10 ms·

Isn't that why religions have been so successful. They are not only a psychological coping mechanisms, but actually increase the success (or fitness, if you lik

by Ma8ee 11y ago

Isn't that why religions have been so successful. They are not only a psychological coping mechanisms, but actually increase the success (or fitness, if you like) of the societies they dominate. So this (don't leave an infected area) is an excellent meme in Dawkins' original sense.

marvin 11y ago
This is true for many of the writings in the old testament religions as well. Sensible advice for a different time and society.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Razengan 11y ago
Religion (like philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to Science; a sapient species trying to make sense of their world and consciousness, plugging the holes in their understanding with the means currently at their disposal. Unless they're born with complete and accurate knowledge about everything in the universe, I think all intelligent life out there is going to have a "religion" at some point in their civilization.
- krzrak 11y ago
  > Religion (and philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to science This is first thing. The other is precursor of law and social norms. It is hard to explain to people, that they shouldn't steal, because "it's wrong" and it hurts society. It's easier, when you tell them they will burn in hell for that.
  - 1stop 11y ago
    It's actually easier (and more intuitive) to explain it in terms of reciprocity. We have an innate understanding of it.
    - tremon 11y ago
      Our innate understanding of reciprocity is severely limited by our social identity though; it's much easier to empathize with in-group members than with an out-group member. To reciprocate with an out-group member requires considerable training. So I think the GP is correct, once a society encompasses multiple distinct tribes, it is easier to "guide" people with (threats of) in-group punishment than with out-group empathy.
      - 1stop 11y ago
        Not true at all. An out group hits me, innately I want to hit back. An out group shows me empathy innately I show it back. You would have to learn otherwise. The in-group out-group is some higher part of the brain that rationalised our values.
  - Razengan 11y ago
    Yes I wrote Science as a catchall, including social sciences. Though, I'm not sure if hive-mind intelligences or strictly hierarchical biologies (e.g. queens/workers/drones) would even need Law or guidance for social conduct, but they may still invent stopgap explanations (religions) on their way to understanding the weather and stars and such.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    How is, "it's wrong" effectively different from, "you will burn in hell"? Wouldn't it make way more sense to explain why it's wrong? It has nothing to do with hurting society, but another individual.
    - krzrak 11y ago
      For you it's obvious, but for the medieval peasant - I don't think so.
- petra 11y ago
  But humans innately can have religious experiences(feeling higher being, lsd experiences, etc), and without that, how can you build a religion ? But sure intelligent life would probably have some wrong stories/beliefs about the world at earlier stages. I wouldn't be surprised to see that in deep learning machines.
  - Razengan 11y ago
    Like my parent post said, a religion can be any explanation (for how things work) that helps the species to better cope with their world, either physically or mentally. The idea of deities need not be necessarily involved; there's major religions in our own world that do not place a focus on "higher beings."
- dmlhllnd 11y ago
  > Religion (like philosophy and superstition) One of these things is not like the others. This book ("Think" by Simon Blackburn) is a wonderfully readable introduction to the subject if you haven't studied philosophy before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think:_A_Compelling_Introduction_to_Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think:_A_Compelling_Introducti... It's one of the books every smart person should read.
  - Razengan 11y ago
    I didn't mean to "belittle" philosophy. I meant we speculate when we cannot know something for certain. Philosophy would arguably fall under that.
    - prebrov 11y ago
      Philosophy is a science of science. It's original purpose is to define the foundations of knowledge and principles of building knowledge. At least that's how I perceive it. All that blathering about meaning of life and whatnot that people often see as philosophy's main topic of exploration is, in fact, for most part an exercise in argumentation and exploration of logic.
    - wfo 11y ago
      As would Science, in fact. You learn this if you study philosophy.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > Religion (like philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to Science Or the universe was created and science is a way to explore the Creator by observing Creation. Science was invented so that people could reach consensus about reality through dispassionate and rational procedures. These procedures are absolutely underpinned by induction (observable and reproducible results). Things that are not observable (spirits) or not reproducible (miracles) are logically outside the domain of scientific exploration. To assume there is no supernatural because we've observed no supernatural phenomenon in the natural world is begging the question. In other words, to insist on the metaphysical claim that 'this reality is it', leaning only on Science, is to attempt to prove a negative. So, I very much disagree with the description of 'Science' as a rational progression from metaphysical belief systems. Anyway, all of that is a philosophical discourse, so I also disagree that philosophy is a 'precursor' to 'Science'. Early scientific inquiry was described as 'natural philosophy', after all.
  - Razengan 11y ago
    Most of these concepts and discussions could be unique to humans to begin with, or a result of being human. As I said in another post, an intelligent species with a true hive-mind or a strictly hierarchical queen/worker biology may have completely different ideas about these things; ideas which would be unrelatable to us if not incomprehensible. For example they may not need morals and laws. An species without biological genders may not produce lofty treatises on Love. Species that live for a very long time or are medically immortal, or inherit memories, may have radically different ideas about Creation and Death. We can't know how universal our ideas are until we meet someone else.
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518761 and marked it off-topic.

by Ma8ee 11y ago

marvin 11y ago

This is true for many of the writings in the old testament religions as well. Sensible advice for a different time and society.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Razengan 11y ago

Religion (like philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to Science; a sapient species trying to make sense of their world and consciousness, plugging the holes in their understanding with the means currently at their disposal. Unless they're born with complete and accurate knowledge about everything in the universe, I think all intelligent life out there is going to have a "religion" at some point in their civilization.

krzrak 11y ago
> Religion (and philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to science This is first thing. The other is precursor of law and social norms. It is hard to explain to people, that they shouldn't steal, because "it's wrong" and it hurts society. It's easier, when you tell them they will burn in hell for that.
- 1stop 11y ago
  It's actually easier (and more intuitive) to explain it in terms of reciprocity. We have an innate understanding of it.
  - tremon 11y ago
    Our innate understanding of reciprocity is severely limited by our social identity though; it's much easier to empathize with in-group members than with an out-group member. To reciprocate with an out-group member requires considerable training. So I think the GP is correct, once a society encompasses multiple distinct tribes, it is easier to "guide" people with (threats of) in-group punishment than with out-group empathy.
    - 1stop 11y ago
      Not true at all. An out group hits me, innately I want to hit back. An out group shows me empathy innately I show it back. You would have to learn otherwise. The in-group out-group is some higher part of the brain that rationalised our values.
- Razengan 11y ago
  Yes I wrote Science as a catchall, including social sciences. Though, I'm not sure if hive-mind intelligences or strictly hierarchical biologies (e.g. queens/workers/drones) would even need Law or guidance for social conduct, but they may still invent stopgap explanations (religions) on their way to understanding the weather and stars and such.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  How is, "it's wrong" effectively different from, "you will burn in hell"? Wouldn't it make way more sense to explain why it's wrong? It has nothing to do with hurting society, but another individual.
  - krzrak 11y ago
    For you it's obvious, but for the medieval peasant - I don't think so.
petra 11y ago
But humans innately can have religious experiences(feeling higher being, lsd experiences, etc), and without that, how can you build a religion ? But sure intelligent life would probably have some wrong stories/beliefs about the world at earlier stages. I wouldn't be surprised to see that in deep learning machines.
- Razengan 11y ago
  Like my parent post said, a religion can be any explanation (for how things work) that helps the species to better cope with their world, either physically or mentally. The idea of deities need not be necessarily involved; there's major religions in our own world that do not place a focus on "higher beings."
dmlhllnd 11y ago
> Religion (like philosophy and superstition) One of these things is not like the others. This book ("Think" by Simon Blackburn) is a wonderfully readable introduction to the subject if you haven't studied philosophy before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think:_A_Compelling_Introduction_to_Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think:_A_Compelling_Introducti... It's one of the books every smart person should read.
- Razengan 11y ago
  I didn't mean to "belittle" philosophy. I meant we speculate when we cannot know something for certain. Philosophy would arguably fall under that.
  - prebrov 11y ago
    Philosophy is a science of science. It's original purpose is to define the foundations of knowledge and principles of building knowledge. At least that's how I perceive it. All that blathering about meaning of life and whatnot that people often see as philosophy's main topic of exploration is, in fact, for most part an exercise in argumentation and exploration of logic.
  - wfo 11y ago
    As would Science, in fact. You learn this if you study philosophy.
humanrebar 11y ago
> Religion (like philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to Science Or the universe was created and science is a way to explore the Creator by observing Creation. Science was invented so that people could reach consensus about reality through dispassionate and rational procedures. These procedures are absolutely underpinned by induction (observable and reproducible results). Things that are not observable (spirits) or not reproducible (miracles) are logically outside the domain of scientific exploration. To assume there is no supernatural because we've observed no supernatural phenomenon in the natural world is begging the question. In other words, to insist on the metaphysical claim that 'this reality is it', leaning only on Science, is to attempt to prove a negative. So, I very much disagree with the description of 'Science' as a rational progression from metaphysical belief systems. Anyway, all of that is a philosophical discourse, so I also disagree that philosophy is a 'precursor' to 'Science'. Early scientific inquiry was described as 'natural philosophy', after all.
- Razengan 11y ago
  Most of these concepts and discussions could be unique to humans to begin with, or a result of being human. As I said in another post, an intelligent species with a true hive-mind or a strictly hierarchical queen/worker biology may have completely different ideas about these things; ideas which would be unrelatable to us if not incomprehensible. For example they may not need morals and laws. An species without biological genders may not produce lofty treatises on Love. Species that live for a very long time or are medically immortal, or inherit memories, may have radically different ideas about Creation and Death. We can't know how universal our ideas are until we meet someone else.

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11518761 and marked it off-topic.