Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What you might call "understanding the universe", seeing how it works, the mechanisms by which conscious experience happens... a religious person might call that "knowing god" and both of these are reasonable views of the same whole, just taken from opposite sides.


I don't understand how your comment relates to mine.

Are you saying that if someone wants to "know god", they are likely to conclude that god does, indeed, sit around saying "This one is gonna be gay! and this one will be straight!"?


It does relate... I'm not articulating what's in my head very well. I'll try again, I guess...

The experience that you call "you" is the result of a direct, unbroken chain of physical chemical interactions all the way back to the beginning of time.

Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"

If Mr. Cook gives the name "God" to this amazingly complex interaction of physical things that results in conscious experience, then it is rational for him to conclude that this process resulted in him being gay.

There is no big sky entity that points at a person and says "gay" or "straight", but there is a series of implications chained all the way from the beginning of things that directly results his homosexuality. And if you call that "beginning of things" God, then you get the conclusion he vocalizes, but with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

This stuff gets very vague or very abstract quickly. In general it's probably a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.


Thanks for explaining. I think your main point is contained in the last sentence, and I recognize that most of my response here addresses tangential aspects, not your main point.

>> Religious people who think of the nature of things and remain religious

It sounds to me like you are trying to say that this is true for all people in that group, and I don't believe this is true. This is one method of rationalizing a belief in God, but not the only.

>> call this complex interaction of the physical processes, this fundamental fabric of reality, "God"

Some non-religious 'believers' may do this, but most 'religious' people do not. Essentially no Christian, Jewish, or Islamic fundamentalists thinks this way.

Obviously many new agers think this way, and there are some offshoots of the main religious who do, but on the whole its a rare viewpoint.

While some religious people believe that God continuously provides the means whereby the universe continues to act, most hold that the universe and God are separate. Its actually sacrilege to some to suggest that God is the processes of the universe.

Check out 'pantheism' on wikipedia, and contrast this with 'theism'.

>> If Mr. Cook gives the name "God"

Well does he?? Since Cook is an educated white male gay business leader in san francisco in 2014, I thought he was not religious. It turns out I was wrong.

Is Cook pantheist? I seriously don't think so. But then, I was completely wrong about him religious just a few hours ago.

>> with quite rational thoughts behind it: "I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

I'm not sure that would be both honest and rational, as the speaker should know that the Christian community will misunderstand their unqualified pantheist use of 'God' as a theist use of 'God'.

>> a good idea to assume that people's beliefs come from reasoned thought, though some probably start from axioms we might find irrational.

I tend to assume that everyone's beliefs are informed by both rational and irrational thought processes. Did say something to imply otherwise? Or did I miss your point?


If one truly considers their god to be the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe, its rules, and everything in it, then it is an inescapable conclusion that the sexuality of every being in the universe is something that It allowed to come to be.


Would that line of thought not also apply to murder, rape, genocide, etc etc ?


Yes, absolutely. Typically that's explained away with "free will", which doesn't apply to things you're born with (sexuality).

In case it weren't clear, I don't believe in any of that.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

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

Search: