= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Psychohistorian comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1329)
I wonder what you mean by "hardcore atheists"?
I'm guessing you don't mean hardcore as in "signaling group membership loudly", and Eliezer already argued the point that atheism is no longer a valid synonym for reliable, rational thought.
I think "hardcore atheist" generally means, "atheist who actively and loudly antagonizes religion." That is not consistent with the poster's usage, but I don't think any adjective would be - the point is that people who are not atheists may be worth listening to, not that some "not-hardcore" atheists are also worth listening to in addition to the hardcore atheists.
I assume we agree that atheism is not a signal for rational thought anymore - if that's true, are you getting any additional useful information by looking at how loudly someone antagonizes religion?
I would think that higher levels of overt religious antagonism indicate low agreeableness. It may be an indicator not so much of irrationality as of a sort of intellectual laziness or poor judgement, as it's an unconstructive behaviour that generates a great deal of self-satisfaction for not doing anything particularly difficult.
That said, I was rather closer to that kind of atheism when I was younger, so I'm decidedly biased.
I think I have a similar point of view to yours, on this.