My parents are both vegetarian, and have been since I was born. They brought me up to be a vegetarian. I'm still a vegetarian. Clearly I'm on shaky ground, since my beliefs weren't formed from evidence, but purely from nurture.

Interestingly my parents became vegetarian because they perceived the way animals were farmed to be cruel (although they also stopped eating non-farmed animals such as fish), however my rationalization for not eating meat is that it is the killing of animals that is wrong (generalising from the belief that killing humans is worse than mistreating them). Since eating meat is not necessary to live, it must therefore be as bad as hunting for fun, which is much more widely disapproved of. (I'm not a vegan, and I often eat sweets containing gelatine, if asked to explain this, I would rationalise that eating these thing causes the death of many fewer animals than actually eating, like, steak).

But having read all of Eliezer's posts, I now realise that I could have come up with that rationalisation even if eating meat were not wrong, and that I'm now in just a bad a position as a religious believer. I want a crisis of faith, but I have a problem... I don't know where to go back to. There's no objective basis for morality. I don't know what kind of evidence I should condition on (I don't know what would be different about the world if eating meat was good instead of bad). If a religious person realises they have no evidence they should go back to their priors. Because god has a tiny prior, they should immediately stop believing. I don't know exactly what the prior on "killing animals is wrong" is, but I think it has a reasonable size (certainly larger than that for god), and I feel more justified in being vegetarian because of this. What should I do now?

Footnote: I probably don't have to say this, but I don't want arguments for or against vegetarianism, simply advice on how one should challenge one's own moral beliefs. I've used "eating meat" and "killing animals" interchangeably in my post, because I think that they are morally equivalent due to supply and demand.

Weakly related epiphany: Hannibal Lector is the original prototype of an intelligence-in-a-box wanting to be let out, in "The Silence of the Lambs"

‎"We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself." --Chris Mooney

“How do you explain the existence of eyes?”

What?

Do theists really ask this?

Should we be listing the oldies here as well? One of my favorites is still "Don't believe everything you think."

That one made it to book-title and t-shirt status, but I've never heard anyone actually say it. I've read it only a couple of times.

This must be an example of a much broader theme. One wants X but comes to the belief that X is impossible. Then one stops wanting X, which is probably a healthy response when X really is impossible. When it turns out that X is possible after all, one still does not want X.

You could call it "digesting sour grapes", perhaps.

I think this dualism, this image of the "technical guy" versus "George Clooney," reason versus the passions, is oversimplified. Why only two selves?

When I think about the problem of the "divided will," the issue isn't really that my actions are hijacked by my subconscious. It's not a rational good guy overcome by an irrational bad guy. The issue is that there are different, incompatible lenses through which to see the world, and most human beings haven't picked a single lens.

Think of a single decision -- should I go on a cross-country charity bike trip? My experience-seeking self, my vain self, and my humanitarian self like the idea. My danger-averse self, my professionally responsible self, my people-pleasing self, and my brutally honest self despise the idea. The decision I make will depend on which selves are dominant at the time. How much I regret the decision afterwards will depend on which selves are dominant afterward -- for example, if someone yells at me for neglecting my academics for a dumb-ass bike trip, my responsible self will pop into the foreground, and I'll regret my decision.

The point is, it's not just the "real you" versus "your brain." You don't have only one "real you"!

Sometimes (procrastination, addiction) it's pretty clear cut that there's a smart self and a stupid self. But sometimes even on reflection it's not clear which "self" is superior. The article makes a good point that "selves" that require deliberative thought tend to be weaker. But that doesn't mean that there's a single "technical guy" or that he's always right.

‎"Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments." -- Peter Singer

It leads to a contemplative moment for me-- I suspect accidentally changing one's mind happens relatively often.