Hacker News Reader

Comment by jollofricepeas | Hacker News Reader

Good point.

The social aspect seems to be the biggest motivating factor for what makes people either join or leave a religion.

People often choose to stop a belief because of the failings of their parents, spiritual leader, etc without thought to their direct relationship with their deity and the belief system itself.

- In other words, if you are Catholic and your priest was a criminal does that mean the next logical step is to become an atheist?

- If you’re an atheist and science says that the inherent beauty of laws of the universe means that it is a possibility that our world was engineered by powerful being(s) does that mean you should jump your belief all the way to creationism?

View on HN

I'm considering joining a church almost exclusively for the social aspect. Christianity does teach some good lessons and taking my kids would be a net positive.

I wonder how many people who attend church and identify as Christian hold similar views to mine: overall it's a pretty good system but very few stories in the Bible are historically accurate.

Consider joining the Freemasons. They also teach some good lessons but are more tolerant of different beliefs.

“You must believe in a Supreme Being” killed it for me.

"Supreme Being" is just concise and archaic language. This is all it means. "You must believe we may not be in the base level of reality and our universe could be a simulation"

Turns a bunch of people away from Alcoholics Anonymous too. I mean, I get the gist - admitting something bigger than you exists can help frame your inability to manage your addiction, but yeah, in this day and age, it's an extra barrier.

UT Austin journalism professor Robert Jensen joined — and was welcomed by — a liberal Austin Presbyterian church even though he didn't believe traditionalist theology, christology, or soteriology.

From a Texas Monthly article: "Jensen, who joined the church in 2005, did not come to St. Andrew’s in search of protective cover. On the contrary. In an article posted on the church’s Web site, he explained that he came in search of a moral and political community .... He told the congregation that he did not accept the divinity of Jesus, but he did endorse the core principles in Jesus’ teaching and pledged to be a responsible member if they would have him. That was enough for the folk at St. Andrew’s." [0]

(That didn't sit well with traditionalist elements in the larger church and led to ecclesiastical trouble. [1])

[0] https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/st-andrews-presbyteria...

[1] https://killingthebuddha.com/mag/confession/the-inquisition/

He might have forgotten the Church’s role in colonialism...

I don’t think the stories need to be historical facts to hold truths

Robin Lane Fox, a historian, in his book _Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible_, wrote that as he finished this book, "a friend reminded me that I had once remarked to him that I believed in the Bible but not in God. . . . Twenty-five years later, this book has turned out to be an explanation of what I meant."

The history of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and the subsequent history of the many faith communities who read them, shows how much time and effort people have spent trying to understand themselves and the world.

It is a nice thought; that religion is the communication of useful (not literal) truths. However religion is also about control. As Jesus said: "You are my friends - if you obey me."

> ...taking my kids would be a net positive.

Being raised in the church and briefly having taught kids there, please don't do this. Even in progressive churches the lessons they risk being exposed to will teach lazy thinking: trust in authority, testimony above hard evidence, etc. At worst they may be taught to hate or despise themselves, others, or natural desires.

To the article's point, I can see how wokeism has brought about "lazy thinking: trust in authority, testimony above hard evidence, etc. At worst they may be taught to hate or despise themselves..." as well.

I really think the article's author is on to a good line of thinking.

Europe is full of atheist Catholics. It’s a pretty cool system.

You get the holidays and culture, nice set of shared stories and a shared common sense. Thinking any of it is factually accurate or that god is a thing or being that actually exists is almost considered weird.

In Slovenia (where I’m from), for example, about 70% of the population identifies as Catholic, but only 25% say there might be a god. Another 30% say there’s probably some sort of greater spirit, but not necessarily god.

The American version always seemed odd to me. Believing that stuff in the Bible is factually true, not just fables with lessons ... that’s weird.

I like to chalk it up to just a bit of lost in translation, but I know it is probably more complex than that. Think about going from early Aramaic/Hebrew, to Latin, Greek and Turkish, to medieval Italian, German and Slavic, to Old English and French, to Modern English. You are bound to lose the real meaning of the original texts after several millennia in the game of lingual telephone.

Translations are usually done directly from the original language into the target language. The study of early Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek remains an active field and there are lots of people who can read those languages fluently.

It's worth remembering that large groups of fundamentalist Christians left Europe to go to the "new world" to escape actual persecution or the perception that they were not free to express their form of Christianity. Culture IMHO runs very deep and lasts long after the death of the originators.

The fun part was when their form of Christianity involved persecuting others but the government said no.

To be fair Christians have alwsys fought great wars amongst each other on the basis of one basis of christianity thinking all others are wrong.

At least that’s what they told the peasants. In reality it’s all about power politics and money. Same as now.

You gotta remember that for 2000 years the church was politics. Sure there were kings but who crowns the king? The church does.

Why is it weird? It requires an open and trustful way of thinking. The same that lets me believe in global warming. I just think the outcome of subcribing to that ideology has good outcomes for me and my family, and I accept there are events beyond my reach and understanding, and that I cannot do much about it.

Because Occam's razor is clear. I successfully grow flowers on my balcony and my verification and peer review of temperature is not alarming. It's hard to make a living as a scientist, and journals need sensationalism, so of course people in their 30s+ would show me numbers that fit the agenda. From logical thinking the deduction is there is no global warming, but I do believe there is in some parts of the world, and we'd best do something about it.

Same thing goes for what ancient civilisations believed within the concept of their lifestyles.

It’s weird in the same way that believing Die Hard has good lessons on morality and courage is great, but believing the events of Nakatomi Plaza are real facts is weird.

Much of the bible is a mix of history inspired folk tales, political propaganda, morality tales, and self-help advice from various eras. It’s a great resource in that respect, but I wouldn’t use it to explain any particular “how”

LOL talk to your local priest about the whole thing being a bunch of nice fables; or actually go to church. The sermons at Easter can be especially unpleasant.

I'm an atheist who runs a weekly Bible study:

https://www.meetup.com/Bible-Study-for-Skeptics-Agnostics-an...

I'm also a regular on the creationist debate circuit. In fact, I'm doing one this afternoon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDfp2GZHcEU

That’s fascinating!

At first glance, it appears that agnosticism is more rooted in science and evidence than atheism.

What is atheism’s general view of BioLogos and evolutionary creation as supported by the former head of the Human Gene Project and NIH, Francis Collins?

https://biologos.org/about-us/what-we-believe/

Well, atheism's general view is that it's bullshit.

My personal view is more nuanced than that, but it's much too long a story for an HN comment. The TL;DR is that the divergence between science and religion happens very, very early in one's thought process. Humans seek to explain their experiences, but there are two very different kinds of explanation you can choose to seek. You can pursue mechanism, i.e. what are the laws that describe the phenomena we observe, or you can pursue teleology, i.e. what is the purpose of the phenomena that we observe? If you choose the former, you end up with science, and if you pursue the latter, you end up with religion.

Neither approach subsumes the other. Science fails to identify purpose, and teleology fails to identify a mechanism. But humans want both, so we struggle to put together some kind of synthesis. BioLoogos is a valiant attempt at a synthesis, but it's not really supportable by anything other than our desire to construct a unified theory of our existence, i.e. to tell a story that makes us feel warm and fuzzy. IMHO it's problematic from the perspective of both theology and science. But, like I said, it's a long story.

Telos isn't strictly linked to religion. Emergent properties can be seen as a form of telos. Even atheists talk about evolution teleologically - "evolution fits species to their environment".

Personally I liken the typical materialist denial of telos to only trusting quantitative data, which is something they also do. You don't even get half the picture because the two halves form a greater whole.

To be honest, it was a catastrophe when the dualism of the Abrahamic religions was split down the middle and the spiritual half was abandoned. Its no surprise that modernism is so unfulfilling when the default philosophies that are compatible with pure materialism are hedonism and nihilism.

> Telos isn't strictly linked to religion.

Right, I didn't mean to imply that it was. It's just an explanation (a hypothesis at this point) for how otherwise reasonable people end up with radically different worldviews.

Most atheists are agnostic.

I would say: more than you think. Someone else responded to you about European churches and honestly that sounds quite appealing to me.

My experience in Canada is that there are a lot of people who would most closely align with Liberal Christianity[0] but then spend their time in churches which are more "traditional". I think there is a bit of disconnect and tension in the current state of the churches here, though I think as this subgroup of Christians grows it will have to be addressed.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

> very few stories in the Bible are historically accurate.

Outside of a particular brand of Protestantism which happens to be quite popular in the US, Christians doctrine doesn't hold that the Bible is a literally factual narrative.

But beyond that, which obviously doesn't quite cover the degree of divergence you seem to be suggesting, there are probably Churches you'd fit into without hypocrisy, though som e might argue they they are only partially or historically Christian, e.g., some Unitarian Universalist churches.

Tbh, you'd have to choose the right church. Something like the Anglicans or mainstream Presbyterians. Unitarians would be ideal.

Otherwise you're soon running into creationism, or purity culture, or speaking in tongues and the evil of backsliders, or why women can't hold jobs, why dolls violate the 2nd commandment, or, imo, one of the worst, Calvinism and it's TULIP doctrine[1]. I'm not sure what's worst, L, wherein God only saves some, and sends the rest to hell as an example of his grace to those going to heaven, or P, where if you express reservations or concerns about the church, you're obviously not actually saved and are going to hell.

[1]: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html

> taking my kids would be a net positive

When our kids were very little, my Episcopalian wife said we needed to raise them in a religious tradition "so they'd have something to reject when they grow up." So we did; both were baptized (as infants) and confirmed (as teens) at her parish. Fast forward three decades: One now-grown and -married kid is on the vestry (board of directors) of the parish, while the other hasn't darkened the door of any church since he was a teenager, apart from his sister's wedding.

(Later I ended up joining as well; see https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse...)

> People often choose to stop a belief because of the failings of their parents, spiritual leader, etc without thought to their direct relationship with their deity and the belief system itself.

IME and those I've read about on various ex Reddit subs is that many stop believing because the evidence is non-existent. Learning about the hypocrisy of leadership may push people out of certain organizations, but to stop believing is another thing.

Lack of evidence for divine Creation, lack of evidence that a particular “revealed truth” is supernatural in origin, moral teachings of a particular faith incompatible with own morals derived from lived experience, religion systematically corrupt or staffed by people of dubious character ...

For those that become “religious” for social reasons it makes complete sense to leave because of dubious characters but I would argue that all social groups/organizations have dubious characters.

For those that become “religious” and see it as their personal mission and spiritual relationship, then the social part has scant importance because the hypocrisy is that of other corruptible individuals.

The Bible says you can judge a tree by its fruits.

What are you trying to say?

Not all believers dismiss institutional corruption as isolated cases of universal fallibility.

Choosing to believe we have enough evidence to know/state a definitive answer is belief itself, no?

Nobel-winning physicist, Roger Penrose.

Question: Do the wonders of physics and the beauty of its laws inspire belief in something that is beyond science?

Answer: ‘There is a sense in which I would say I’m an agnostic[...] But that doesn’t mean I’m an atheist. Do I believe in something outside science? Well, it’s a bit hard to know. What is science? Where are its boundaries? Is there something going on in consciousness, which is outside of science? Well, I like not to think that. It is certainly outside the science we have now. But it’s something we can explore scientifically. Whether we will have an understanding of what’s going on, which is deep enough to solve the mystery of what it is to be, I don’t know.’

Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-singular-mind-roger-pe...

Is anyone claiming to have definitive answers?

I've stopped believing in Christianity because the things I learned about physics and sociology far better explain the evidence that I've seen. Others appear to have done the same. Whether their is some untest-able higher power is irrelevant to my life. And if it can be tested and falsified then given enough time and effort it will be proven. Yet centuries of human effort have been wasted exploring what may simply be a side effect of overzealous agent detection.

> "overzealous agent detection"

Great way to put it, definitely going to steal this one!

Our brain's pattern recognition circuits are highly developed and we like to anthropomorphize. Tens of thousands of years ago with a lack of scientific knowledge, who else but the gods could we have pointed to in order to explain the world around us?

FWIW, "agent detection" is an established concept[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

Current scientific thinking suggests that we do not even exist - our sense that we are a conscious self that makes choices - is only an illusion.

This is the case for me. I basically just realized I had never actually hard anything speaking back to me and had never observed anything super natural. I was basically fully deconverted by about age 16 or 17, mostly just through self examination of my subjective experiences.

I find some of these other explanations strange and quite at odds with the experience of me and the rest of my deconverted family.

"for what makes people either join or leave a religion."

This is a very American kind of statement.

In this world, most people don't 'join' religions - they are born into them, and they are usually a part of the social fabric.

In the New World we have this notion that Religions are a bunch of competing ideas, that you can join or unjoin this or that.

Joining/unjoining kinds of religions are so fundamentally different things that they probably need different words.

Catholicism is so different from Evangelicalism that they probably should not be put in the same boat.

Catholicism in many ways is more similar to Judaism than Evangelicalism.

Anglicans (Church of England), Catholics (Church of Latin world), Presbyterians (Church of Scotland), Methodists (Church of Some Germans) and Judaism ('Church' of Jews) - should almost be thought of in cultural or ethnic terms as much as religious.

The Church has always been a cultural and community centre as much as any place of mere belief.

The notion that we treat it almost in terms of 'belief' is a constant fallacy which causes us to often miss the point.

Finally - religious fervour moved out of the Church in the last century into left/right wing politics. It's just taking a different form now.

Edit: sorry I meant 'Calvinism' as Germanic, not 'Methodist'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com