I respectfully disagree. I would appreciate it if you could be respectful in turn.

Claims with a low Occamian prior are false (to within reasonable tolerances) by default to a rationalist. Deities in general tend to have extremely long minimum message lengths, since they don't play nice with the rest of our model of the universe, and require significant additional infra-structure. I suspect you would not be overly put out by the assertion that Rama or Odin isn't real. So, what makes your God different? I ask you honestly. If you can show strong, convincing evidence for why the existence of your God is special, I will be very, very interested. If you can demonstrate enough Bayesian evidence to bump the probability of Yahweh over 50%, you've got yourself a convert. Probably quite a few. But, the burden of evidence is on your shoulders.

My entire point was that it might be possible to recognize these situations and then act in an appropriate manner.

I think this is called "behaving rationally". I understand "rationality" as using reason to my benefit. If there comes a time when it would be beneficial for me to do something, and I arrive at that conclusion through reason, then I'd consider that a triumph of rationality. I think if you are able to anticipate an advantage that could be gained by a behavior then refusing to perform that behavior would be irrational.

Anecdotal evidence shouldn't be a cause to say something is horrible.

You misunderstand me. It isn't my anecdotal evidence that makes me think the church is horrible. I just pointed out that I had spent a lot of time in churches to show that I have more than the passing familiarity with them that you attributed to me. I think the church is horrible because it threatens children, promotes inaccurate material and takes money from the gullible.

The church that I go to most of the time has only 2 or three children in it and is mostly made up of members over 60

While this is good that your church isn't abusing more children, it is still terrible to consign "2 or three children" to such mistreatment. Telling children that there is a hell and that they will go to it if they don't believe in something which is obviously flawed is a terrible thing to do. It is psychological child abuse and I don't think it says very much in your church's favor that it only abuses two or three kids.

Besides, if you look at it from a Christian point of view, is it wrong to teach children when they are young?

A child lacks the intellectual maturity to understand or evaluate complex ideas. A child is more trusting than an adult. If your parents tell you something is true, or that you should believe this minister when he talks about heaven, you are more likely to believe it. If your parents came to you now and told you about how they had just found out about Krishna and you should read the Bhagavad Gita you probably wouldn't be very receptive. And yet, your parents managed to convince you that the Bible was true. Why was that? Was it because through random chance you were born into a family that already believed in the one true religion? Or was it just that you adopted the religion you were exposed to. Because, when you were young your mind wasn't discriminating enough to realize that, wait a second, this isn't making sense!

Would you advocate waiting till a person is 20 to start teaching them how to read, write and do math?

No, but the usefulness of reading is well established. Mathematics is axiomatic. Religion is, as the most polite thing I could say about it, highly suspect. I don't think its right for adults to have sex with children, because children aren't mature enough to make informed decisions about consent. Similarly, I don't think its okay for people to teach religion to children because children aren't mature enough to make informed decisions about ontology.

I respectfully disagree. I would appreciate it if you could be respectful in turn.

I apologize if you have found me disrespectful so far. It isn't my intention to be disrespectful to you. That said, I have no intention of being respectful to a set of beliefs which I consider first to be wrong and second to be pernicious. If you have an argument which you think is compelling as to the truth of Christianity, please tell me. I promise that if I am swayed by your argument I will begin to show Christianity due deference.

Is it as bad as telling a child that if they play in traffic they could cease to exist?

This is a true statement that is designed to protect a child. Saying something like "You'll writhe in agony for all time if you don't believe in the truth of this thousands of years old document compiled over hundreds of years by an unknown but large number of authors" isn't the same kind of statement. Even if you don't explicitly say that to a child, convincing them to believe in Christianity is implicitly making that statement.

As far as "bad" goes, I don't have a ready definition. I have to fall back on Justice Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it". Threatening children and teaching them things that are at best highly suspect as if they were true is bad.

Not true for all churches. In fact I have yet to be in a single one that even suggests it

Tithing (giving a tenth) is explicitly recommended in the Bible. If the churches you are going to endorse the Bible then they are at least implicitly asking for 10%.

You know, kind of like what Eliezer is doing right now with the workshops he is setting up.

I don't think Eliezer has a school for children where he teaches them that unless they grow up to believe in his set of rules that an Unfriendly AI will punish them for all time. I have less against evangelism to adults. If Eliezer asks for money like this, that is fair, because the people he is asking can evaluate whether or not they believe in the cause and donate accordingly. There is nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with compelling donations through threats of damnation.

I pose the question of what does being a superior rationalist do for you

In the aggregate of all possible worlds, I expect it will let me lead a happier and more fulfilling life. This isn't to say that there aren't situations where it will disadvantage me to be a rationalist (a killer locks me and one other person in a room with a logic puzzle. He will kill the one who completes the puzzle first...) but in general, I think it will be an advantage. Its like in the game of poker, sometimes, the correct play will result in losing. That is okay though, if players play enough hands eventually superior skill will tell and the better player will come out on top. Being a superior rationalist may not always be best in every situation, but when the other choice (inferior rationalist) is worse in even more situations... the choice seems obvious.

You start walking back to your car. You suspect that you aren't going to make it.

Then I could stop walking, conserve my energy and try to suppress the blood loss. Or, I could activate my rationalist powers earlier and store a first aid kit in my car, or a fully charged cell phone in my pocket, or not venture out into the dangerous wild by myself...

Your misconceptions about Christianity are show that you have never done any real research into the subject of religion, and that you are just copying what you have heard from others.

I'll freely admit to a hostile stance on religion, but I think it is a deserved one. Whatever misconceptions I may have about Christianity are gained from growing up with a religious family and attending services "religiously" for the first two decades of my life. I have more than a passing familiarity with it. I don't think anything I said about religion is wrong though. Religious instruction is targeted predominantly towards children. The claims of the religious are false. Threatening a child with eternal damnation is bad. A consequence of being a Christian is giving 10% of your money to the church. Am I missing anything here?

[Note: Skip stuff in brackets if religious talk annoys or offends you]

I personally operate by Crocker's Rules, but others may not be, so I appreciate the warning nonetheless.

Why does everyone assume that this has to do with religion?

It's probably because you said you identify as a Christian, and Christians tend to advance this sort of argument more often than non-theists, regarding Christianity specifically. That said, your argument is general enough to apply to non-religious topics, as well.

At this point, I should mention that I didn't mean to bring up your personal traumatic experience, and I apologize. If you think that discussing it would be too distressing, please stop reading beyound this point.

If I was to be in the same situation again, lying on the ground, foot supported and tied off...

If you truly believed you were about to die no matter what, why would you waste time on tying off your foot ? It sounds to me like you weighed the chances of you dying, and made a decision to spend some time on tying off the foot, instead of spending it in contemplation or something similar.

On the other and there is another explication that does not require lies, mistakes or luck to be involved.

What is it ?

I am specifically talking about situations where there is no long run, and you are not affecting other people with your decisions.

Can you describe some examples ? Your own experience with the bleeding foot is not one of them, because your death would've negatively affected quite a few people (including yourself).

The sun going nova was just an example. ... there are all sorts of stuff that falls into the category of things I can't do anything about that will end my life.

Understood. However, if everyone thought like you do, no one would be tracking near-Earth asteroids right now. Some people are doing just that, though, in the expectation that if a dangerous asteroid were to be detected, we'd have enough time to find a solution that does not involve all of us dying.

You start walking back to your car. You suspect that you aren't going to make it. Now does it make you happier to follow up on that thought and figure out the rate you are losing blood...

In the long run, and on average, yes. There are several courses of action open to me, such as "give up", "keep walking", "attempt to make a tourniquet", etc. Once I know the rate of the blood loss, I can determine which of these actions is most likely to be optimal. You say that "you suspect that you aren't going to make it", but I can't make an informed decision -- f.ex., whether to spend valuable time on making this tourniquet, or to instead invest this time into walking -- based on suspicion alone.

I sympathize somewhat with your argument as it applies to religion, but this example you brought up is not analogous.

You can't know in advance what beliefs you hold are false, however you can know which ones make you happy and don't get in the way of your life.

Perhaps not "in advance", but there are many beliefs that can be tested (though not all beliefs can be). To use a trivial example, believing that a lost Nigerian prince can transfer a million dollars to your bank account in exchange for a small fee might make you happy. However, should you act on this belief, you would very likely end up a lot less happy. Testing the belief will allow you to make an informed decision, and thus end up happier in the long run.

But even if the sun was about to go nova...

This is an off-topic nitpick, but the sun is incredibly unlikely to go nova; it will die in a different way.

Hi, I joined just to reply to this comment. I don't think there is a lot of complexity hidden behind "whatever can be destroyed by truth should be". If there is a false belief, we should try to replace it with a true one, or at least a less wrong one.

Your argument that goes "But what if you were being tortured to death" doesn't really hold up because that argument can be used to reach any conclusion. What if you were experiencing perfect bliss, but then, your mind made up an elaborate fantasy which you believe to be your life... What if there were an evil and capricious deity who would torture you for eternity if you chose Frosted Flakes over Fruit Loops for breakfast? These kinds of "What if" statements followed by something of fundamentally unknowable probability are infinite in number and could be used to reach any conclusion you like and therefore, they don't recomend any conclusion over any other conclusion. I don't think it is more likely that I am being horribly tortured and fantasizing about writing this comment than I think it is likely that I am in perfect bliss and fantasizing about this, and so, this argument does nothing to recomend ignorance over knowledge.

In retrospect (say it turns out I am being tortured) I may be happier in ignorance, but I would be an inferior rationalist.

I think this applies to Christianity too. At the risk of being polemical, say I believed that Christianity is a scam whereby a select group of people convince the children of the faithful that they are in peril of eternal punishment if they don't grow up to give 10% of their money to the church. Suppose I think that this is harmful to children and adults. Further, suppose I think the material claims of the religion are false. Now, you on the other hand suppose (I assume) that the material claims of the religion are true and that the children of the faithful are being improved by religious instruction.

Both of us can't be right here. If we apply the saying "whatever can be destroyed by truth should be" then we should each try to rigorously expose our ideas to the truth. If one of our positions can be destroyed by the truth, it should be. This works no matter who is right (or if neither of us are right). If I am correct, then I destroy your idea, you stop believing in something false, stop assisting in the spread of false beliefs, stop contributing money to a scam, etc. If you are right then my belief will be destroyed, I can gain eternal salvation, stop trying to mislead people from the true faith, begin tithing etc.

In conclusion, I think the saying means exactly what it sounds like.

[The following is just me being slightly insane about probability and has no bearing on the point of the artical]

I have to point out some flaws with the probability that you are using here. For the most part betting blue all the time works. However Cards don't work quite like that. Each draw of the cards reduces the total number of the card that was drawn. For instance if you have 10 cards, 7 blue, 3 red, and after the first 7 draws there have been 6 blue cards drawn, but only one red card drawn then the probability now favors drawing a red card. In fact, if now you switch to calling red for every card you can achieve an 80% success rate over all because now there is only 1 blue card left, but two red cards. Just because you have come up with a strategy for success does not mean that you should stop thinking and reassessing the situation as more information becomes known.

Hello. I come from HPMoR. I identify as Christian, though my belief and reasons for belief are a bit more complex than that. I'll probably do a post on that later in 'how to convince me 2+2=3'. I also get told that I over think things.

Anyway, that's not the reason I joined. I was reading an article by Eliezer Yudkowsky and he stated that whatever can be destroyed by truth should be. This got me wondering in what context that was meant. My first thought was that it meant that we should strive to destroy all false beliefs, which has the side effect of not lying, but then I began to wonder if it wasn`t more personal. We should strive to let the truth that we observe destroy any beliefs that they are able to.

I realized that the difference between the two is that one is an end in and of itself (destroy all false belief), and one is a means to achieve a goal more effectively (don`t hold on to false belief when it has been proved false). I am really not sure how I feel about the first one, it seems very confrontational to no good purpose. There are a lot of false beliefs out there that people hold dear. However the second one is strange as well.

One of peoples goals is to be happy. Now there is an old saying that ignorance is bliss. While this is definitely not always a good policy I can think of several cases off the top of my head were a person would be happier with a false belief than with reality. For example what if everything that is happening to you right now is your mind constructing an elaborate fantasy to stop you from realizing that you are slowly being tortured to death? If you break free of said belief you are not happy, and you can do nothing to save yourself. The goal of being happy is actively opposed by the goal of learning the truth. [disclaimer: I've read about the mind constructing such fantasies in books and have experienced it only once in my life to a limited degree when I was being beaten up as a child. I don't know how scientifically accurate they are. This is just an example and if necessary I can come up with another one.]

So probably that wasn't what Mr. Yudkowsky meant when he said that what can be destroyed by truth should be (and if it is, can someone explain to me why?). So what does it mean? I've run out of theories here.