= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
EHeller comments on What Can We Learn About Human Psychology from Christian Apologetics? - 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 (162)
I actually find this framing -- that atheists are/were this semi-oppressed low-status group -- pretty unpersuasive. As a matter of fact that vast majority of atheists come from the most high status groups in society. And there is a long history of atheistic elites looking down on the superstitions of the proles. Even the admission of atheism itself doesn't so much signal low-status as it does a sort of untrustworthy amorality while simultaneously signalling intelligence and affiliation with high-status academics. Trust is certainly related to status; but I don't think it is quite the same thing. I would compare the social penalties of explicit atheism to something like the social penalties of "acting white" among African-American teenagers. It's not punishment for signalling low-status but punishment for signalling high-status in an unwanted way.
It seems like the atheist "movement" probably wouldn't have happened without our strong social pressures against explicitly recognizing cognitive superiority. The elimination of codified status increases resources spent on signalling un-codified status for the same reason violence only breaks out when there is uncertainty over who will win. And it seems like past generations of atheists routinely embraced a sort of noblese oblige about religion. "Yes, people who believe in God are certainly wrong but it is probably good for them and there is no need to show off how much smarter I am than they." Norms against paternalism make that attitude harder to hold today. The overall result is a climate of insecurity: the attitudes that used to let atheists keep quiet about their beliefs while maintaining a sense of superiority no longer exist. Some atheists might notice that the pledge of allegiance contains "under God" and most Americans don't want an atheist as President. Because of status insecurity they take these as genuine status threats and come up with this whole idea that they are an oppressed group.
Now, holding religious beliefs certainly comes with a cost. So maybe trying to make atheism even more high status is worthwhile. But religion appears to have genuinely beneficial effects on at least some people-- so I'm not sure that equation balances out the way us atheists would like it to. And of course, it is unlikely that outspoken atheists are really motivated by a desire to reduce the social costs of religiosity. If that were the case they would be content to advocate for the sort of secularized theism/ agnostic spirituality which is easier for people to adopt but contains almost no risk of fanaticism or misplaced attention on theology. Really, the only reason to adamantly advocate for a narrow metaphysical position that has zero practical implications is to show off how smart you are.
Really? I think the facade of successful argument is absolutely crucial for religious people to maintain the pretense that they are actually smarter than atheists. It's a much more successful set of signals than complaints about sinners or yelling about atheists going to hell. The latter has the reek of "yes, you might be low-status now but in Heaven everything will be made right".
... because people who are otherwise high status are the only ones who can afford to take the hit in status from being atheist. (Also, because other things being equal, being right is more likely to lead to high status than being wrong.)
That doesn't follow, because people value being honest. Most people would not advocate a position that's 95% of their own position, but insincere, in preference to sincerely advocating their own position, even if the remaining 5% has no practical applications.
It seems plausible there is some selection effect like that. But people who have high IQs and good science educations are way more likely to become atheists for what seem like obvious reasons. 72% of the National Academy of Scientists are explicitly atheist. You don't really think that's just because they face less stigma, right?
Honesty is a sufficient explanation for why, when asked if they believe in God, someone answers "No.". It isn't an explanation for dedicated careers, blogs and books to showing everyone that God doesn't exist. There are lots of things people can spend their time talking about and honesty doesn't explain the need to tell people they are wrong. Honesty isn't a sufficient explanation for the same reason it isn't a sufficient explanation of Christian apologetics.
Really? I see people doing that all the time. 5% even seems low. In contexts where what people advocate is actually going to have an impact (like within social groups or in the work place) you routinely see people compromise and bite their tongue in order to make their advocacy more persuasive. Unrestrained, unproductive honesty is a great indicator that someone is interested less in persuading and more in showing off. Compare politicians to political/policy journalists and compare both to the average partisan on the Internet. The less someone thinks their words will accomplish the more likely they are to speak in an unfiltered way.
It's not just because they face less stigma. It's also because in order to become a scientist, you have to be able to reason well, and if you reason well, you're more likely to be atheist. You may as well study whether scientists can balance their checkbook, discover that more of them can than the general public, and conclude that balancing their checkbook signals high status rather than the fact that smart people balance their checkbooks more than stupid people.
The honesty just explains the last 5%. As you acknowledge, other explanations would explain why someone would write books about a generalized secular agnosticism. Honesty is just what leads an atheist to write the book about atheism instead of agnosticism, rather than being his impetus for writing a book at all.
Publicly mentioning balancing your checkbook certainly signals higher status! The explanation for why people don't believe in God is that God doesn't exist and people with intelligence and education can figure that out. The explanation for why people go around loudly proclaiming disbelief is that it signals they are intelligent and well educated enough to figure out that God doesn't exist.
So you're saying someone decides to dedicate their lives to reducing the impact of religion on the world and then honesty just compels them to write in a way that is optimized for signalling the intelligence and status of their community rather than reducing the impact of religion? It's not just saying "there is no god" when you could say "maybe there is no god": it's about tone and language. Most popular atheist writing contains exactly the same tone of condescension as the stuff William Lane Craig writes, the same tone of superiority as a book written by Al Franken or Sean Hannity.
Do you agree that religious and political polemics aren't really about helping the other side see the light? If so, why would it be different for atheism?
I'm not saying that Richard Dawkins sits down to write "The God Delusion" thinking "ugh, those religious people are so low status, I need to write a book about how much better atheists and scientists are". I adore Dawkins. But if you want to see what people value: look at the market. The most successful and respected atheist writers are/were renowned not for empathizing, patient explanations but for their barbed wit and knockdown rhetoric. The second tier of atheist media is even worse: the Victor Stenger books, the Bill Maher movie. Look at r/atheism which is entirely image macros about how theists are dumb being sent back and forth between atheists. I see no indication anywhere that the movement values people and work based on how effective they are at deconverting theists and not just how good they are at making other atheists feel good about themselves.
Huh? They decide to write the book in order to reduce the impact of religion. The fact that the book is specifically atheist rather than "secularized theism/ agnostic spirituality" happens because they are atheist and being honest about their beliefs.
It is far from unlikely that someone who writes an anti-religion book and is an atheist would write the book from an atheist perspective rather than another anti-religion perspective. That choice is not so implausible that you need to explain the coincidence away by saying that that's not his real reason and it must be status signalling instead.
You're missing the forest for the trees. Obviously any one person could be writing for any reason at all. The question is what do successful atheist polemics have in common, and why.
Again, I'm curious if you see the pattern I'm pointing out in other areas? Do you think most popular political books are optimized to convert the undecided or the opposition? Or are atheists special?