pdf23ds comments on The Wannabe Rational - Less Wrong

31 Post author: MrHen 15 January 2010 08:09PM

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

Comments (296)

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

Comment author: pdf23ds 17 January 2010 04:34:19AM *  7 points [-]

OTOH, saying you "believe" in some mostly vacuous statement that you were raised to believe, while not really believing anymore in most of the more obviously false beliefs in the same package, doesn't reflect very poorly on your rationality. (I'm not sure to what extent this applies to MrHen.)

ETA: I view belief in god in a growing rationalist as sort of a vestigial thing. It'll eventually just wither and fall off.

Comment author: pdf23ds 17 January 2010 06:16:25AM 6 points [-]

I'm not sure why my comment is at -1. People often start out at disadvantage, no matter how rational their character, and no matter what their potential*. You can't expect immediate maturity. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I took it pretty seriously around the age of 14 or so, so much that I started looking into apologetics (the rational defense of the faith). After critically evaluating all the arguments for and against, I ended up abandoning the faith within a couple years. If my parents hadn't gone down the path of fundamentalism (which only started when I was around 8 anyway--before that they were much more average-like Christians) then I probably wouldn't have become an atheist nearly as soon. I find it unlikely that I wouldn't have ended up as a rationalist, though.

* Of course, people who are raised as rationalists have more potential, but potential has more to do with intelligence and disposition than upbringing.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 17 January 2010 04:39:28AM 8 points [-]

It reflects less poorly than seriously believing in astrology, perhaps. But it's still Not Good, the more so if you've been warned. "Just give up already and admit you were completely wrong from the beginning" is not a trivial or dispensable skill.

Comment author: woozle 17 January 2010 01:35:32PM 8 points [-]

It's "not good" on the large scale, but it seems to me that on an individual level MrHen has done a very positive thing -- perhaps two: (1) admitted openly, in front of a crowd known for its non-theism, that he is a theist and holds a belief for which he fully expected some censure; (2) did not cling defensively to that belief.

On #2: His focus on a possible change in his "rationalist" group membership as a result of that belief could be seen as an attempt to divert scrutiny away from his actual belief so that he would not have to defend (and possibly question) it -- but it did not feel to me like that sort of move; it felt more like he was expecting this group to behave much the same way that a religious group would behave if he had openly admitted disbelieving some item of their doctrine: a mis-application of previously experienced behavior, not a diversionary tactic.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 17 January 2010 04:17:02PM 12 points [-]

I fully agree that these are impressive subskills that have been displayed, but let us not also forget that it is better to be unimpressively right than impressively wrong. (E.g. Chalmers.)

Comment author: ciphergoth 17 January 2010 04:45:43PM 0 points [-]

With all this assessment of how positive MrHen's actions are, what is the query you're trying to hug?

Comment author: woozle 18 January 2010 02:29:21AM 3 points [-]

Is "query-hugging" a term which has been used elsewhere (e.g. some LW post I should have read)? If I'm interpreting the question correctly, I'm hoping MrHen will now fearlessly examine his "belief in God" and figure out what that means in non-metaphorical real-world terms.

For example, does his God merely provide an uplifting example of goodness for us all to follow, through a series of stories which are not literally true and which one is free to interpret as one wishes? Or (to take a moderate non-liberal theist stance) does his God have a firm belief that gay people, while entitled to the doctrine of "live and let live", are not properly fulfilling some Plan and therefore are not entitled to the same protections as others? Does his God plan to return only after some terrible cataclysm has befallen mankind (and which, therefore, perhaps we should not work so hard to prevent)? Does his God have opinions about the "right to life" of fetal tissue, working on the Sabbath (and which day exactly is the Sabbath... and what constitutes "work"), the value of evidence and reason over faith and doctrine?

Comment author: orthonormal 18 January 2010 02:52:05AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: ciphergoth 18 January 2010 08:20:45AM 0 points [-]

So the question is, what difference in expectations are you hoping to discriminate between?