NancyLebovitz comments on Raising the Sanity Waterline - Less Wrong

112 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 March 2009 04:28AM

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

Comments (207)

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

Comment author: HughRistik 12 March 2009 09:20:12PM *  20 points [-]

Here's another way of evaluating the sanity of religious belief:

It's arguable that the original believers of religion were insane (e.g. shamans with schizotypical personality disorder, temporal lobe epilepsy, etc...), yet with each subsequent believer in your culture, you are less and less insane to believe in it. During past history, it would only take a few insane or gullible people with good oratorical skills getting together to make religion sanely believable.

If you are religious because you see spirits, you are insane. If you are religious because your friend Shaman Bob sees spirits and predicts the rainfall, you aren't very smart, but you aren't insane either. If you are religious because your whole tribe believes in the spirits seen by Shaman Bob and has indoctrinated you from birth, you are not insane at all, you are a typical human.

Comment author: thomblake 12 March 2009 09:26:55PM *  8 points [-]

Even better:

Evidence for the existence of God: my ancestors saw God and talked to him, and he did really great things for them, and so they passed down stories about it so that we'd remember. Everybody knows that.

Evidence for the existence of Jesus: same.

Evidence for the existence of Hercules: same.

Evidence for the existence of Socrates: same.

Evidence for the existence of Newton: same. Okay, we have a few more records of this one.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 24 March 2010 02:17:36PM 2 points [-]

Mohammed is solidly part of history.

Comment author: thomblake 24 March 2010 03:26:19PM 4 points [-]

Certainly not more solid than Newton