Normal_Anomaly comments on Should we have secular churches? - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Desrtopa 19 January 2011 10:02PM

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

Comments (87)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 20 January 2011 03:38:48AM *  1 point [-]

The objection the proselytizing atheists have is that a) people don't acknowledge that that sort of thing is purely chemical in nature b) religion in its current forms has massive negative side effects c) lots of deeply religious people make things worse for the atheists.

I voted you up, because I agree with all this. Religionists in their current form do have massive side effects. They certainly don't acknowledge the chemical basis of their experiences. Atheists are still in the minority, and suffer the effects of being a minority group. YES. AGREED. I'm not really discussing the issue on that level.

I go to religious services semi-regularly. This is mainly for social reasons, but that occasional vaguely ecstatic feeling is certainly a positive. Nothing in that constuction requires me to believe that that feeling is coming from anything other than material aspects of my own brain.

So...you're agreeing with me? I'm not sure if you're meaning to add anything, or depart in any way, from what I said above -- if you did, please clarify, because I missed it.

I'm willing to break off into a discussion of the word "discriminate," but not willing to defend it strongly, as I think my initial post already specified all the hesitancy I had around it. Can you suggest a better word?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 January 2011 03:46:24AM 1 point [-]

So...you're agreeing with me? I'm not sure if you're meaning to add anything, or depart in any way, from what I said above -- if you did, please clarify, because I missed it

Essentially agreeing with you. I thought it might be helpful to give a slightly different example, from someone who didn't just have that sort of experience once, but still continues to have it.

I'm willing to break off into a discussion of the word "discriminate," but not willing to defend it strongly, as I think my initial post already specified all the hesitancy I had around it. Can you suggest a better word?

I'm not sure. I guess, part of the issue is that this is the parts where I'm more inclined to disagree with you. The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we're talking to an outside entity when we aren't isn't something that should be protected. If it turned out that some people had a brain form that forced them to engage in some cognitive errors, I'd feel sorry for them, but getting the rest of the population to understand that those are cognitive errors would still be a good thing. If PZ or Dawkins had an opportunity to press a button and remove all religion in the world, they would probably do it, and if I had to tell them what to do, I'd probably advocate for pressing the button, even though that means I'm no longer going to be able to get my semi-regular hit of religion.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 January 2011 04:28:36AM *  2 points [-]

The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we're talking to an outside entity when we aren't isn't something that should be protected.

Mm, okay, I think I see your point. No, it shouldn't be protected at the expense of true understanding.

But my point is that I think the feeling of spiritual unity (which is an intensely desirable feeling) can be preserved, even while a frame of realistic cognitive understanding is added. I mean, it sounds like that's what you're already doing--exploiting the "hit" of religion while recognizing that it comes entirely from "material aspects of [your] own brain." Right?