Hacker News Reader

Comment by swombat | Hacker News Reader

Whether or not (as implied by the article) stupid people tend to be more religious, is largely immaterial.

All these attacks of religion from the point of view of science or intelligence fail to acknowledge the fact that it (religion) fulfils basic human psychological needs - such as the need for purpose and meaning, the need for structure and ritual, or the need for social cohesion - which science (rightly) does not give a shit about.

Science is not about those things, but those things are basic human needs (as abundantly demonstrated by the large populations of believers). So why oppose science to religion, when science is sure to lose on the sine-qua-non criteria of providing for those basic needs?

Instead, if one wants to "defeat" religion, something else should be opposed. Perhaps a better kind of religion, that fulfils these basic human psychological needs without all the superstition and the side-effects.

View on HN

That need could be filled in other ways, though. Religion is harmful because it makes people irrational and often controlled by dangerous forces (religious leaders). I don't even agree that science doesn't care about human psychological needs. In the same way some scientists care about curing diseases, others care about curing psychological problems.

> That need could be filled in other ways, though. Religion is harmful because it makes people irrational and often controlled by dangerous forces (religious leaders).

I completely agree. In fact, that's my point. But you can't fulfil those needs by ignoring them. They need to be addressed directly, not denied - which is what proponents of atheism as a replacement for religion seem to be attempting.

I don't even agree that science doesn't care about human psychological needs. In the same way some scientists care about curing diseases, others care about curing psychological problems.

They care, no doubt, but I have yet to see a convincing solution that fulfils those needs in a way that matches what religion (despite being, perhaps, false) achieves, or anywhere near. The closest thing, ironically, might be the whole singularity cult, which is largely derided by a large portion of the "science" camp.

But those atheists seem to be just fine, psychologically. I don't think the need you describe needs to be filled by a lie about religion. I agree, though, that it is a bit of a shame that atheists don't seem to make much of a concentrated attempt to care for those needs (community building against loneliness and such things). I've thought about it often.

Actually I think the church is basically just a company that caters to those needs, so what is necessary is starting another company.

Actually I think the church is basically just a company that caters to those needs, so what is necessary is starting another company.

That's exactly what I'm arguing :-)

I flatly disagree that science should "rightly" not give a shit about purpose, meaning, structure, or social cohesion.

Here's one of many starting points:

http://www.ped.fas.harvard.edu

Which of the books on that page do you recommend reading to get a glimpse of how science can successfully fulfil the role of religion in providing purpose, meaning, etc?

I don't think it can yet. My point was just that such things should be studied, and are being studied.

The link I provided is of particular interest in the area of moral theory. There is a good book called Evolutionary Dynamics that summarizes this group's work and contains, among other things, a rather beautiful equation predicting the optimal rate of forgiveness in cooperating populations.

Please never ever say religion fills a need. It fills a want. No part of being human needs religion any more than they need crack cocaine. Id argue the effects are similar on the brain as well.

Please never say that religion has never filled a need. You don't know that.

Blind atheism is just as bad, if not worse, than organized theism.

The problems start when people think they know something and they really don't.

Religion has never filled a need. Religion is a placebo. It purports to do something, and cannot fulfill on its promise. No one, not one human needs a placebo. They NEED air to breath or they will die, they NEED shelter or they will freeze to death. They WANT religion for a number of different reasons, but not one reason is because without it they will die.

Funny, considering that the term placebo actually means:

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/placebo?s=t)

1. med control group See also placebo effect an inactive substance or other sham form of therapy administered to a patient usually to compare its effects with those of a real drug or treatment, but sometimes for the psychological benefit to the patient through his believing he is receiving treatment

Emphasis mine.

You seem to have an axe to grind on this subject, like some of the more hardcore atheists. The deep irony of that is that you believe with fervour and passion and faith that people who believe with fervour and passion and faith are stupid. Epic fail.

Develop a critical thinking habit, not a reflexive opposition habit. Your life will be better for it.

I'm stupid, epic fail? Nice.

I didn't say that humans need religion, I said that religion fills a human need.

Are you saying that purpose, social cohesion and rituals are not human needs? If so, I have 7 billion pieces of evidence against you - and that's just the live ones.

The point of my comment is that this need can be filled by something other than religion. But science ain't it.

Purpose most certainly does not require religion. Social cohesion happens far better in the absence of religion. Finally, why would I need ritual. I loathe almost all pomp ant ritual. Regardless, you again need no religion for ritual.

There is no need.

Yet religion still exists and thrives after tens of thousands of years. In fact religion seems to be one of the only staples of human civilization, suggesting in fact that many people do have some kind of intrinsic need for religion in their lives.

In most religions, it was a death sentence to leave the religion. So that couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it?

Again (I feel like I'm repeating myself), I didn't say that purpose requires religion. I didn't say that social cohesion requires religion. I didn't say that ritual requires religion.

I said that human beings requires those things, and that religion is effective at fulfilling those requirements. I explicitly made the point that something else could be fulfilling those needs better than religion can. However, I do not think that that thing is science - at least not in its current form.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com