drethelin comments on Ontologial Reductionism and Invisible Dragons - Less Wrong

-11 Post author: Balofsky 20 March 2012 02:29AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (80)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: drethelin comment score below threshold [+] (11 children)

Comment author: Crux 22 March 2012 07:33:56AM * 6 points [-]

Have you ever written an essay about why something you believed to be true wasn't wrong or bad?

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you seriously saying that spilling a lot of ink to defend something you believe in is (significant) evidence that it's incorrect?

Comment author: drethelin 22 March 2012 03:59:31PM 1 point [-]

It is when your prior belief is that god is responsible for the original work.

Comment author: TimS 22 March 2012 05:15:32PM * 1 point [-]

Something can be a waste of time without being wrong. More precisely, if you think writing in support of belief X is a worthwhile use of your time, but your peers do not, this is not particularly strong evidence that belief X is false - but it is decent evidence about your belief "writing about belief X is a good use of my time" is false.

Comment author: drethelin 22 March 2012 06:02:36PM 0 points [-]

Any god worth believing in shouldn't need libraries worth of apologetics is my point.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 March 2012 07:41:46PM 6 points [-]

Any god worth believing in shouldn't need libraries worth of apologetics is my point.

Perhaps I've got low standards with respect to gods. I'll accept a god that needs libraries worth of apologetics so long as she gives me immortality and catgirls.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 22 March 2012 08:01:24PM 2 points [-]

My standards are even lower than yours... though maybe what my God/god/gods/things give me is ultimately better than immortality and catgirls, it's really hard to tell.

Comment author: drethelin 22 March 2012 07:45:02PM 1 point [-]

once you have the catgirls and immortality, in what sense does she need the apologetics?

Comment author: wedrifid 22 March 2012 07:57:32PM 7 points [-]

once you have the catgirls and immortality, in what sense does she need the apologetics?

Whatever sense she likes (in addition to whatever sense you were talking about). If the nature of existence (and possibly the machinations of a rival god) are such that anyone who does not spend three hours in the apologetics library will end up not believing in her (and lose the benefits of affiliation) then I'll spend three hours a day in the boring library. If she actually physically requires the presence of the apologetics library in order to sustain her existence then I'll fight to the death to defend it. (The temporary death. Because I'm immortal. With catgirls.)

Comment author: TimS 22 March 2012 06:32:29PM 6 points [-]

Be that as it may, your original comment can reasonably be interpreted as:

You sure are trying really hard to justify your belief. Are you sure that you aren't trying to deceive yourself about your true beliefs?

Whatever the merits of that analysis, it asserts you know the mental processes of the speaker better than the person living the processes, and is not engaging with the speaker. It's quite presumptuous to interact with someone with engaging with them.

drethelin comments on Ontologial Reductionism and Invisible Dragons - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (80)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (80)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login