= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on The ideas you're not ready to post - 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 (253)
Yet another post from me about theism?
This time, pushing for a more clearly articulated position. Yes, I realize that I am not endearing myself by continuing this line of debate. However, I have good reasons for pursuing.
I really like LW and the idea of a place where objective, unbiased truth is The Way. Since I idealistically believe in Aumann’s Agreement theorem, I think that we are only a small number of debates away from agreement.
To the extent to which LW aligns itself with a particular point of view, it must be able to defend that view. I don’t want LW to be wrong, and am willing to be a nuisance to make sure.
If defending atheism is not a first priority, can we continue using religion as a convenient example of irrationality, even as the enemy of rationality?
There is a definite sense that theism is not worth debating, that the case is "open-and-shut". If so, it should be straight-forward to draft a master argument. (Five separate posts of analogies is not strong evidence in my Bayesian calculation that the case is open-and-shut.)
A clear and definitive argument against theism would make it possible for theists (and yourselves, as devil's advocates) to debate specific points that are not covered adequately in the argument. (If you are about to downvote me on this comment, think about how important it would be to permit debate on an ideology that is important to this group. Right now it is difficult to debate whether religion is rational because there is no central argument to argue with.)
Relative to the ‘typical view’, atheism is radical. How does a religious person visiting this site become convinced that you’re not just a rationality site with a high proportion of atheists?
I would prefer us not to talk about theism all that much. We should be testing ourselves against harder problems.
Theism is the first, and oldest problem. We have freed ourselves from it, yes, but that does not mean we have solved it. There are still churches.
If we really intend to make more rationalists, theism will be the first hurdle, and there will be an art to clearing that hurdle quickly, cleanly, and with a minimum of pain for the deconverted. I see no reason not to spend time honing that art.
First, the subject is discussed to death. Second, our target audience at this stage is almost entirely atheists; you start on the people who are closest. Insofar as there are theists we could draw in, we will probably deconvert them more effectively by raising the sanity waterline and having them drown religion without our explicit guidance on the subject; this will also do more to improve their rationality skills than explicit deconversion.
sigh You're probably right.
I have a lot of theists in my family and in my social circle, and part of me still wants to view them as potential future rationalists.
We should teach healthy habits of thought, not fight religion explicitly. People should be able to feel horrified by the insanity of supernatural beliefs for themselves, not argued into considering them inferior to the alternatives.
They are potential future rationalists. They're even (something like) potential present rationalists; that is, someone can be a pretty good rationalist in most contexts while remaining a theist. This is precisely because the internal forces discouraging them from changing can be so strong.
When you don't have a science, the first step is to look for patterns. How about assembling an archive of de-conversions that worked?
The problem with current techniques is that nothing works reliably. If you can go so high as to have a document that works to deconvert 10% of educated theists, then you can start examining for regularities in what worked and didn't work. The trouble is reaching that high initial bar.
The first place that springs to mind to look is deconversion-oriented documents that theists warn each other off and which they are given prepared opinions on. The God Delusion is my favourite current example - if you ever hear a theist dissing it, ask if they've read it; it's likely they won't have, and will (hopefully) be embarrassed by having been caught cutting'n'pasting someone else's opinions. What others are there that have produced this effect?
People are more willing than you might think to openly deride books they admit that they have never read. I know this because I write Twilight fanfiction.
Almost as if their are other means than just personal experience by which to collect evidence.
"Standing on the shoulders of giants hurling insults at Stephenie Meyer's."
I am very curious about your take on those who attack Twilight for being anti-feminist, specifically for encouraging young girls to engage in male-dependency fantasies.
I've heard tons of this sort of criticism from men and women alike, and since you appear to be the de facto voice of feminism on Lesswrong, I would very much appreciate any insight you might be able to give. Are these accusations simply overblown nonsense in your view? If you have already addressed this, would you be kind enough to post a link?
Yes, but catching them out can be fun :-)
It seems to me that Derren Brown once did some sort of demonstration in which he mass-converted some atheists to theists, and/or vice versa. Perhaps we should investigate what he did. ;-)
(Updated following Vladimir_Nesov's comment - thanks!)
Even where it's obvious, you should add textual description for the links you give. This is the same courtesy as not saying just "Voted up", but adding at least some new content in the same note.
You sound real sure of that. Since it's you saying it, you probably have data. Can you link it so I can see?
If something worked that reliably, wouldn't we know about it? Wouldn't it, for example, be seen many times in one of these lists of deconversion stories?
That only rules out the most surface-obvious of patterns. And I doubt anyone has tried deconverting someone in an MRI machine. It's too early to give up.
Indeed. When a community contains more than a critical number of theists, their irrational decision making can harm themselves and the whole community. By deconverting theists, we help them and everyone else.
I'd like to see a discussion on the best ways to deconvert theists.
Capture bonding seems to be an effective method of changing beliefs.