I'm surprised to see this here on the front page of HN. Seems to me the audience here would generally be hostile to this, and not necessarily in a religious fun

I'm surprised to see this here on the front page of HN. Seems to me the audience here would generally be hostile to this, and not necessarily in a religious fundamentalist way. In other groups I run with, full of brilliant people who have developed their skills in both rationality and mysticism, this article might be criticized for other reasons -- not whether this is yet another example of superstition, but rather, in it's authenticity and whether it was a fluff piece. Some comments at the meta level and on a tangent: I still think of that article posted up about René Girard, his influence on Peter Thiel, and the fascinating philosophy of mimetic violence. It's something I want to deep dive into. One of the questions it probes is: why do people create a scapegoat? Why do people want to say things to put down other people? Fundamentalists scapegoat non-fundamentalists. (Maybe because it is less acceptable now to attack someone for their religious beliefs, so it is easier to attack someone for their lack of religious beliefs). Atheists have responded in kind. I'm not saying this happens here on this specific forum, but I have seen this dynamic happen a lot in other places, both online and offline. Rational skepticism is one method of inquiry, useful as long as the people involved remain open-minded. Yet, whether we're talking about rational materialists, religious fundamentalists -- or even the drama I got sucked into with that Hong Kong martial arts article -- there is a tendency to rhetorically attack others. It is as if there is a _irrational_ tendency attack ideas (and not in the sense of trying to refine it through oppositional rhetoric, but to dismiss, to destroy, to deny the idea's very existence).