8 ms·

Do you think it's reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to "not talk rel

by milesf 10y ago

Do you think it's reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to "not talk religion"? Wrestling with these top shelf Maslow's questions like "why am I/we here?", "what is the meaning of life" and other big life questions are common among all of us. So why the willingness to conjecture that (we live in a simulation | aliens may have seeded life on earth | evolution has a purpose) yet outright reject any religious discussion?

projektir 10y ago
I guess part of it is what to do with a religious claim. If you say: "God created us all", that's fair, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to go from there. I can either agree with you or disagree, but I can't really discuss it.
- phkahler 10y ago
  And yet this article points out that these other notions are equivalent to saying god made it. It's OK for elon musk to think we are a simulation created by someone, but not on to say "religion". I found Musk's idea equally stupid for that very reason. May as well say the universe is on a turtles back. But what's that turtle standing on? It's turtles all the way down.
  - projektir 10y ago
    God and simulation to me are fundamentally different, but that may be because I dabbled in religion a lot. The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting. Why wouldn't someone be able to create a simulation like ours at some point? I am not following why Musk's belief is stupid? Yeah, obviously there's another layer above, and this doesn't explain that much, but I don't understand the stupid part. God is something else. For one, not all gods in religions are the same. The Christian God is not a mere simulator. He's everything that ever was (i.e., final level), he's super powerful, and, most importantly, as far as Christianity is concerned everything that God does is right.
    - milesf 10y ago
      Uh, yeah, that's a pretty good summary: God is, by definition in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, the standard of good.
    - woofyman 10y ago
      To me, they're the same because both can't be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. I find Musk's statement stupid because he just didn't say it's possible. He said it was probable.
      - projektir 10y ago
        That does not make statements the same. That's not what "same" means. Simulation could be said to be probable. I recall reading a piece of math done on the subject and it seemed a lot more probable than the alternative. Contrary to the God idea, where the probability seems impossible to measure. This seems like the wrong place to use "stupid", and terms like that mostly exist as a shaming tool rather than for truth exploration, so I tend to be suspicious of anyone using them, especially if they claim to be informed enough to know better than to use them.
        woofyman 10y ago
        You really believe it's probable that we live in a simulation based on a math paper? That math paper is itself simulated as is your reading and understanding of it.
    - placebo 10y ago
      >The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting Well, it might not be interesting in terms of answering what I consider to be the truly fundamental questions (the answers for which I'd also argue are outside the realm of thought), but it definitely is interesting in terms of what can be accomplished or understood within the realm of thought, just as many other things are.
- milesf 10y ago
  Every community I have been a part of (church, family, techs, software development, Ruby Programming, etc) have been multifaceted. I will only talk about my camp, Evangelical Christians, because that's what I know. When I was a new Christian back in 1990 I was a bit baffled by the anti-intellectualism I witness among my friends at a local Pentecostal church. I found a sufficient answer in the book "Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It". So I think it's fair to say many people have had the experience of talking to people of faith who know what they believe, but they don't know why they believe it. I'll give you that. But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits.
  - beefok 10y ago
    "But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits." The key here is that they started off as Christian seminaries. Are they any longer? Perhaps this same reasoning led them to stop being Christian seminaries in the first place.
    - milesf 10y ago
      (facepalm) Did you even bother to search their websites? http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home
  - projektir 10y ago
    My theory on why certain kinds of people believe in things like religion has to do with different styles of information collection and perceiving the world. Religion is often adapted, or rejected, on moral grounds, rather than strict evidence grounds, because it's a lot more relevant to life on Earth than it is to who created the world at the end of the day. Given that, it's not too surprising that religion can affect things without being true. The moral parts of religion are a lot more interesting and influential than the creationist parts, but the creationist parts make it sound true. But what are the arguments for the creationist parts? The Bible simply says, in the beginning there was this and that. Most arguments after that are more about the fact that Jesus existed and made miracles, and therefore he had unusual powers, and if he had unusual powers, perhaps what he said was true. I've never seen any from the ground up evidence about creation itself. Intelligent design to me is a counterargument more than an argument, and, apart from that, I haven't heard much at all.
cortesoft 10y ago
In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it. So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would demonstrate to you that the claim is false?', the answer is almost always nothing. At that point, what is the use of discussion?
- milesf 10y ago
  "the answer is almost always nothing" That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised.
  - sago 10y ago
    > Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical institutions. Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals with epistemology, natural philosophy, hermeneutics, and other areas only when they can be used to support the doctrine. It is pretty much the opposite of rational inquiry, because it explicitly begins with the conclusion and seeks arguments to justify it. It is, in practice, an example of the parent comment: what falsification of the doctrine would an apologist accept? There would always be another argument, another apologia to bolster the claim. [Source: theological degrees and was an evangelical apologist for 20 years. Books such as Louis Markos, Apologetics for the Twenty-First Century, Crossway, 2010; Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, IVP, 1994; and much of the rest of IVP's output.]
    - milesf 10y ago
      One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.
charonn0 10y ago
Unless you're willing to allow that Christianity is conjecture, "introducing Christian thought" is not a discussion but a sermon.
- athenot 10y ago
  I'm not hindu but I won't force my hindu friends to renounce the strength of their beliefs as a prerequisite for discussion. I'm not atheist but I won't force my atheist friends to admit that there is a God as a prerequisite for discussion. I think it's possible to have fruitful discussions while holding respect for other belief systems.
  - charonn0 10y ago
    I mean putting aside your own beliefs, not requiring others to put aside theirs. People who are not willing to entertain the possibility that they're wrong (a reasonable definition of having faith, IMHO) will either exclude themselves from the discussion or turn it into a sermon.
    - danielam 10y ago
      That should apply equally to political, ideological, etc. positions as well, and yet...
tn13 10y ago
The problem with Christian thought on these matters is that it is mostly a dead end. Christian creationism is stated as "god revealed it in bible and hence true" and it is not a result of curious human beings questioning themselves and trying to answer those questions and coming up with theories (Like in Buddhism or Hinduism). The problem with this is that you can't really evolve those ideas further refining them and eventually most of us simply find them shallow. A conversation on HN about this topic can be stretched in million directions many of which can be falsified and people might have an open mind as to pick which idea they want. In case of Christian faithfuls they are supposed to pick what the bible has already stated. Off topic: "Buddhist cosmological ideas" .. said the speaker with a short pause. "a disgrace". "They must be thrown out". Speaker was Dalai Lama speaking in Ashoka Hotel - New Delhi. I think when the Christianity accepts that sort of openness it will be possible to value Christian notions of cosmology and creationism much better.
- milesf 10y ago
  I agree with you, but only in some circles of Christian thought. Like I said before Christianity is not a monolithic community, it is multi-faceted. There are many Christian believers that are able to rationally dialogue about reason and faith. If you reach a dead end, find another circle. You will likely be surprised as I was how many questions have well reasoned answers.
posterboy 10y ago
No, it's not reasonable, the article isn't very relevant at all.
randcraw 10y ago
It may be a fine line that separates philosophy and religion, but their respective "theaters of the mind" are pretty different. Possible worlds that are built on novel premises or inferred from unrecognized patterns are likely to interest anyone who has an imagination. That's true even for nutty worlds like simulacra and multiverses. But possible worlds that must conform to dogma, especially when it's structured and inviolable (religion) or where imagination and doubt are forbidden (faith)... These seems a lot less interesting, to a nonbeliever like me anyway.
- milesf 10y ago
  Dogma is no different than our skeletal system. Freedom of movement is enhanced in our bodies because we have something firm and fixed to pull against. Imagine being a human blob without bones. Is that freedom to move? Philosophy without a fixed reference is just endlessly chasing your tail. If you are satisfied with that experience, then have at 'er :) And sorry, but faith doesn't mean imagination is forbidden. Ever heard of C.S. Lewis?
  - randcraw 10y ago
    To Lewis, Narnia was a world that was never possible. As fantasy, it was literary allegory, intended for the entertainment of children, nothing more. But even in fantasy, Lewis felt obliged to invent a Christ figure (Aslan). So even in his dreams he was bound by the surly bonds of his faith. His dogma was truly inescapable.
    - milesf 10y ago
      My point was Jack was both a tremendous intellect and an imaginative storyteller. But "obliged to invent a Christ figure"? I've never heard that before. Can you cite any examples?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
blaze33 10y ago
Well, it's explicitly addressed in the article: > When an argument for higher purpose is put this way — that is, when it doesn’t involve the phrase “higher purpose” and, further, is cast more as a technological scenario than a metaphysical one — it is considered intellectually respectable. I don’t mean there aren’t plenty of people who dismiss it. I’m talking about how people dismiss it. [...] > If you walked up to the same people who gave Bostrom a respectful hearing and told them there is a transcendent God, many would dismiss the idea out of hand. So here you have it, people like the message better when it's told through a story they already know.

by milesf 10y ago

projektir 10y ago

I guess part of it is what to do with a religious claim. If you say: "God created us all", that's fair, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere to go from there. I can either agree with you or disagree, but I can't really discuss it.

phkahler 10y ago
And yet this article points out that these other notions are equivalent to saying god made it. It's OK for elon musk to think we are a simulation created by someone, but not on to say "religion". I found Musk's idea equally stupid for that very reason. May as well say the universe is on a turtles back. But what's that turtle standing on? It's turtles all the way down.
- projektir 10y ago
  God and simulation to me are fundamentally different, but that may be because I dabbled in religion a lot. The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting. Why wouldn't someone be able to create a simulation like ours at some point? I am not following why Musk's belief is stupid? Yeah, obviously there's another layer above, and this doesn't explain that much, but I don't understand the stupid part. God is something else. For one, not all gods in religions are the same. The Christian God is not a mere simulator. He's everything that ever was (i.e., final level), he's super powerful, and, most importantly, as far as Christianity is concerned everything that God does is right.
  - milesf 10y ago
    Uh, yeah, that's a pretty good summary: God is, by definition in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, the standard of good.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    To me, they're the same because both can't be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. I find Musk's statement stupid because he just didn't say it's possible. He said it was probable.
    - projektir 10y ago
      That does not make statements the same. That's not what "same" means. Simulation could be said to be probable. I recall reading a piece of math done on the subject and it seemed a lot more probable than the alternative. Contrary to the God idea, where the probability seems impossible to measure. This seems like the wrong place to use "stupid", and terms like that mostly exist as a shaming tool rather than for truth exploration, so I tend to be suspicious of anyone using them, especially if they claim to be informed enough to know better than to use them.
      - woofyman 10y ago
        You really believe it's probable that we live in a simulation based on a math paper? That math paper is itself simulated as is your reading and understanding of it.
  - placebo 10y ago
    >The simulation hypothesis, to me, is not terribly surprising or interesting Well, it might not be interesting in terms of answering what I consider to be the truly fundamental questions (the answers for which I'd also argue are outside the realm of thought), but it definitely is interesting in terms of what can be accomplished or understood within the realm of thought, just as many other things are.
milesf 10y ago
Every community I have been a part of (church, family, techs, software development, Ruby Programming, etc) have been multifaceted. I will only talk about my camp, Evangelical Christians, because that's what I know. When I was a new Christian back in 1990 I was a bit baffled by the anti-intellectualism I witness among my friends at a local Pentecostal church. I found a sufficient answer in the book "Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It". So I think it's fair to say many people have had the experience of talking to people of faith who know what they believe, but they don't know why they believe it. I'll give you that. But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits.
- beefok 10y ago
  "But consider this: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Princeton are all Universities that started off as Christian seminaries. Their roots are founded in the idea that academics and reasoning are inherently noble pursuits." The key here is that they started off as Christian seminaries. Are they any longer? Perhaps this same reasoning led them to stop being Christian seminaries in the first place.
  - milesf 10y ago
    (facepalm) Did you even bother to search their websites? http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://www.ptsem.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://hds.harvard.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://divinity.yale.edu/ http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/home
- projektir 10y ago
  My theory on why certain kinds of people believe in things like religion has to do with different styles of information collection and perceiving the world. Religion is often adapted, or rejected, on moral grounds, rather than strict evidence grounds, because it's a lot more relevant to life on Earth than it is to who created the world at the end of the day. Given that, it's not too surprising that religion can affect things without being true. The moral parts of religion are a lot more interesting and influential than the creationist parts, but the creationist parts make it sound true. But what are the arguments for the creationist parts? The Bible simply says, in the beginning there was this and that. Most arguments after that are more about the fact that Jesus existed and made miracles, and therefore he had unusual powers, and if he had unusual powers, perhaps what he said was true. I've never seen any from the ground up evidence about creation itself. Intelligent design to me is a counterargument more than an argument, and, apart from that, I haven't heard much at all.

cortesoft 10y ago

In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it. So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would demonstrate to you that the claim is false?', the answer is almost always nothing. At that point, what is the use of discussion?

milesf 10y ago
"the answer is almost always nothing" That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised.
- sago 10y ago
  > Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical institutions. Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals with epistemology, natural philosophy, hermeneutics, and other areas only when they can be used to support the doctrine. It is pretty much the opposite of rational inquiry, because it explicitly begins with the conclusion and seeks arguments to justify it. It is, in practice, an example of the parent comment: what falsification of the doctrine would an apologist accept? There would always be another argument, another apologia to bolster the claim. [Source: theological degrees and was an evangelical apologist for 20 years. Books such as Louis Markos, Apologetics for the Twenty-First Century, Crossway, 2010; Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, IVP, 1994; and much of the rest of IVP's output.]
  - milesf 10y ago
    One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.

charonn0 10y ago

Unless you're willing to allow that Christianity is conjecture, "introducing Christian thought" is not a discussion but a sermon.

athenot 10y ago
I'm not hindu but I won't force my hindu friends to renounce the strength of their beliefs as a prerequisite for discussion. I'm not atheist but I won't force my atheist friends to admit that there is a God as a prerequisite for discussion. I think it's possible to have fruitful discussions while holding respect for other belief systems.
- charonn0 10y ago
  I mean putting aside your own beliefs, not requiring others to put aside theirs. People who are not willing to entertain the possibility that they're wrong (a reasonable definition of having faith, IMHO) will either exclude themselves from the discussion or turn it into a sermon.
  - danielam 10y ago
    That should apply equally to political, ideological, etc. positions as well, and yet...

tn13 10y ago

The problem with Christian thought on these matters is that it is mostly a dead end. Christian creationism is stated as "god revealed it in bible and hence true" and it is not a result of curious human beings questioning themselves and trying to answer those questions and coming up with theories (Like in Buddhism or Hinduism). The problem with this is that you can't really evolve those ideas further refining them and eventually most of us simply find them shallow. A conversation on HN about this topic can be stretched in million directions many of which can be falsified and people might have an open mind as to pick which idea they want. In case of Christian faithfuls they are supposed to pick what the bible has already stated. Off topic: "Buddhist cosmological ideas" .. said the speaker with a short pause. "a disgrace". "They must be thrown out". Speaker was Dalai Lama speaking in Ashoka Hotel - New Delhi. I think when the Christianity accepts that sort of openness it will be possible to value Christian notions of cosmology and creationism much better.

milesf 10y ago
I agree with you, but only in some circles of Christian thought. Like I said before Christianity is not a monolithic community, it is multi-faceted. There are many Christian believers that are able to rationally dialogue about reason and faith. If you reach a dead end, find another circle. You will likely be surprised as I was how many questions have well reasoned answers.

posterboy 10y ago

No, it's not reasonable, the article isn't very relevant at all.

randcraw 10y ago

It may be a fine line that separates philosophy and religion, but their respective "theaters of the mind" are pretty different. Possible worlds that are built on novel premises or inferred from unrecognized patterns are likely to interest anyone who has an imagination. That's true even for nutty worlds like simulacra and multiverses. But possible worlds that must conform to dogma, especially when it's structured and inviolable (religion) or where imagination and doubt are forbidden (faith)... These seems a lot less interesting, to a nonbeliever like me anyway.

milesf 10y ago
Dogma is no different than our skeletal system. Freedom of movement is enhanced in our bodies because we have something firm and fixed to pull against. Imagine being a human blob without bones. Is that freedom to move? Philosophy without a fixed reference is just endlessly chasing your tail. If you are satisfied with that experience, then have at 'er :) And sorry, but faith doesn't mean imagination is forbidden. Ever heard of C.S. Lewis?
- randcraw 10y ago
  To Lewis, Narnia was a world that was never possible. As fantasy, it was literary allegory, intended for the entertainment of children, nothing more. But even in fantasy, Lewis felt obliged to invent a Christ figure (Aslan). So even in his dreams he was bound by the surly bonds of his faith. His dogma was truly inescapable.
  - milesf 10y ago
    My point was Jack was both a tremendous intellect and an imaginative storyteller. But "obliged to invent a Christ figure"? I've never heard that before. Can you cite any examples?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

blaze33 10y ago

Well, it's explicitly addressed in the article: > When an argument for higher purpose is put this way — that is, when it doesn’t involve the phrase “higher purpose” and, further, is cast more as a technological scenario than a metaphysical one — it is considered intellectually respectable. I don’t mean there aren’t plenty of people who dismiss it. I’m talking about how people dismiss it. [...] > If you walked up to the same people who gave Bostrom a respectful hearing and told them there is a transcendent God, many would dismiss the idea out of hand. So here you have it, people like the message better when it's told through a story they already know.