Nick_Tarleton comments on Great post on Reddit about accepting atheism - Less Wrong

14 Post author: cousin_it 30 August 2009 08:56PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Aurini 01 September 2009 04:47:54AM 0 points [-]

This article also contains one of the strongest reasons that Atheist proselytizing is important:

"Imagine a man walking through a room on planks of wood suspended over spikes with large holes to fall in if you take a wrong step. He always manages to take the right next step, but he is never afraid because he "knows" that this is a solid wood floor he is walking on. Now turn on the lights."

Although it's intended as a metaphor to describe how frightening deconversion can be, it also illustrates how much of a moral obligation there is to deconvert.

I have friends and family that are various degrees of theist, and as long as they hold reasonably secular political stances I don't bother arguing them, but mainly that's due to intellectual laziness. As much as I admire the scholarly background of people like Richard Carrier I'm just not willing to learn all that much about Christian theology; and besides, as the article points out, the argument isn't really about that.

As much as I admire and defend people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, I'm not sure how useful their arguments are for persuading the core adherents. Maybe nothing would be enough... but I have the feeling that this might be a situation where the Dark Arts should be called into play. After all, according to this article it's the emotional mind that holds people to their religious convictions...

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 01 September 2009 05:12:48PM 4 points [-]

What particular metaphorical holes are you thinking of that deconversion lets you both see and avoid?

Comment author: Aurini 02 September 2009 05:57:46AM 1 point [-]

Really it's just the inversion of Pascal's wager.

Very few people will inherently desire to follow the doctrine of whatever religion they happen to be; because of their beliefs, they choose to do things that they otherwise wouldn't.

Homosexuals, for instance, might submerge their sexuality; this will likely serve to decrease their overall happiness. A Catholic couple in Africa might catch AIDS because the church tells them condoms are evil. An impoverished woman might elect to carry a foetus to term, condemning herself to poverty and creating a person who grows up in circumstances that nobody deserves. One country might view another country as inherently evil by choice; these two countries might even welcome nuclear war as a fulfilment of divine prophecy. Somebody with multiple sclerosis might vote against stem-cell research because they think zygotes have souls.

Perhaps most frightening of all, humanity might never explore space because the universe is only there so that our planet Earth can exist.

All that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are even more dire threats that theism might blind one in acknowledging.