Furcas comments on Anticipation vs. Faith: At What Cost Rationality? - Less Wrong

8 Post author: Wei_Dai 13 October 2009 12:10AM

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

Comments (105)

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

Comment author: Furcas 15 October 2009 03:26:56AM *  1 point [-]

Okay, see, we're going in circles here: I'm trying to ask about the existence of someone who knows "it's all a load of garbage", heck, maybe even contributes to this very board, but cynically joins a church to get the social benefits.

All right. I was misled by the fact that your first commend was a reply to Wei Dai, who was talking about real religious people. I thought you believed that (most?) intelligent people who say they're religious aren't really religious.

I don't see the difference. If you take the LW rationalist position on God, doesn't that mean you're an atheist? So what does it matter if you admit it to yourself.

It's the difference between your average forthright atheist and someone like Karen Armstrong, who believes that God "is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence". If you look past the flowery language she's no more a theist than Richard Dawkins is. However, she likes to think of herself as a religious believer, so you'll never get her to admit the true reasons for her profession of belief, no matter how much alcohol she drinks, because she doesn't even admit it to herself.

Comment author: SilasBarta 15 October 2009 03:31:56AM 2 points [-]

All right. I was misled by the fact that your first commend was a reply to Wei Dai, who was talking about real religious people. I thought you believed that (most?) intelligent people who say they're religious aren't really religious.

Aren't religious in the sense of consciously taking it all literally, correct, that's my position.

It's the difference between your average forthright atheist and someone like Karen Armstrong, who believes that God "is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence".

So, let's see, she gets benefit of approval from the numerous religious groups by saying all of the applause lights, while maintaining rationality about the literal God hypothesis.

Does that count as intelligent or foolish? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.