Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Poll: How religious is hacker news?
110 points by smallegan on July 26, 2014 | hide | past | favorite | 151 comments
After seeing the top post related to OneBody the open source Church project I found myself curious as to how the rest of hacker news identified themselves spiritually. Sometimes we make assumptions about a particular group of people and this poll seems like a great way to challenge those assumptions and take a closer look at who makes up the hacker news community. So....

How do you identify yourself spiritually? (Please comment if you choose Other.)

Atheist
617 points
Agnostic
253 points
Christian
178 points
Buddhist
38 points
Other
38 points
Muslim
28 points
Mormon
24 points
Jewish
22 points
Hindu
16 points
Scientologist
4 points
Sikhism
1 point
Jainism
1 point



You can be an Agnostic Atheist.

Agnosticism is about whether you believe you can prove the existence of God or not. Atheism and Theism is about actual belief in God.

One can be an Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist. Agnostic atheist= I don't know whether we can prove God exists but I don't believe in God

Agnostic theist= I don't know where we can prove the God exists or not but I do believe in God.

Being an agnostic is not the "I'm not really sure" category people have made it to be.


Right, and I would describe myself as an agnostic Christian. The claims of Christianity are ridiculous and unprovable, and I believe them.


Inevitably any internet thread about religion has the "what does agnostic mean" argument. It's dumb, nobody cares. People who call themselves agnostic usually do so because they are too scared to call themselves atheist for whatever reason. (Fear of religious friends judging them, fear of losing pascal's wager, etc.) Or because they think they are clever and think atheists are foolish for asserting there is no God with such certainty. (When in fact the burden of proof lies elsewhere.)

These people should just suck it up and call themselves atheists.


>These people should just suck it up and call themselves atheists.

Boy, look at you telling people what and how they should believe.

I'm agnostic because I don't know if there exists a God, and couldn't care less when it comes to the day to day affairs of my life.


Right, so what you're saying is you're an atheist. It's okay. There are a lot of us.

I don't know if there is a teapot orbiting the Earth, but I wouldn't invent weasel words to distinguish between subtle groups of people who have varied opinions around the likely absence of said teapot. Especially not if most of the population believed strongly in the existence of said teapot.

edit: Also I'm not telling anyone how to believe, I'm just saying that people using the term agnostic as some way to contrast themselves with atheists either don't understand the term atheist, have an aversion to it or fear of using it to label themselves, or have some unsettled self-reflection to do on their existence because they secretly believe in a God but don't want to admit it. When you say you're an atheist you are saying you do not share the belief in God that most of the human population does. It's pretty simple.


I think most of us agnostics are simply identifying as such to avoid being associated with the pompous breed of atheists that the Internet's pseudo-anonymity has brought out of the woodwork.


Teapotism doesn't have significant cultural importance. Atheism does. To a lot of people, it really does make a difference whether you actually disbelieve in the god they believe in, or if you are genuinely undecided. It is thus useful to have a word to distinguish between those two states, and perfectly honest (hardly weasely) to use them. Even if its only for social signalling, that's important!


I would guess most atheists would not say that they are certain a God does not exist. They certainly wouldn't say they can prove it to be the case. The path that leads you to atheism is the lack of evidence in favor of an unfalsifiable claim, that God exists. So the claim "God does not exist" is kind of meaningless, since it relies upon the definition of God, which is something atheists do not have a definition for since they do not have a belief about what that word means.


Speaking of weasel words, you use the word definition in place of concept. Atheists do have a concept of God. Otherwise the argument of what an atheist is would not only be moot but would in fact never arise as an argument.


How can you be certain that 0 times any other number will always equal 0? Have you tried multiplying it against every number? Of course not, that's impossible. Does that count as uncertainty?

So I'll put it this way: I am as certain that there is no God (narrowly defined as an omnipotent being) as I am that 0 times any other number will always equal 0. The reason is because omnipotence is a logically inconsistent concept, and is thus impossible. That's as certain as I can be about anything.


And for us agnostic theists out there that don't believe we can prove it to you, but do believe there is a God? I'm definitely not an atheist, thanks for telling me to suck it up.


That's not what agnostic means. Most people who believe in God wouldn't say they can prove God exists, and they aren't agnostic.


No, that is exactly what it means. It doesnt take very long to look something up (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ).

Agnosticism is not about being uncertain, it's the position that the answer is unknowable or unknown - which is much stronger than merely being uncertain.


You have a point, but the person you're responding to makes a more important one - the colloquial definition of agnostic, in reference to religion, is a person who's not sure what they think about the existence of gods. When you call yourself an agnostic, that's what people typically understand by it.


That's the problem with surveys like this: the categories are political not philosophical.

It would be better to ask, "Does a deity feature amongst your considerations when making a decision?"

I take it that's what people are mainly interested in anyway.

If this question was asked alongside the others in these questionnaires I think you'd see a high percentage of non-atheist responders agreeing.


I am not making a point about the colloquial definition. The wikipedia article he linked disagrees with him too.


If that's the definition then it's useless as a distinguishing label since everyone on either side of faith can't know. If anyone could know, faith and belief wouldn't be necessary.


Many atheists and theists believe you can provide evidence one way or another. Most people are not agnostic.


There is a difference between saying you can prove something and saying you know something. Your own Wikipedia article disagrees with you.


Just because they wouldn't admit to it does not mean that the condition doesn't exist. And I have met Christians who have stated that they can't prove God one or another but that doesn't stop their belief.


Sorry, but designNERD is right.

Agnosticism has the greek root "gnosis", which means "knowledge". It's technically defined as a view that some things ("God" being a common, but not sole example) are unknowable. It's an epistemological concept.

Theism has the greek root "theos", meaning "God". Its primary concern is with the actual existence of God, so it's an ontological concept.

It's possible to think of agnosticism as side-stepping the theism debate by saying, "the nature of knowing matters more to me than the nature of being," but they're definitely compatible. You can say that the existence of God is unknowable (agnosticism,) but you believe that He's still out there (theism.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism


Saying you know something and saying you can prove something are two different things.


You can also be an Atheist Buddhist.


You can also be a Christian Atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism


I'm curious what your definition of atheism is. I consider myself an atheist but I don't in absolute terms claim that god(s) don't or can't exist, I simply reject the concept of 'belief' at large. i.e. if you can't provide definitive evidence in support of an idea, it's not fact.


Sounds like you'd fall into the Agnostic category by definition.


Deist might be a more useful alternate choice than Agnostic then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism


No, you can't be an agnostic atheist, there is no such thing.


Wikipedia, for one, would beg to differ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism


That's interesting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticis...


Yes you can as I am one.


You can check both


I don't like to say that I'm an agnostic or atheist or anything like that, because why would I? If I don't believe in a god, calling myself an atheist is like calling myself a non-Christian if I'm not a Christian, or a non-Jew if I'm not Jewish. Why would I define myself in contrast to whatever other religious groups there are, when I'm areligious (at least in my case)? It doesn't make sense.

So because I don't believe in an Abrahamic god, I'm still supposed to take a stand/have an opinion on him. Why? Do Christians have an opinion/stance on Vishnu?


Atheism doesn't necessarily imply that you care about, or are being forced to define yourself against, other people's conceptions of spirituality, or religion, or god(s). It simply means that you don't believe in a god, gods, etc. I'd suspect that for most atheists, the label begins and ends there. Atheism isn't a way of life for most people, and despite what anti-atheist types would proclaim, it's not a "religion," either. At its simplest, atheism is a philosophical stance. Religious people believe the value of god = 1; atheists believe it = 0.

Is atheism often framed within the context of theism? Well, sure, because that's the category of the discussion. Like you, I have a "don't believe; don't care too strongly; not a factor in my life whatsoever" stance toward religion. But if the subject of religion comes up, and I am asked to give my stance on the matter, atheism is a better label than most. "Apathetic atheist," or even "atheist who rejects the premise of this line of inquiry altogether" are acceptable and defensible flavors of atheism.

Atheism isn't specifically defined in opposition to the Abrahamic religions. It so happens that those religions (particularly, Christianity) occupy a majority of this country's religious population, and as such, they're the belief systems most often pitted vis-a-vis atheism, and vice versa. But there were atheists and agnostics long before Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Being an atheist doesn't have to mean much more to your life than not being a tennis fan. The state of not being a tennis fan is largely irrelevant until someone asks you if you watch tennis. At that point, you are temporarily and conditionally defined as a non-tennis-fan, within the framing of tennis fandom as a subject. But your non-tennis-fandom doesn't have to define your life, or even be much of a factor outside of that conversation.


Surely tennis-fandom can be proven? (I know, not your point, but that's what makes religion complicated). At least I'm a 100% sure tennis exists.


Sure. But as you said, that's not really the point of my analogy. I used it more to illustrate the idea that atheism, like tennis non-fandom, can be a conditional state, "called" only when the subject of religion (or tennis) comes up.

Religion is a much more fraught subject than tennis. But the precise subject of the analogy wasn't intended to be 1:1 congruous. I'd be sitting on my butt for weeks, trying to come up with a different analogy, if I felt I needed a measure-for-measure match. :)


Atheist is often an umbrella term for people that don't believe any sort of supernatural things, from an Abrahamic god to forest spirits.


Having grown up in the church, I have honestly never found a good replacement for the sense of community and support that a church offers. Its a shame that no other non-religious organizations have been able to replicate it.


I would contest that any communal group that meets face to face regularly develops similar bonds and that this is not exclusive of spiritual gatherings.

I think over the past few generations we have lost more of those reasons to get together, and church is one of the last hanger-ons of these close knit communities.


Agreed, but spiritual gatherings are often centered around questions or issues that are important, fundamental, and/or relevant to daily life.

That's something you generally don't have as much with other types of communal activities, and it's something that, in my experience, creates tight communities much faster, and bonds that often go deeper.

It's like friendships. There's a gradual strengthening over time, but usually the big 'jumps' are caused by personal or interpersonal crises; moment of vulnerability.


The Unitarian Universalist church is non-creedal and has many atheist members. Many cities also have Ethical Culture Societies, which mostly grew out of the non-religious elements of the Jewish community.


I humbly suggest that you simply haven't found them yet.

As an example, I understand that AA meetings foster a very supportive community atmosphere.

My local Linux User Group meets regularly and has a very friendly homely feel where you can bring in whatever problem you're working on and people are always happy to at least hear you explain it even if they can't help.

Meetup.com is a very good place to find meet-ups in your area which is a great place to start :)


I was a part of a car enthusiast group that was incredibly close as well.

You just need to find common ground and work from there.


I've been having some good discussions about this exact topic lately. I'm glad you brought it up.

After mulling it over with some friends, I think it would be awesome to have a community gathering where the principles of its "teachings" are based on respect for the earth, each other, and critical thinking.

Instead of typical weekly worship, it could be replaced by something like "Science Sundays" - where folks can bring their kids for a lecture and experiment that the family can do. If one can find enough local individuals who could serve as advocates then I think something like this is possible. Although, I don't what spark it would need for it to reach critical mass.

The closest thing that we've identified as such a group is the Maker community. One problem that we've had in these discussions is that any time we try to add structure to the idea (ie, a common reference book, hierarchy) we immediately realize that it sounds like it would be mistaken for a cult. :( http://abstrusegoose.com/31


I have wanted more adoption of community centers for a long time, just a place for children and adults to go for support and supplemental education. I could write a very long article about their benefits and reasons, but this probably isn't the appropriate forum to do that. A place where kids can get mentors and adults can get assistance for a wide variety of subjects would be extremely helpful to the community. This kind of place is usually only provided in poorer areas where it is then overcrowded and becomes much less useful.

Many parents assume kids get all the education for life in school. Teachers assume kids get most of their life education at home. This is not true all of the time but I've seen it far too often. The result is a lack of education and guidance for children. Some parents just don't have time for their kids, kids are left to learn on their own or from their environment, which is always less than optimal (yes, always exceptions to everything).

Colleges could offer credits for people who help staff and organize these places. Adults who were helped by these community centers could be encouraged to give back if it helped them in life.

Children in need of mentors should be the main area of focus in my opinion. They could call upon these people later in life if needed, almost like another parent (which not all people are fortunate enough to have). The children who were mentored would have a much higher chance of ensuring their mentor was taken care of later in life, when the mentor got old. There's just no downside from what I can tell, it's mostly a funding and organizing problem to solve.

Please don't take this the wrong way but excluding God from these centers would be important. Not everybody accepts that there is some magical being controlling everything, and many people have different gods. All of these people should be equally welcomed into community centers without fear of having God, Jesus, and the sins of the Devil preached to them constantly.


Alain de Botton writes more generally about taking the goods bits from religion in 'Religion for Atheists: A non-believer's guide to the uses of religion'.

It's an interesting thought experiment, and de Botton writes engagingly. Well worth a read for his lateral thinking and, if nothing else, a starting point for your own thoughts.


Might want to try a humanist gathering.


It looks like this thread is being moderated off the front page, but it's something that I think is interesting too.

I was astonished about the overwhelming response the church software got. Don't get me wrong, it's a great effort, but the sheer amount of votes it received seems somewhat out of proportion for what you'd expect a comparable project to get. So I'm curious if this Show HN maybe released some pressure in that regard.

But I do think the poll's setup is mistaken, as are people who feel their particular faith should be reflected accurately. It would have been better (and less fraught with squabbling over definitions) if we kept it simple and allowed people to self-identify as non-religious, somewhat religious, and very religious.

To me, the intensity of faith would have been more interesting than the precise flavor. I also think there is a community aspect we could have captured as a second variable: "how engaged/motivated are you by being part of your religious community?" - I suspect this is a big factor as well, maybe in some cases even more so than the actual belief in the supernatural. Who knows, but I would have loved to get some data on this.


> allowed people to self-identify as non-religious, somewhat religious, and very religious.

The word 'religious' has enough negative connotations that even many religions like to challenge its use to apply to themselves.

I did a module of comparative religion a while ago which involved interviews with deeply devout practitioners of a number of religions. All of them said something like 'it's not really a religion, it's a way of life', or 'it's not a religion, it's a relationship', or words to that effect.

This poll, at least avoids that problem.


This really baffles me. Does that mean it's impossible to refer to a person's religiosity in general without offending them if you don't provide the exact name of their faith? So the majority of religious people don't actually acknowledge their religiosity and the only way to talk to them about it is to outwardly treat every religion as if it is a huge special case?


Well, religious people have to realize that even if they wouldn't use the term to describe themselves, it's pretty normal for others to, so I assume most of them can cope without getting offended, but if you ask them if they self identify as religious, they might well say no despite being extremely devout.

I think the argument with the word 'religious' is probably that it is perceived to have connotations of dry rule-following without any kind of meaning. It's not surprising that people want to avoid that sort of image, because they almost certainly don't see their own religion in that way.


Good point, I guess that may have had a bit less controversy if it was only a couple of buckets. Also it is sad to see something core to our humanity moderated off the front page.


Classifying Hinduism and Buddhism as "religions" in the Western sense of the word is imprecise and misleading at best.

You can be a Hindu atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka

Swami Vivekananda popularized the Ramakrishna school of thought, but they themselves deny to be called Hindus.

Goa deputy Chief Minister considers himself to be a "Christian Hindu": http://www.firstpost.com/politics/india-hindu-nation-im-chri...

Hinduism in not an organized religion like Abrahamic religions. The definition of Hinduism is very fluid in practice.

Similarly one can be a Buddhist atheist as well.

PS: Also please add Sikhism and Jainism to the poll -- two other major Indian religions!


> Similarly one can be a Buddhist atheist as well.

This makes me think of my time in Japan. On polls (or when asked), the majority of the Japanese will say or mark down "Buddhism". However, for all intents and purposes, they're atheist/agnostic. They don't believe in God or gods/deities, they view it kinda the same way we view Santa Claus. They only follow a few Buddhist rituals out of cultural pressure/habit (funeral services, news years celebrations, etc). It's extremely similar to how agnostics or even atheists will celebrate Christmas even though they don't believe in God. It's fun, everyone else is doing it so why not?


You can also be a Jewish Christian Buddhist Atheist if you want. You are Jewish if you're a member of the Jewish people (i.e. descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). You are Christian if you were baptized according to a valid Trinitarian formula. You are Buddhist if you believe in and practice Buddhism. You are atheist if you don't believe in God. The point? Religions are not all "the same kind of thing" and interchangeable.


"I used to be an atheist until I realized I was god." - J. Krishnamurti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


I used to be an atheist until I found this wikipedia article on Aptatheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism


At first, I was an atheist, and I pitied religious folks for their incredible stupidity.

Then, I learned about agnosticism, and I realized it better describes what I believe, and that my lack of belief in God is possibly incorrect. I still pitied the religious for their blind faith.

Then I realized one day, while pondering the subject, that because it is not possible to experimentally test for the existence of God, nor to derive any conclusion based on logic, then the question itself is in fact "extra-logical." It cannot be resolved with the scientific method, or any other means of rationalization. To even attempt to do so is itself irrational.

The question therefore must be, simply, "Do you believe in God?" This question does not attempt to bring logic, science or rationality into the picture. It is a question purely of faith, of which I acknowledge I have none.

So, in the end, I am still an agnostic, but one who now accepts that there can be quite rational, scientific thinkers who have faith in the existence of God.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence


I chose "other" because even though I do believe in God and follow the teachings of Jesus, I don't align myself with modern Christians who seem determined to be the opposite of what he taught. Hate, especially irrational, pointless hate, is something I simply don't understand and don't want in my life. I know a lot of it is politics instead of faith, but that's no excuse; in fact that makes it even more despicable.


The data is clearly not representative. Take a look at number one post in Show HN titled " OneBody Church Directory software I've been hacking on for 7 years". This post has 740 points | 203 comments, clearly very popular (number two has 77 points | 46 comments).

Does it mean atheists are more open responding to polls about spirituality?


This is not true. The top post is:

"OneBody Church Directory software I've been hacking on for 7 years"

I suspect that many, many HNers, myself included, upvoted because of this: "software I've been hacking on for 7 years" It's great whenever someone shows off their side project, and astonishing when it's a project they've diligently maintained for a generation in web-dev years.


Agree. As much as I'm against religion, I found the software to be neat. The thread seemed to contain the same sentiment by multiple users.


I would agree with your supposition that atheists are disproportionately interested in taking part in polls about religion - particularly on sites with a palpable anti-religious bias.


Not everyone who commented on the OneBody thread is Christian, or religious in any way.

Past polls and discussions suggest that HN is somewhere around 3/4 non-religious (with various flavors of atheism and agnosticism most prevalent) and 1/4 religious (with various flavors of Christianity most prevalent). This thread is no different.

But HN also has a high regard for technical prowess and interesting projects, combined with a low tolerance for douchebaggery. Which means that interesting projects that happen to be targeted toward Christians (particularly one that could be easily forked for other religious or non-religious groups) can generate a lot of positive discussion... and the sort of people making snarky remarks about "imaginary friends" will tend to get downvoted/flagged into oblivion.


Sometimes we make assumptions about a particular group of people and this poll seems like a great way to challenge those assumptions and take a closer look at who makes up the hacker news community.

HN polls haven't been trustworthy for years. Too many people giving too many false results. Pg noticed this when there was a poll asking about the age of HNers and a bunch of people responded with "Over 80." He mentioned he'd make their fonts extra huge so they'd still be able to read HN.


> He mentioned he'd make their fonts extra huge so they'd still be able to read HN.

Shit, I'd be happy about this on mobile. HN on mobile Chrome is just painful :'(


Correction: HN polls were never trustworthy because they are all voluntary-response polls.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2177163


Fair enough but I figure it never hurts to ask if there is a chance at learning something new or interesting and the comments in this thread have proved interesting enough for me.


The idea of religious engineers has always been one that fascinates me.


I'm one.

Feel free to ask me anything you want. With the caveat that I don't participate in uncivil discussions.


If you believe god's takes part in the world in obvious ways (like miracles as written in many texts) why don't such things seem to happen around people documenting things ? Why allow large amounts of people to live lives of pure suffering? Etc.

If you say that god's more of a force from afar, why is that worth worshipping any more than another natural phenomenon?


I see three questions here.

1. Why don't Miracles get documented? This one is less difficult to answer for me than it might seem. First of all by definition a Miracle is not an everyday occurrence, is out of the ordinary experience, and is unscheduled. Given those items it's not too surprising that they would not be documented at any time relatively recently. Second I would consider the the Miracles in the Gospels to be documented. However you likely don't count those since they are not recent enough to be recorded by something more permanent than a written word that has been copied multiple times. Either way I don't find this to be a significant blocker to faith. Even in scripture Miracles were pretty rare except for during Jesus 3 years of ministry.

2. Why allow large amounts of people to live lives of pure suffering. To answer this one you have to ask what are Gods motives for creating us?

2a. Motive #1 is for God to be worshipped freely. In order for him to be worshipped freely we have to be free to choose. If we are free to choose this implies that we can choose not to. The Christian Faith holds that we have freedom of choice.

2b. It boils down to God having a choice between Robots who all worship him due to programming or Human beings of whom a subset worship him out of choice. He values the Human beings more than Robots. You will either find this a harsh decision by him or a loving one depending on your viewpoint.

3. I don't believe he is a force from afar.

All of that said my faith is personal and much of what I believe I believe because of personal experience that I interpret as Him taking action in my life. Not in the Miracle fashion you describe in your questions but action nevertheless.


How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.


Fundamentalist creationism is not an inescapable consequence of "religion" generally.

Can't speak for zaphar, but I for one have no problem believing that God could've created the world any way he felt like, including by letting evolution happen.

Despite being not merely religious but an actual Bible-believing Christian, I am nevertheless quite willing to accept that a good deal of scriptural text is metaphorical. A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical, so the idea that the Biblical creation account might not be intended as an accurate scientific account is Not A Problem.

Regarding other possible inconsistencies, I find that most of the ones people complain about are like evolution- not actually necessary inconsistencies if you think about it. For the rest, I assume that one or the other is either wrong or incomplete, and hold off judgment until either scientific concensus or doctrinal assertion are changed. When it comes to questions of scientific fact, I usually lean in favor of science. When it comes to matters of philosophy or ethics, I lean in favor of religion. And for reference, I don't usually consider sociology or social psychology to be very convincing "science".


    A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick 
    obviously metaphorical
Revelation anyone?


> "A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical"

Origen: "[if scripture was purely literal] we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the intro­duction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occur­rences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem inca­pable of containing truth, and at another by the in­sertion of many." - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html section 15

Origen was one of the foremost Christian scholars of the 2nd-3rd century. This was the predominant approach Christians took to scripture until 19th century America, when literalism took over -- for a short time.

Of particular note, the earliest parts of Genesis would have been obviously metaphorical to any of the early readers... because they blatantly undermine the Egyptian creation stories. They take the most significant Egyptian gods and describe them as mere objects (even the sun and moon aren't named -- they're just "lights".) They take the most significant elements of the Egyptian stories and turn them around, twist them up on themselves, and use them to express how Yahweh is different from Horus, Isis, and the rest. It's like the way Shrek takes common tropes from Cinderella-type movies and turns them on their head, only serious instead of comedic.


    Of particular note, the earliest parts of Genesis would 
    have been obviously metaphorical to any of the early 
    readers... because they blatantly undermine the Egyptian 
    creation stories.
That would be an odd reason for the early readers of Genesis to consider them metaphorical. Just undermining the Egyptian creation stories is hardly a cause to assume a creation myth is metaphorical.


I consider most if not all those consistencies to be manufactured.

Evolution vs Creationism is of course the poster child for this. The simple answer is I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation whichever one happened so I can't give a definitive ruling either way. I happen to believe that God did some sort of creative act. What form that act took (7 days of creative work? or billions of years of guided evolution?) I can't really say.

Either one is something of a miracle to my mind though. Both appear to be highly unlikely to occur, yet I and your are here having this conversation so one of them had to. I choose to believe God was the motivating force behind whichever one it was.

I have one rule that I follow. My faith must be rational. If an article of faith is disprovable then I don't hold with it. That leaves a lot of room for faith though.


> I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation

You are around for evolution.


Do you believe in the literal story of Noahs flood? As in, the whole world was covered in water?


I can't say one way or the other. There is enough water to cover most of the earths surface if it's not tied up in ice at the poles so it's physically possible. And there is also evidence of water coverage over many parts of the earth that are not near any ocean. However the story could also be interpreted in terms of a localized flood covering all of the known earth.

I do believe Noah was a literal person and I do believe there was a flood. I even like the idea of a global flood as it seems to allow one to explain some phenomena observed in Geological formations. However I'm not a Geologist so my opinions there are pretty uninformed and could just as likely be wrong.


Its true that a lot of land would be covered by melted ice but even then, over 90% of earth would still be above sea level as shown here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-r...

Also, fossil evidence doesn't not support a worldwide flood. If a worldwide flood would have happened you have have fossils from that era all over the place in sediments of rock, but you don't. They are all found neatly organized in their own respective layers. Here is some more info if you are interested: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Fossil_layers

I think a localized flood is a much better explanation for people who believe that part of the bible.


So... you're a civil engineer?


Software Engineer. :-)

Which admittedly some engineers don't consider to be true engineering. But given that this is Hacker News I assumed it was an acceptable claim.


Even better, try biologist creationists. They exist!


Your belief in pure Darwinism, 7-Day Creationism, or any theory in between, really doesn't have any impact on real-world biology or any of its applications (anatomy, physiology, medicine, agriculture, ecology, biotech, the creation of cyborg supersoldiers, etc, etc). I think real scientists are more interested in testable hypotheses about "how that thing works" than in untestable, unprovable claims about "how that thing got there".


I would contest that. They can be either but not both. They are either not very smart biologists or not very devout creationists. Or more likely just attention seekers.


There is a famous one, Michael Behe. Not exactly a creationist, but an intelligen design advocate.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

edit:

He has a nice paragraph on his web page:

>>Official Disclaimer

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.


Not true. I know someone who last I spoke was in graduate level cell biology and did lab work on brains at a top university, yet did not believe in evolution. In fact, I recall her citing her personal awe of the brain etc as evidence of intelligent design.

Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence, the immense pressure of their peers, parents, and friends who have similar beliefs, and the underlying fear of death that motivates people to believe in an afterlife (and all the various attached beliefs from there) to allow compartmentalization of beliefs from knowledge.


"Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence" - right, that pretty much proves my point, you friend is not a scientist.


False dichotomy.


How is that a false dichotomy? I guess there's the implication that there is only religious and non-religious engineers. But isn't that a binary? I'm curious as to what other options there are.


I'm objecting to the implication you are either rational or religious.


Thanks imsofuture, I didn't even pick up on that. It's plenty obvious that people can be rational in their professional life and still hold magical beliefs. It's not like software engineering has to teach good critical thinking skills.


That seems like a perfectly bland and normal combination. What on Earth makes it seem fascinating?


[deleted]


My view on the divine intervention issue is, essentially, "God helps those who help themselves". Do as much as you can to accomplish your goals according to secular understanding, and after that it can't hurt to pray and faith, too. If I'm wrong about my faith, it might not help, but it certainly won't hurt.

In the vast majority of cases, conflicts between my arational religious beliefs and rational scientific beliefs are essentially consequenceless; acting according to rational belief does not result in Sinning, so I can make practical use of scientific knowledge in my life while still gaining emotional satisfaction and sense of purpose from the belief in things that cannot be definitively proven one way or the other.


I feel like atheist and agnostic are too concrete.

I view it like non-Americans view thanksgiving. You can read the wiki page and it makes sense, but I'm not going to go out of my way to do it too. It's not really something that applies to me.


I grew up in a family of catholics, went agnostic, went militant atheist, and then realized the universe is so fucking weird and likely beyond our ability to ever truly comprehend it that "who am I to judge others for believing in ridiculous things?".

Which is to say, I think all religions we have that claim to have any kind of historical meddling from a 'creator' are rather obviously fictional and borderline ridiculous, but I don't have any better answers to "the big questions", so I'm fine letting people believe whatever they like without opposition or debate so long as what they believe doesn't result in the oppression of others.


I believe that there is commonality between referents for the term 'god'. I believe that there is wisdom to be found in most religious systems of belief. I call myself omnignostic.


Other - Using standard nomenclature in a non-standard way I'd call myself a "Spiritual Atheist."

I had been an atheist of the "cold" variety: life spontaneously arose from non-life in an undefined fashion, and everything relevant to the conversation evolved from this first life.. only the "observable" could be real.

Seemingly non-local consciousness-connections (a dream where something bad happens to someone and they die that night, you think of someone in that moment they call you, esoteric initations into new-agey meditation [law of attraction, remove viewing], they way the universe seems to be inscrutably "nicer" to me the more buddha-like it is [e.g. when regularly meditating])

The reasons my metaphysics changed are nearly ineffable; and are certainly not objectively verifiable (at least by me). The ramifications are easy to grok:

- The universe is a holy playground - The universe has some sort of intention - The more your intentions fall in line with the intentions of the universe, the more satisfying life is.

There are also some non-obvious (but ultimately important) "actionable" ramifications: primarily that sometimes the best way to solve a corporeal problem is to get the spiritual aspect (ie, the interface between you and the universe) in line.


I don't identify myself spiritually nor do I use it as any sort of litmus test in any community I am a part of.


So, "Other"?


He did say to comment, you know.


Really, only one other Buddhist? I guess that makes sense with only 13 Christians as of this posting. I took the precepts, don't know that I particularly consider myself religious but I still subscribe enough to check the little up arrow.

Edit: nevermind, poll took off;)

Edit 2: zenjzen, you also appear to be hellbanned.


So do Mormons get to check two boxes? Mormons are Christian.


They probably should have offered mutually exclusive categories such as Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon, and "Other Christian" so that the inevitable argument over "is ____ really Christian?" could have been avoided. Sigh.


Mormons do call themselves Christian. http://www.mormon.org/faq/mormon-christian

Many mainstream Christian religions disagree, citing various conflicts with Christian doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity#Chr...

In any case we could get bogged down in definitions and semantics, but if you come down on the side that Mormons are Christian, they are still probably the most interesting subset to break out into their own subcategory.


Christianity and Judaism are considered separate religions. So, I don't think Mormons are technically Christians or Jewish despite using both of there religious texts.

Or if they are then I think Muslims might also qualify as they also believe in Judaism + Christ + one more prophet. Though depending on who you ask they might require Jesus to be part of the holy trinity and not just another prophet.

PS: Granted, I think the general stance with most people is simply let religions self identify as plenty of religious debates end up with one side killing the other.


Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, but not that he is the son of God. Mormons do believe that Jesus is the son of God, which is the defining characteristic of being Christian


I think it would be more accurate to say the defining characteristic of being Christian is that Jesus was not only the Son of God, but God himself. My understanding of Mormon theology is that Jesus is not considered God. There is a distinct difference in the understandings of the Trinity.


Mormons are Christian in the same way that Muslims are Christians and Christians are Jews, though.


That's really not true. The official title of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Christ is central to the religion, and is certainly not viewed merely as a prophet.


One of the key differences between Christianity and Mormonism is their classification of Jesus. Where a Morman would say that Jesus is the son of God, a Christian believes that Jesus is God incarnate.


Mormons do believe that Jesus is God incarnate. Mormon doctrine holds that Jehovah (the name of the God of Israel used in the Old Testament) and Jesus are the same person. See: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/jehovah


While on the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are different names for the same entity, which isn't the same as God. See: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-m... .

Since JW is usually categorized as Christian, I think valine's test should be considered approximate rather than exact.


I believe the way Mormonism differentiates itself from other forms of Christianity is the additional text (Book of Mormon) and the addition of Joeseph Smith as a prophet.


Other - I identify with [insert own name here]. Let me explain...

I dated a woman once who dated a woman just prior to dating me (I'm male). We were having beers with a mutual friend and upon hearing that fact, our mutual friend said "wow, I didn't know you were bisexual Jen" (not her real name). Jen's response..."I'm not bisexual...I'm Jen. I don't believe in labels."

I'm not Atheist, Agnostic, or Lutheran (the religion my parents chose for me). I'm Chad.

I haven't used a label for anyone's politics, religion, sexual preference, or other complicated matters since. Thank you Jen. The best part...you get to focus on getting to know someone on a personal level instead of arguing about definitions :)


I understand wanting to avoid labels to avoid associating yourself with the cultures and assumptions that come with them, but you can't avoid them all. If you go to a Christian church and believe in their ideologies, that makes you a Christian. If you're willing to get into a relationship with a person of either gender, that makes you bisexual. If you're open to the idea of an omnipotent deity but don't subscribe to any particular one, that makes you agnostic. If you're reading this, that makes you human. They're just facts of life.


I put Buddhist, but consider myself atheistic to many concepts, but agnostic to others (see: Simulation Argument), and pan-theistic in general - as in, the term reflects a unity of the Universe that any true Cosmos fan should come to see, for instance. (Proof of such is hard won by sceptical scientists.) Stats with this kind of options are could be seen as rather divisive and can give a false impression if interpreted without nuance.


Religion influences the decision to become an entrepreneuer. So are all the Agnostics and Atheists the employed hackers while the believers the bosses? http://www.voxeu.org/epubs/cepr-dps/religion-influences-peop...


I consider myself a truthist for lack of a better word. One who seeks the truth, however, more specially, a monothiest.


"Theist" should be a choice. I believe in god/a god, perhaps (likely?) not a knowable one.


ZERO Jews? I'm surprised. (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, born Jewish, and currently Jew-ish.)


I put 'Other' for a different reason, but my mother is 100% Ashkenazi Jew.


I've turned agnostic recently from being a sole christian. The more time I spend with computing and learn about machine learning/AI, I think that we can and will create self-aware AIs. At that point, we'll have to question what reality programmed us?


And then we'll have to ask: what reality programmed that one? It's turtles all the way down.


The one scientologist is a troll, right?

.... right?


One of my early jobs (mid-90s) was working for an unnamed but relatively famous (for the time) ISP in Los Angeles where the vast majority of other employees turned out to be Scientologists. They do exist in the tech industry.


What exactly is the point of saying "unnamed" when everyone knows exactly which company you're talking about? Its scientology connections are not a secret and have been covered in both tech and muggle press many times over the years.


Well, speaking of muggles it is just a name that shall not be named (by me).

I didn't mean to imply nobody would know the name, I specifically made sure there was enough information in the post (city/time frame/specific tech business type) so that it would be pretty obvious what company I was talking about (at least to anyone who was on the net back then).


I've never understood why people put Scientology in a different bucket than other religions such as Christianity. I wonder why you didn't comment 'The 79 Christians are trolls, right? ...right?'


I was working this job (tech writer) at this tech place (little computers) a few months ago (temp). The population was evenly split between christians and potheads. I suppose it says something.


Here are the poll results in graph format:

http://hnlike.com/hncharts/chart/?id=8088478


Sikh!


The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon


Now just waiting to do an analysis on what to do with this data?


Check how it correlates with browser choice? My hypothesis is that people of faith will be less likely to use Firefox since they purged Brendan Eich, while atheists will be more likely to use Apple (Safari) because the instinct toward religion is a strong one... [please know i'm just kidding here!]


Spiritual atheist. But when I get the time I'm going to start a new religion: Ovumist.

The holy tract: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html


Whichever one is most parsimonious is what you should be.


I don't see a voting option for "I'd really rather not debate religion on HN at all, please go away"


Unitarian


Antitheist


and what exactly is the reason behind this poll?


How come no Pastafarianism option?


Other: Jedi Knight


I believe dualism and I know how to do induce out of body exp but I don't know is scientific or not. what its criterion?


No recognition for the Church of Emacs?!


I believe in knowledge, does that count? Seems to be quite the rarity around these parts called... "Earth"




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: