State to know all or see all as it weakens our ability to change the nature of the State when necessity requires it either democratically and peacefully (optimal) or otherwise (revolution, war, and other bad ends imo).

I am.Christian and believe God surveillance to be important. The difference is that I believe God won't do evil with it, since.God is perfect.

Indeed, now we have an excellent set of tools to enforce religious conformance and to return state religion to it's rightful place in people's hearts, and at the center of everyday life.

It is fortunate indeed that these blessed tools that were sent to protect us from unchristian violence are also perfectly suited to protect our immortal souls from the corrupting influence of everyday life.

It is a manifest part of God's plan for us that we use these tools to spread God's word and to protect his flock from evil thoughts and actions.

Control must be absolute. God demands it.

What constitutes doing evil with it? Presumably you hope that God will exalt righteous believers and punish misbehavior, since you believe that his surveillance of people is important. I can't think of any motive for surveillance that does not involve acting on the collected information. Therefore, my question to you is, why do you care if your God punishes or exalts other people? Most of us don't believe in your God and are unlikely to change our behavior to conform to his norms, so even if God is watching and taking notes, at best he's meting out post-facto punishment for our sins, which is not going to make anyone act any nicer towards you in life. If you just hope that 'sinners' are going to 'hell,' I ask, why is another person's destination important to you? If your God is truly benevolent, shouldn't everyone just go to 'heaven' after they die? If your God is not benevolent, why do you worship him?

Even believers must admit that God is essentially mysterious; if there was a creator who wanted its presence known unambiguously, then it wouldn't be a frequent point of contention.

Rather, I think this an issue with the human psyche, which is complex, but unambiguously real. Whether or not there's a God, there are many who clearly want to believe in something which is omni-present, and I'm guessing that for those with no faith, or for whom their faith doesn't scratch that itch, they fill that gap with a fictional Good Guy Government that protects you while you sleep.

I think due to evolving as a social animal we necessarily have a sense of justice and a notion that bad behaviour must be punished or corrected. The notion that all bad behaviour is logged by a mysterious being that will present you with whatever comeuppance you deserve after life is a beautiful fiction. It makes one feel much better to believe that over thinking the more powerful person who took your things by force is going to get away with it.

I think it's more a desire to see justice than a desire for something omni-present. People that believe in neither religion nor good government will sometimes make claims like, "yeah one day I'm going to be that guy's boss," which is just saying, "I feel bad now but he'll get his comeuppance later and balance will be restored."

I believe God is just, not necessarily benevolent.

Putting aside drowning the majority of everything on Earth, what is just about destroying entire cities, sparing no one?

How do you know, a priori, that they didn't deserve it ;)

Applying Bayesian empiricism! My posterior measurement of P(redeemable|young) after a lifetime of observation is too high. While I'm on the topic of children; how is it just to kill the youth of Egypt for the flaws of their ruler and his enforcers?

To me two things are clear: God is a warrior God, there is even texts that talk about biblical battles from other points of view, like Sumerians. The second thing is that God, being God, can easily decide what action will result in wa outcome he wants, even if it require sacrifices. Like when you have one parachute and two people in a airplane. Not always is possible to save everyone.

> Not always is possible to save everyone.

False. God is omnipotent :)

Yes, but did you noticed a pattern where God leaves most stuff to humans to do?

Even some miracles are not miracles (ie: Jericho wall destruction, God explained what people had to do, but if you pay attention, it was a matter of physics, not supernatural power).

He didn't leave the killing of Egyptian children to humans, nor the razing of Sodom. You flat-out ignored my first question, though, so I can tell you really don't want to debate. Let's just stop this here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com