= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Raw_Power comments on Beware The Believer, or a study in depth of recursion - 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 (18)
Well, that's why I said "obnoxious". It's like a very arrogant, conceited, straw-man caricature of us (actually, of the New Atheist movement, but we do share a lot of traits), which has some good points but deforms them to the point of them not being valid anymore. I suspect that's the sort of reaction we can get if people read stuff like "Raising The Sanity Waterline" and feel so insulted they won't listen anymore and take everything the wrong way.
Totally behind you on the first paragraph, but I can't quite understand the two last paragraph, especially the "obvious social reasons".
Someone who is religious Outside The Laboratory believes something silly that eir culture promotes, so ey 1) has something of an excuse in the form of childhood indoctrination and 2) probably just believes in belief or professes to believe for the social benefits. Someone who believes in Santa Claus believes something silly for no good reason and with no apparent cause, and thus is probably clinically ill.
This is why I don't particularly care about people who "believe" in a religion. No matter how rational and intelligent a person is there simply isn't time to test every belief, and most "believers" don't really seem too entangled in their beliefs unless challenged.
People who advocate religion on the other hand--priests, preachers, ID advocates, or whatever--I think have an epistemic responsibility to study the actual support for their beliefs.