= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Taking Ideas Seriously - 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 (257)
Re: "there's also the irrational but highly fun aspect of tearing arguments into little tiny pieces"
I think that was most of it - plus the creationsts were on the other side, and the they got publicly bashed for a long time.
I was left wondering why so many intelligent people wasted so much energy and time on such nonsense for so long.
Dawkins and Dennet have subsequently got into the god bashing. What a waste of talent that is. I call it their "gutter outreach" program.
Standard beliefs in deities are often connected with a memetic structure that directly encourages irrationalism. Look at the emphasis on "faith" and on mysterious answers. If one is interested in improving rationality, removing the beliefs that directly encourage irrationality is an obvious tactic. Religious beliefs are also responsible for a lot of deaths and resources taken up by war and similar problems. Removing those beliefs directly increases utility. Religion is also in some locations (such as much of the US) functioning as a direct barrier to scientific research and education (creationism and opposition to stem cell research are good examples). Overall, part of why Dawkins has spent so much time dealing with religion seems to be that he sees religion as a major barrier for people actually learning about the interesting stuff.
Finally, note that Dawkins has not just spent time on dealing with religious beliefs. He's criticized homeopathy, dousing, various New Age healing ideas, and many others beliefs.
I figure those folk should be leading from the front, not dredging the guttering.
Anyone can dispense with the ridiculous nonsense put forth by the religious folk - and they do so regularly.
If anything, Dennet and Dawkins add to the credibility of the idiots by bothering to engage with them.
If the religious nutcases' aim was to waste the time of these capable science writers - and effectively take them out of productive service - then it is probably "mission acomplished" for them.
So what would constitute leading from the front in your view?
But there are a lot of science writers now. Carl Zimmer and Rebecca Skloot would be two examples. And the set of people who read about science is not large. If getting people to stop having religious hangups with science will make a larger set of people reading such material how is that not a good thing?
I was much happier with what they were doing before they got sucked into the whirlpool of furious madness and nonsense. Well, "Freedom Evolves" excepted, maybe.
Your question apparently presumes falsehoods about my views :-(
Clarify please? What presumptions am I making that are not accurate?
If I may attempt an interpretation, Tim is saying that the Great Minds should be busy thinking Great Thoughts, and that they should leave the swatting of religious flies to us lesser folk.
"Why Richard Dawkins Doesn't Debate Creationists":
Yudkowsky proposes that we let them debate college students:
Uh, I never claimed that getting people to stop having religious hangups was not a good thing in the first place.
Ah, sorry bad phrasing on my part. Withdraw last question, and replace end with following argument "And the set of people who read about science is not large. Getting people to stop having religious hangups with science will make a larger set of people reading such material is a good thing, and people like Dawkins will do that aspect more effectively than if they were simply one of many science popularizers talking to largely the same audience."
As I understand it, there is precious little evidence of much marginal benefit - no matter who is making the argument. The religious folk realise it is the devil talking, put their fingers in their ears, and sing the la-la song - which works pretty well. Education will get there in the end. We have people working on that - but it takes a while. The internet should help too.
Dennett once explained:
"Yes, of course I'd much rather have been spending my time working on consciousness and the brain, or on the evolution of cooperation, for instance, or free will, but I felt a moral and political obligation to drop everything for a few years and put my shoulder to the wheel doing a dirty job that I thought somebody had to do."
Someone has to clean the toilets too - but IMO it doesn't have to be Daniel Dennett.