It's quite incredible that the Huffington Post posted the entire suicide note, particularly without a warning before it.
In any case, I'm disturbed and outraged by the religious comments (ranging from wishing him well in the next phase of his life to saying how much God loves everyone even despite this to how he should forgive himself for the suicide). I thought respect was fundamental to religion.
Unfortunately, it's not. I couldn't find the comments you mentioned, but the unfortunate fact is that many religious people are (at best) a shadow of what their beliefs are based on.
I say this as a devout (but not fundamentalist) Christian. This entire article grieves me–including his descriptions of how his father treated him. No matter what choices my kids make, I could never treat them that way.
I mean no personal disrespect towards you, but you're implying that religions are themselves tolerant and respectful, and that people are flawed for not being able to "live up" to them. In reality, religions tend not to be tolerant and respectful, and criticizing people in general for not being "good enough" to live up to a religious standard is unfair.
Sorry, I didn't phrase it well and that's definitely not what I was implying.
I should really isolate my statement to Christianity. Jesus spent time with prostitutes, thieves and the marginalized. He likely drank alcohol. He wasn't concerned with wealth (other than warning against it's trappings). And, ironically, the people he was least respectful to were the religious leaders of the time.
Contrast that with the descriptions of Mr. Zeller's father and you can (hopefully) see the point I'm trying to make. His type are the only people I criticize—not because they don't live up to a standard but because (just like the leaders in Jesus' time)they create unnecessary standards for the purpose of controlling people or satisfying their own pride.
I hope that explains it better. As a side, I appreciate your approach. Religion can be a hot topic and I generally avoid it on HN. When it does come up, it's nice to share views in a respectful manner.
Religions are not entities, only the people that make them up are.
I could have phrased what I said better, but I stand by the essential meaning of what I said, and I disagree with you.
A "religion" as a particular body of ideas, is distinct from the adherents to that religion. Which is why it's perfectly reasonable to say something like, "Most Christians don't actually live up to the teachings of Christianity."
For example, nobody can reasonably deny that Christianity involves (1) belief in Christ; (2) a large helping of faith instead of reason; (3) a significant element of self-sacrifice. Or for Islam: (1) belief in the teachings of Muhammad, and in Allah; (2) a large helping of faith instead of reason; (3) a significant element of self-sacrifice (this time posited as "submission"). Buddhism, arguably, might only be (2), depending on your interpretation; I think Buddhism is probably "less well-defined," so to speak, but maybe I just no less about it. Still, there are clearly certain concepts that define and/or are implied by any particular religion.
These religions are often much more different than their common manifestations, but their peddlers simplify and adulterate the teachings to make them more palatable. It involves serious work to become either a real Christian or a real Muslim, and people prefer "drive-through religion", as it were.
I suggest you explore religion, especially religion that exists outside of the spotlight, more deeply to gain an appropriate understanding of how these things work.
For instance, religion does not emphasize faith over reason, but faith in tandem with reason; faith on a basic level is merely sufficient trust to give something an earnest try (or, in more religious terms, "things hoped for but not seen", which is to say, a belief in potential), which is a principle necessary in the acquisition of all meaningful knowledge.
It's not a contradiction, you don't understand. Faith is the serious belief that something can happen or is real. When a scientist embarks upon a hypothesis, he does so because he has faith that something valuable may come from experimenting on that hypothesis, which is a hope for value not yet seen. Faith is not just a belief or hope, but it is a set of works accomplished in the attitude of that hope, so the scientist, by faith, continues his experiments on a hypothesis.
The same process occurs in the spiritual and religious realm with regard to faith. Religious people hear that certain information and/or manifestations are available to them, and they have faith sufficient to follow the path outlined. As they do so, they find their initial faith validated, and then they continue to have faith on the next point outlined in the scriptures, and find that faith validated, and so on.
Faith is not knowledge; faith is a stopgap on the way to knowledge, and it's a principle necessary for healthy or reasonable conduct in all forms, which is part of why religion requires such an emphasis of faith. If a man obtains all knowledge, there is no more need for faith, because he knows everything of himself and has no need to believe something without a formal proof, as he has already received a formal proof of every true thing, which can only happen as that man has sufficient faith in true things to experiment and learn of their truth with help from God. He has no faith because he no more has a mere hope in things not seen; he now sees all things.
Faith consists of believing something without reference to reality, i.e., divorced of reason.
A scientist engaging in an experiment is attempting to gain knowledge, and he may expect the experiment to go a certain way, based on what he knows.
Someone engaging in faith says, "I believe this, just because I want to." There is no reference to knowledge, reason, or reality. It's putting an "I wish" over "It is."
To engage in faith is to surrender your mind. To surrender your mind is the most basic kind of evil there is; it's anti-human life.
If you are actually interested in thinking about this further, you'll probably find my cousin response (i.e. responding to another child of this comment's grandparent) highly relevant.
Obviously, we disagree. Some may do that and call it faith, but people who are serious about faith do not believe without reference to reality or reason. Their faith is also predicated upon facts which they already know -- for instance, almost all people have an internal feeling that there is a God to be found out there. As such, based on their previous spiritual experiences, they will hear some information, believe that it is plausible and aligns with the things they already know, and act upon it, until their faith becomes knowledge on the topic, either affirming the original faith or negating it (learning something is true or learning something is not true).
In religious circles, one that believes things merely because they "want to" is not considered faithful, but ignorant at best. God has given reason to man and He expects man to use it. You may feel personally that a belief in any spiritual realm or being is unreasonable, but almost all people, historically, and to a somewhat lesser extent, contemporarily, disagree with you.
You're demonizing faith as an entire principle because some bad dudes have couched their badness in religion. It is common to attempt to shroud filthiness in virtue; most people find spiritual matters somewhat confusing but also consider spiritual teachers most noble, and that makes religion and false piety an excellent cover for corruption.
However, not every religious person is bad just because some "religious" teachers exploit and denigrate and abuse the trust of their perishoners ("false priests", as they are called).
Your attack on "faith" as a concept is silly; faith is often used in reference to religious circles because there seems to be some contention among modern persons whether it is worth having any faith in spiritual information at all, and they therefore assume their faith in scientists or physical teachers is not faith, but "reason", or something like that. Faith is a belief in a thing that has not been proven and a set of actions that seek to discover the reality of that belief one way or another. Anything that is eventually proven is proven because of the faith of its provers -- someone has to believe that an idea may have some merit in order to test it and discover if it is real or not.
Religious faith is necessary among all men because spiritual proofs are communicated "spirit to spirit", and as yet, man does not know how to transfer these or write a mathematical proof of spiritual truths learned personally. This, however, does not mean that faith is not necessary in non-religious fields. A small degree of faith is necessary to believe even things that have obvious and blatant proofs available.
The "anti-faith" thing is a silly and petty demonization and misappropriation, promoted by those that hate religion, and I don't really see the point in it, other than an attempt to make those that believe in religion and exercise faith in not just temporal, but also spiritual, matters appear "unreasonable" or stupid. And that's just not the case.
This has turned into an argument over the definitions of words, at its core. One person is defining "faith" to mean "having a belief that significantly mismatches the evidence", and you're defining "faith" to mean something drastically different. May I suggest either agreeing on a definition for the sake of argument, or splitting it into two separate words? You could call the first definition "mimble", and the second definition "spuzz", for example, and then the discussion might be able to go somewhere.
(I also don't consider your definition of faith to be particularly useful, and I suspect that you're equivocating, but those are tangential to my point here.)
I'm not trying to equivocate at all. I'm just trying to show that 'evidence' works fine in the large -- at the society level. But it doesn't work at the individual level since most individuals don't actually have evidence -- they choose to believe what their culture calls 'evidence'. Call it faith, belief, whatever. But the individual doesn't have evidence.
It's easier to see when we pick something that the whole culture hasn't coalesced on yet. Like string theory and worm holes. Some people believe there's a worm hole at the center of our universe. They have 'evidence' that supports their theory. I can believe or not, but I'll never know one way or another. 100 years from now, if everyone believes the _exact_ same theories we have today, with the _exact_ same raw data, my great-grandkids will say they know the worm hole exists and the 'evidence' is obvious. The only difference between now and then is how widely those theories are dispersed and accepted. Yet today I (and you?) wouldn't say we know worm holes exist. And my great-grandkids won't 'know' any more than you and I do.
In other words, my 'evidence' is what is commonly known and accepted to be true. Yet I personally don't know it to be true -- I trust that it is. Isn't that blind?
I agree with cookiecaper. I've never seen mars. I believe (blindly) that the books, pictures and lectures I've seen are real, and that other people's pronouncements (from NASA, etc) are real too, so I believe (ie have blind faith) that mars is real. I _assume_ (ie have faith) that I could do some research and become a little more sure.
Heck, that goes for atoms, electricity, just about everything. All I KNOW (without getting existential, etc) are things I've personally experienced. Everything else is pure belief (and blindly at that) based on trusting the sources.
You don't "blindly believe" the scientific facts/phenomena to which you refer. First, you have ample evidence to suggest that they exist. Second, they do not contradict anything else in reality that you are aware of. Third, you have reason to trust the process of cognition that led to those conclusions, i.e, the thought process and work of scientists that reference reality in their work and seek to prove things objectively.
Faith---which in common use (properly so) is equivalent to "religious faith" unless otherwise specified---breaks all of those rules.
I, personally, have no _evidence_ that the big bang really happened. I have heard people tell me it's so. I've read books claiming it's so. I have to have faith in these books and these people. That's the essence of my argument -- very, very few of us have actual evidence. What we have is the words of others. In other words, there are only a small handful of people that have built a device that can measure background microwave radiation and devices to measure red-shift, etc. Those few people know what they have observed and can interpret that information. Everything else that is built on those observations (many more theories, etc) is based on a belief in those original few peoples' work. And we, the masses, then have to believe those secondary interpretations. Heck, I haven't even gotten the information from the data interpreters, but rather from other writers who have interpretted it further and written text books, blog posts, etc. So yeah, it's pretty close to blind faith since I'm so many steps away from the truth, and don't have the ability (currently, with my existing education) to truely know it anyway even if I could speak directly to one of those scientists that built the space probe. I'd STILL have to trust him when he showed me the raw data.
Belief should not be absolute, but a matter of degree. If I flip a coin ten times, I believe that it'll land heads at least once. How strongly do I believe it? As a matter of fact, I'm a little more than 99.9% sure. The probability of getting at least one head is 1023/1024.
On more complex things, it's harder (and sometimes uncomputable) to come up with such precise probability estimates, but that doesn't change the principle. I believe with greater than 99% certainty that evolution happened. I believe with less certainty that Moore's law will continue for another two or three process nodes. I have very little belief that "psychics" can talk with the dead; equivalently, I have a very high degree of belief that they can not talk with the dead.
The degrees of belief we have about things should be revised upward or downward based on evidence, and should be based on the evidence we have available to us. Your belief that mars is real is supported by a lot of evidence, and therefore should have a high degree of confidence. But if I told you that there's a planet, unknown until now, called Uldune, and that this planet has space pirates using it as a supply base, then believing me with non-negligible certainty would be an act of blind faith. (Disbelieving me, with high certainty, would not be. My story about the planet Uldune contradicts a lot of evidence about the current state of the art in space travel, and the laws of physics, and so on.)
Evolution is a good example. Why do you believe it happened? Because someone told you. You read someone else's words. It sort of makes sense. You saw what you assume are dinosaur bones in a museum. All of that is faith, and perhaps blind faith.
I'm assuming you're not a geneticist, so you probably didn't verify that the bones that were stacked nicely into a skeleton actually came from the same being. You likely weren't part of the dig team that found them. You don't know where they came from, or even if they are actual bone. And I'm not even talking about people purposely misleading us, but rather the fact that we have to take at face value what we are told. That's blind faith. We both _assume_ we could dig and verify the facts (with enough time, money and education), but we don't -- we just believe.
My argument is the 'evidence' we think we have, is nothing more than blind faith in 99% of the time, simply because we don't have the time and resources to follow up on everything. We simply believe because everyone else does.
If your definition of "blind faith" is broad enough that accepting things on "blind faith" is actually a good, fairly reliable predictor of possible future observations, then I think you should get a narrower definition.
For example, I accept on "blind faith" the fact that Australia exists. But if I got on a plane to Australia, I have every reason to expect that it will go to a real place called Australia, rather than secretly taking me to Botswana or something. By your definition, a belief in Australia and a belief in unicorns are both lumped under the category of blind faith, which I think is a really silly classification.
All our observations of the world -- even sight, sound, smell, and so on -- are indirect. Your eyes don't see all wavelengths, and they can be tricked into confusing combinations of red, green, and blue as "the same color" as a pure wavelength of light. And don't get me started on the preprocessing that happens before the signals even reach your brain! Will you categorize everything you see as being taken on blind faith as well? Where do you draw the line?
"a belief in Australia and a belief in unicorns are both lumped under the category of blind faith, which I think is a really silly classification."
I'm not lumping them together. Lots of people that I trust tell me they've been to Australia. I don't have any reason to doubt them. I trust them, so accept that Australia is there. Lots of others also publish pictures, movies, etc so I trust them too. But that's a belief, not a knowledge -- I _personally_ have no evidence at this point.
Nobody I know professes to have seen a unicorn. I also have no personal evidence, so I don't believe that.
And like I said above, I'm not trying to go to the point of whether we can trust our senses, or know whether or not we actually exist or any of that. I'm just trying to show that individually, each of us live our lives with 99% belief (ie no personal experience/evidence), and 1% knowledge (things we've personally experienced).
Let's take the atom. How do YOU KNOW that atoms exist? What personal experience/evidence do YOU have that they exist? We both believe they exist, but neither of us have split one and know for a fact that there is a nucleus in there. We both choose to believe, based on the coherent story we hear from many other sources.
... says the "astronomy priest" to me :) I have to take your word for it. I know there is what appears to be a star that looks brighter than most others. I, personally, don't have a means at my disposal to know it's mars. I just have to believe you.
This is not faith. We agree on the name we give to that spot in the sky, which happen to be "Mars". Then we agree to name "planets" the spots that behave in a given manner, "stars" the other spots, etc. That's just how languages are built. "Believing" that the language work "well enough" is necessary for normal life and intellectual exchanges.
To dig deeper, the faith leap is more done when we agree that every night, the spot of light we see at roughly the same place in the sky is the emanation of a unique object, that deserves a unique name. This is related to the identity problem.
It is faith for _me_ since I've never looked through a telescope and seen that it is indeed a nearer-mass/rock, and not a star as it appears in the sky. Unless you have seen it with your own eyes, you too are believing based on the words of others. My point isn't that we can't verify some of the things we think are true, but my point is that we usually don't. Instead, we believe what we're taught because everyeone else around us believes.
We're not so different from the people at the time of Columbus that were taught the world was flat. They didn't (most couldn't verify it), but everyone 'knew' it was true. That had been taught it, they had books describing it, and maps showing it. They had as much evidence as I do about mars.
Many people really have seen mars through telescopes, and a number of rocket scientists have built devices to go and look at it indirectly. THOSE people KNOW mars exists. The rest of us believe, blindly, what we are told about it. I don't doubt mars exists in the least, only because I _choose_ to believe it exists.
Actually, people in the time of Columbus knew the the Earth was round. That's been in European cultural knowledge for about two thousand years. It was Columbus who was mistaken. He thought the earth was much smaller than everyone else did. That he could sail west to Asia in a few weeks. He was completely wrong. A fool who was funded by a fool.
But you're right, in that they had as much evidence as you have about Mars. As in, with a some hours of observation, you too could establish that the Earth is round and that Mars is a planet and know as much as a 15th century nobleman. All from first principles. You just need to view the evidence.
That's different than religion and "faith". Those don't require evidence. In fact, faith require the absence of evidence.
You can try to equate evidence-based beliefs and non evidence-based beliefs, but they are not the same.
I don't think you're following my line of reason. You and I believe that red point is a planet because someone else taught us that. We don't have any independent evidence -- we simply believe what others have told us. I'm not arguing about the definition of a planet, or what 'Mars' is -- I'm arguing about what you and I _KNOW_. We don't KNOW that red point is planet -- we've simply been taught, and believe it. For the record, I believe Mars is a planet, despite having no personal experience or evidence whatsoever.
I would suggest that if it seems like three-quarters of humanity is hateful, ignorant, or dulled you might want to consider the possibility of selection bias in your data.
I don't really get what you find disrespectful. Religious people generally believe that death is just a transition into a different plane. Why shouldn't a religious person be able to represent this in a comment?
For the record, I read the note, and there's nothing in it that would make it inappropriate to leave a comment like "hope he is happy now" or whatever. Even if he asked people not to say this about his death, which he didn't do, or even remotely hint at, they still would. It's just the common way of addressing death. Most people are religious.
The problem here is that these things are not disrespectful for individual Christians to say, but they are inappropriate for Christians 'as a group' to say. The group should stfu and take a long hard look at their shortcomings as a group. You don't get to address this guys death in your religious way, if you don't address the religious ways that caused his death. If there is anyone in the position to get fundamentalist Christians to change their ways, it's the moderate Christians. But I don't hear them speak out against, on religious grounds, against the extreme, religiously inspired, stuff that gets shouted around by national celebrities that get to keep televising that propaganda for decades. Instead, everyone expects the atheists to carry the burden of moderating the extremists, who are naturally much less eficient at that. To add insult to injury, in the public debate moderate Christians continuously choose the side of the fundamentalists when push comes to shove. I continuously moderate the quacks in my scientific family; you moderate yours, damnit.
A fallacy that could not be used if Muslims openly and harshly criticised their fundamentalist brothers, instead of remaining silent and ocasionally nodding in agreement when others are described as unworthy, because that feeling is most fundamental and hardest to overcome. The core of what binds people together is the united enemy and appeals to hating the enemy are easy. At least they have the excuse that most of them are usually being repressed, by the government or the direct social community, and don't dare voice their opinion.
Moderate American Christians, on the other hand, could easily wipe out the ridiculous overpresence of fundamentalist Christians on national television. This is assuming the majority actually consists of moderate Christians. If that assumption is false, then the feelings of nopassrecover are justified by appeal to the probability that the commenters are actually the type of people that are guilty of this mans death.
Thanks for making my point for me. Yep. That's one thing that could make things better for American Muslims. If they'd just change their behavior, just a little bit.
American Muslims are a minority, who can hardly be expected to change the public perception of 'Islam', which depends on what millions of foreign Muslims say or do. Those foreign Muslims have a hard time being moderate and because of that my appeal to Christians does not equally apply to them. The American Christian majority has both power and freedom of speech. They're just not using it efficiently to shut down the blowhards that keep hijacking 'Christianity'.
I admit it's a fine line between what I'm trying to argue and the 'guilt by association' fallacy, but the difference is the answer to the question: how responsible is a powerful majority subgroup for taking action against the minority leading the group, when the majority subgroup is suffering from that leadership, because members of the majority subgroup are being held accountable for opinions and decisions of the leadership that they don't even agree with? Humans use fallacious reasoning and pointing that out doesn't change a thing about that. Taking away the origin of the fallacy does change a thing and makes the world a bit better. I'm not committting the fallacy in my argument: I'm just pointing out that others will commit the fallacy, which is an unchangeable fact of human nature the majority subgroup should better acknowledge.
"If there is anyone in the position to get fundamentalist Christians to change their ways, it's the moderate Christians. But I don't hear them speak out against, on religious grounds, against the extreme ..."
Believe me, we try and if you came to my church you'd probably our pastor speak out against Mr. Zeller's type
I'm not sure what public debate you're referring to
> "I don't hear them speak out against, on religious grounds, against the extreme, religiously inspired, stuff that gets shouted around by national celebrities"
Moderate Christians pretty routinely criticize Christian extremists, just like moderate agnostic/atheists routinely criticize their extremists. Last time Pat Robertson made a stupid comment that I heard about, about a third of my Christian friends on facebook used direct quotes of the Bible to contradict him, and nobody said anything in support of him.
If you live in a bubble, you only see the other side's extremists, and therefore come to the mistaken belief that their moderates are silent or nonexistent. The solution is not to criticize the moderates for being insufficiently loud; it's to spend more time actually listening to the moderates.
about a third of my Christian friends on facebook used
direct quotes of the Bible to contradict him
Yes. In the meantime, Fox news is still claiming the position of national spokeschannel for Christianity.
it's to spend more time actually listening to the moderates.
The problem is that I'm not the one that needs to be convinced by the moderates. The moderates need to take action to reach those, such as the parents of Bill Zeller, that actually need convincing.
Comments that set me off were ones such as "May God have mercy on his soul." and "I am sorry. Please forgive me. Maybe then you can forgive yourself."
Even the general "Lord, let your loving kindness be upon him; you came to us first, knowing we could not reach you on our own." seems more religious than consolatory, which bugged me as I got the impression from the note that religion was the facade his family and his abuser used to present themselves as good people and rationalise their inner demons.
It's likely that many commenters on sites like Gizmodo or Huff Post read the summary and skimmed the note, and left a "generic suicide consolation". That's my guess anyway.
That has little to do with the religiosity of those people, I think, it mainly just has to do with a group of people that has very little prudence about speech in general. You shouldn't set your standards too high for the unwashed; Hacker News is anathema to people that don't read, as just about everything here is wall-of-text; no funny cat pictures or YouTube memes to attract the less attentive crowd, and generally no stupid political nit-picking, or anything non-business or non-compsci.
Huffington Post is a content farm, essentially, and is filled with lots of distractions. It is also a home base for ideologues, with its founders and editors frequently appearing on talk shows and injecting themselves into political commentary. Much of its readership happens to be religious or Christian, just as most people you meet in the West will happen to be religious and/or Christian. Perhaps we should consider that though many of these people are leaving religiously-oriented comments, the propriety of their writing is not necessarily correlated with their religiosity so much as its correlated with other factors.
I find proselytism highly disrespectful, yet it's common to Islam, Christianity, and historically Judaism. So I wouldn't say respect is fundamental to religion.
I'm willing to give the commentators the benefit of the doubt though and assume they meant no disrespect. They'd probably be puzzled that anyone would find offense. Likely just a lack of exposure to other world views.
If you truly believe that an all-powerful, provenly vengeful supreme being wants you to personally spread his word to other people, it'd be a pretty bad idea to disobey.
That was really sad. I'm a Christian, but fully recognize there is some sickening hypocrisy in the 'Christian' world (and probably all religious and non-religious groups), but it's especially sick when these attitudes are propagated by supposed love. Truly, 'they worship me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me'.
This makes me question anything that supports rape fantasies. Anything that would even remotely encourage someone to act out this horrible, life ruining crime on another human being is very bad for society. It's one form of censorship I would support.
Not brave enough to stand up for censorship with your own account?
I voted you down. I don't think your comment has any meaningful place in this thread. It should go without saying that you shouldn't use someone's death to soapbox about censorship or any other unrelated topic.
Like my other account is any less anonymous? (didn't realize I was signed in with this account).
Journalistic convention is more related to the topic??
We've just found out about someone that suffered through a hell-filled life because of some sicko's fantasy. I'd hope we would try and figure out a way to spare others the same aweful fate.
OK, agreed. And did that guy just get up one day and decide to do this out of the blue? No way -- he fantasized about it first. Thoughts lead to actions -- it's always worked that way. Granted, not ALL thoughts lead to ALL actions, but no action ever happened before the thought. Encouraging or feeding a _destructive_ fantasy doesn't have any positive outcomes (neutral at best).
Oh, this is such a great argument for thought crimes! Because most crimes occur after somebody thinks of them, we should ban any thought (and by implication this includes any depiction) of any crime!
I'm sure that will work out great.
But it is hardly surprising that a religious person came up with this, given that most sins are already thought crimes.
In any case, I'm disturbed and outraged by the religious comments (ranging from wishing him well in the next phase of his life to saying how much God loves everyone even despite this to how he should forgive himself for the suicide). I thought respect was fundamental to religion.