Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012

David_Gerard

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

This doesn't raise the sanity waterline at all.

Yes it does. I think you need to read it again a couple of times and maybe a few OvercomingBias posts.

Unless the person is part of a very dangerous Jim Jones style of religion, what's the point?

It makes no difference to the point whether the religion is dangerous, admirable or even the literally correct and the path to eternal bliss. Thoughts about tribal affiliations typically matter more than abstract reasoning when it comes to this kind of belief.

Your statements have the implied premise that having true beliefs raises the sanity line even if the process of reaching those beliefs is not correlated with the correctness of the beliefs.

I prefer "raising the sanity line" to refer to increased usage of processes correlated with creating correct beliefs. Your hostile reaction to this understanding doesn't exactly advance the ball on figuring out how to actually achieve either goal.

3palladias14y

Maybe I misunderstood. It sounded like you were suggesting that theists be baited with a honeypot (mate or group) that they'd like to be attractive to. The pressure to be liked would cause them to abandon their beliefs. I'm not saying this can't work, but it's a transformational pressure that works equally well in both directions. The person isn't better informed at the end of it, they're just trying to fit in with a group that happens to be more accurate. (If atheism highly correlated with sexiness, maybe this would pull more people out of religion than in, but, in fact, religions are better at being organized into tribes with status anyway) But, I think, given your response, that I've misread you. Can you correct me?