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 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.
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.