Brillyant comments on What Can We Learn About Human Psychology from Christian Apologetics? - Less Wrong

39 Post author: ChrisHallquist 21 October 2013 10:02PM

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

Comments (162)

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

Comment author: Jack 23 October 2013 11:31:15PM *  10 points [-]

What does all this mean for domains outside religion? I'm not actually sure, though there's some rather obvious connections you could draw with people's information-consuming habits in other areas.

"Connections you could draw" seems like an understatement. Coming from a family that wasn't religious but was very political I don't see any significant difference between religious apologia and political apologia.

I'm not even sure I see a difference in function between religious apologia and atheist apologia. Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens --the most prominent anti-apologists-- do not optimize for de-conversion. They are/were popular because of their popularity among unbelievers. They probably have a slightly better ratio of agreeing to disagreeing readers than Christian writes. But that is probably just because there are more Christians. They probably are also slightly more successful at converting, but that is probably just because they are right. I'd bet most people buy their books to feel more secure in their worldview and more confident in their intelligence and ability to win arguments. They confirm beliefs and flatter egos and make it easier for their readers to signal positive traits to their social groups. Same goes for most forms of atheist 'activism' honestly.

The appropriate Hansonism is something like "atheism isn't about God not existing".

(Also, Chris: I think you and I are about to be in the same App Academy Cohort-- saw your name in the emails and recognized you here.)

Comment author: Brillyant 24 October 2013 07:37:37PM 1 point [-]

You make a good point in saying their conversion rates are likely higher just as a matter of them being right.

I think Hitchens and Dawkins provide a much needed antithetical punch in the nose of religion's thesis.

For deconverts from Christianity (like myself), I'd credit them with being something like an atheist pastor during the strange existential/nihilistic void that many feel after losing faith.

I suppose I did read them to feel more secure in my worldview and confirm my beliefs (or rather doubts)... but it felt more like a much-needed antidote to the long-standing effects religion's poison.