Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted

56 Post author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 04:49PM

(Disclaimer: This post is sympathetic to a certain subset of theists.  I am not myself a theist, nor have I ever been one.  I do not intend to justify all varieties of theism, nor do I intend to justify much in the way of common theistic behavior.)

I'm not adopted.  You all believe me, right?  How do you think I came by this information, that you're confident in my statement?  The obvious and correct answer is that my parents told me so1.  Why do I believe them?  Well, they would be in a position to know the answer, and they have been generally honest and sincere in their statements to me.  A false belief on the subject could be hazardous to me, if I report inaccurate family history to physicians, and I believe that my parents have my safety in mind.  I know of the existence of adopted people; the possibility isn't completely absent from my mind - but I believe quite confidently that I am not among those people, because my parents say otherwise.

Now let's consider another example.  I have a friend who plans to name her first daughter Wednesday.  Wednesday will also not be adopted, but that isn't the part of the example that is important: Wednesday will grow up in Provo, Utah, in a Mormon family in a Mormon community with Mormon friends, classmates, and neighbors, attending an LDS church every week and reading scripture and participating in church activities.  It is overwhelmingly likely that she will believe the doctrines of the LDS church, because not only her parents, but virtually everyone she knows will reinforce these beliefs in her.  Given the particular nuances of Mormonism as opposed to other forms of Christianity, Wednesday will also be regularly informed that several of these people are in a position to have special knowledge on the subject via direct prayer-derived evidence2 - in much the same way that her parents will have special knowledge of her non-adopted status via direct experience when she wasn't in a state suitable to notice or remember the events.  Also, a false belief on the subject could have all kinds of bad consequences - if the Muslims are right, for instance, no doubt Hell awaits Wednesday and her family - so if she also correctly assumes that her parents have her best interests at heart, she'll assume they would do their best to give her accurate information.

Atheism tends to be treated as an open-and-shut case here and in other intellectually sophisticated venues, but is that fair?  What about Wednesday?  What would have to happen to her to get her to give up those beliefs?  Well, for starters, she'd have to dramatically change her opinion of her family.  Her parents care enough about honesty that they are already planning not to deceive her about Santa Claus - should she believe that they're liars?  They're both college-educated, clever people, who read a lot and think carefully about (some) things - should she believe that they're fools?  They've traveled around the world and have friends like me who are, vocally, non-Mormons and even non-Christians - should she believe that her parents have not been exposed to other ideas?

Would giving up her religion help Wednesday win?  I don't think her family would outright reject her for it, but it would definitely strain those valued relationships, and some of the aforementioned friends, classmates, and neighbors would certainly react badly.  It doesn't seem that it would make her any richer, happier, more successful - especially if she carries on living in Utah3.  (I reject out of hand the idea that she should deconvert in the closet and systematically lie to everyone she knows.)  It would make her right.  And that would be all it would do - if she were lucky.

Is it really essential that, as a community, we exclude or dismiss or reflexively criticize theists who are good at partitioning, who like and are good at rational reasoning in every other sphere - and who just have higher priorities than being right?  I have priorities that I'd probably put ahead of being right, too; I'm just not in a position where I really have to choose between "keeping my friends and being right", "feeling at home and being right", "eating this week and being right".  That's my luck, not my cleverness, at work.

When Wednesday has been born and has learned to read, it would be nice if there were a place for her here.

 

1I have other evidence - I have inherited some physical characteristics from my parents and have seen my birth certificate - but the point is that this is something I would take their word for even if I didn't take after them very strongly and had never seen the documentation.

2Mormons believe in direct revelation, and they also believe that priesthood authorities are entitled to receive revelations for those over whom they have said authority (e.g. fathers for their children, husbands for their wives, etc.).

3I have lived in Salt Lake City, and during this time was, as always, openly an atheist.  Everyone was tolerant of me, but I do not think it improved my situation in any way.

Comments (320)

Comment author: badger 27 April 2009 09:14:07PM 21 points [-]

As an ex-Mormon, I had to personally confront this issue. My family, extended family, friends, neighbors, and the large majority of my hometown are Mormon, so the social costs of leaving my church were extremely high. While in high school, I was primarily in the closet, but I'd express the occasional doubt. Just the suggestion that the church could be tested against evidence resulted in people avoiding conversation with me, my now-wife being warned by mutual friends not to date me, and my parents sternly lecturing me. Note this was merely because I considered the possibility of contrary evidence, not a public expression of disbelief.

In the counterfactual world where I chose not to explore the veracity of religion, my high school years would have been significantly happier, I would have avoided prolonged conflict with my family, I would have served a two-year religious mission, and I would likely be attending BYU right now. In some ways, it does genuinely feel like this would have been better, but I can say with confidence that I made the right choice.

I could easily pick out reasons why someone shouldn't remain Mormon specifically, but I want to engage the least convenient world for why we shouldn't knowingly believe something false. Being a theist might not affect the quality of someone's everyday life much, so there is not an apparent gain from a belief in the truth. But similarly, beliefs about the moon landing, Santa, evolution, heliocentricism, etc rarely influence someone's everyday life. The problem is that once you allow exceptions to seeking evidence, allowing your beliefs to be influenced by evidence, and not starting with a bottom line, the exceptions start bleeding over into beliefs that do affect success. I don't think this slippery slope is inevitable, but if you want to win, you can't trust partitions*.

I absolutely agree that if Wednesday came to our community interested and enthusiastic, we should welcome her with open arms. Nevertheless, I would encourage her to break down any mental partitions she might have, otherwise simply note that theism is not up for discussion in the context of this site.

* This is particularly true of Mormon culture where "I prayed about it, and felt the Spirit tell me it is right" can trump any other argument.

Comment author: MrHen 28 April 2009 01:39:41AM 4 points [-]

Note this was merely because I considered the possibility of contrary evidence, not a public expression of disbelief.

Not to be a total jerk and imply you are a total jerk, but the way you merely consider the possibility of contrary evidence matters a lot. I simply want to point out that there is no chance in the world of accurately describing what you or someone like Wednesday would go through in a sentence and there is always an easy option to tilt the histories in your favor. Someone's perceptions of their own attitudes is difficult enough without trying to remember what your emotional state at age 14. I can hear someone say, "I was only asking questions," and know that the words are true but are a complete lie at the same time. Linguistics is easy to twist into your favor.

Again, I am not implying you match any of these descriptions. I just saw an old pattern and felt like pointing it out (at the risk of focusing on the minutiae of your comment).

Comment author: badger 28 April 2009 01:59:22AM 6 points [-]

I agree that is a common failure mode, and I could be misremembering. I made that statement because I did know a handful of people who would belligerently "question" people about religion, and I am pretty sure I was not one of them. I only spoke to intimate friends about my thoughts, and even then, it was done rarely and with extreme hesitancy. It is the sort of thing that spreads through gossip though, while could also explain some of the negative responses.

With my parents, around age 17, I started to outright refuse to attend church, but the troubles started before then. I got a stern lecture from my mom about age 15 for making a statement that assumed evolution was true.

Thanks for alerting me to the potential problem, but I will respectfully claim it doesn't apply.

Comment author: MrHen 28 April 2009 02:20:07AM 1 point [-]

Thanks for alerting me to the potential problem, but I will respectfully claim it doesn't apply.

Which works for me. I am glad you are willing to accept the question.

Comment author: jhuffman 27 April 2009 05:39:58PM 17 points [-]

I'm not sure why you are so dismissive of your first footnote. The question of being adopted is a testable hypothesis. Whether you actually test it or not, you do not need to rely on your trust of your parents to know the truth here. Since the claim that you are not adopted is not particularly extraordinary there is little reason to actually go and test it. Also, knowing the truth here one or way or the other probably would change very little about how you live your day-to-day life.

Religious claims are extraordinary and if true would have a profound impact on how you should live your day-to-day life. Many "religious believers" are in fact so good at partitioning that this is not the case - they do not live as though their beliefs are true.

Yes, I will make value judgments concerning the merits and characters of both those people and people who "apply reason" in an irrationally discriminatory matter.

Comment author: LongInTheTooth 29 April 2009 01:32:01PM 0 points [-]

Yes, this is the crux of the difference between the two scenarios. We accept many things from authority figures at face value, but they fall into two categories, testable and untestable, and we can easily figure out which is which.

Comment author: AlexU 29 April 2009 03:34:22PM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure those categories are as meaningful as you think. How many scientific findings are you capable of verifying personally, right now? And believing you're capable of verifying them, "in principle," is quite different altogether...

Comment author: AlexU 27 April 2009 09:33:12PM *  14 points [-]

This is a great post because it shows just how hard one has to stretch the meaning of "win" to find a way in which atheism always "wins." In the example, it seems that Wedesday "wins" by remaining a Mormon, unless she just happens to place some kind of high personal value on metaphysical truth that can only be satisfied by holding the epistemically correct belief. There's no reason why that should be for everyone, though -- there's a pretty strong case both for not caring at all about these questions, as well accepting one's "default" view if it's too costly to shed. Say Wednesday never becomes a philosopher, but instead, goes into business, or becomes a journalist, or a doctor. It's difficult to imagine how the "less wrong" position of atheism would help her "win" in any of these endeavors, and, in all likelihood, the practical costs incurred by deconverting would swamp any marginal gains she'd get from changing her metaphysical stance on God.

I think people on LW are very hesitant to admit that their strong attachment to "true" metaphysical beliefs may have nothing to do with "winning," but rather, could just be an idiosyncratic personal preference (which is perfectly OK).

Comment author: badger 27 April 2009 09:56:28PM 5 points [-]

I agree that there is no reason atheists always "win". Maybe becoming a theist while holding all other beliefs constant will be an improvement, but I don't think this is a practical analysis. Ceteris paribus, Wednesday should stay Mormon, but the cognitive algorithms would make her stay Mormon are very likely to have detrimental effects on net.

Comment author: MBlume 27 April 2009 09:40:22PM *  7 points [-]

Personally I would consider the debilitating sexist and sex-negative messages packaged with Mormonism to be a profound sort of losing in and of themselves, but that's beyond the scope of this blog.

Comment author: Yvain 27 April 2009 06:36:57PM *  69 points [-]

This post raises a whole constellation of connected questions, so here are my thoughts on all of them:

If the question is "Can Wednesday be religious and still be a smart person who's good at using rationality?", the answer is empirically yes (eg Robert Aumann).

If the question is "Can we still call Wednesday rational if she's religious?" the answer is to taboo "rational" and let the problem take care of itself.

If the question is "Is it okay for Wednesday to be religious?" the question is confused in the first place and any answer would be equally confused.

If the question is "Should Wednesday choose to believe religion?" the answer is that you don't voluntarily choose your beliefs so it doesn't matter.

If the question is "Should Wednesday, while not exactly choosing to believe religion, avoid thinking about it too hard because she thinks doing so will make her an atheist?," then she's already an atheist on some level because she thinks knowing more will make her more atheist, which implies atheism is true. This reduces to the case of deception, which you seem to be against unconditionally.

If the question is "Should I, as an outside observer, do my best to convince Wednesday religion is wrong?" the answer depends on your moral system. I'm a utilitarian, so I would say no - I think it's a background assumption here that she's happier being deceived. I know you're not a utilitarian, so you'd have to work it out in whatever system you use.

If the question is "Should we at Less Wrong exclude all theists?", my answer is of course not. If they want to come here and talk about prisoners dilemmas or the Singularity or something, then of course we should welcome their opinions.

If the question is "Should we at Less Wrong tell all theists they can't talk about how great religion is?" my answer is a qualified "yes". Not because we specifically hate religion, but for the same reason we don't allow posts explicitly about politics. There are places for those debates, this isn't one of those places, and having them completely changes the feel of a community and saps its energy.

If the question is "Should we at Less Wrong stop acting like atheism is an open-and-shut case?," my answer is "no". Sometimes in order to move on, we've got to accept certain assumptions. For example, even though there are a few hard-core steady state theorists out there, most astronomers have accepted the Big Bang as a default assumption because they can get more done by building on Big Bang theory and working out its exact implications then they can debating the last few steady-staters ad nauseum or refusing to even mention the beginning of the universe because it might exclude someone. Christians work in exactly the same way; when they want to discuss obscure points of theology, they start from the assumption that God exists and work from there, although they'll discard that assumption when they're debating an atheist. I don't hold it against these Christians - they'd hardly be able to do theology without it - and I hope they don't hold it against us.

If the question is "Should we at Less Wrong stop saying mean things about religion?" then my answer is that we should never deliberately say mean things just for the sake of saying mean things, but that if it's absolutely necessary to condemn religion to make some greater point (like to use it as an example of a bias towards anthropomorphism) then it's not worth refraining from it to prevent potentially some hypothetical theist from feeling excluded. However, writers should make sure to phrase it as neutrally and non-insultingly as possible, something atheists are generally bad at.

If the question is "What kind of person would name their daughter Wednesday?", I have no good answer. Maybe someone who really, really liked the Thursday Next books?

Also, this wins my prize for most intriguing title on LW so far.

Comment author: Simetrical 28 April 2009 09:19:21PM 9 points [-]

If the question is "Should Wednesday, while not exactly choosing to believe religion, avoid thinking about it too hard because she thinks doing so will make her an atheist?," then she's already an atheist on some level because she thinks knowing more will make her more atheist, which implies atheism is true. This reduces to the case of deception, which you seem to be against unconditionally.

That's not necessarily true. Perhaps she believes Mormonism is almost certainly right, but acknowledges that she's not fully rational and might be misled if she read too many arguments against it. Most Christians believe in the idea that God (or Satan) tempts people to sin, and that avoiding temptation is a useful tactic to avoid sin. Kind of like avoiding stores where candy is on display if you're trying to lose weight, say. You know what's right in advance, but you're afraid of losing resolve.

Certainly whatever your beliefs, some people who disagree with you are sufficiently charismatic and good at rhetoric that they might persuade you if you give them the chance. (Well, for most of us, anyway.) How many atheist Less Wrongers would be able to withstand lengthy debate with very talented missionaries? Some, certainly. Most, probably. All? I doubt it.

Overall, though, an excellent response, and I agree with almost all the rest of it.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 May 2010 05:33:27PM 8 points [-]

I used to think this way. "I won't read Mein Kampf because I might turn out a Nazi." This is actually a very insidiously bad mindset. You should believe any argument that can convince you (in fair conditions -- reading Mein Kampf in a calm frame of mind in your own living room, as opposed to under conditions of intimidation in Nazi Germany.) If Nazism is awful, it will still be awful even when you know more about it. And, indeed, most of us don't turn into neo-Nazis when we read Mein Kampf.

Sure, we have bounded rationality. But I don't see how, in probabilistic terms, you can be more likely to get it right without accumulating more evidence. (Maybe your priors are wrong.) If you really think you couldn't stand up to debate with a talented missionary, maybe you aren't really an atheist; maybe you should be glad to change your mind.

Psychologically, I think it's much better for people to trust their reason in this way. It makes it possible to live with more courage. I don't want to live with my head down hoping I won't be exposed to the wrong things.

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 07:15:55PM 5 points [-]

If the question is "What kind of person would name their daughter Wednesday?", I have no good answer. Maybe someone who really, really liked the Thursday Next books?

Actually, they got the name from Wednesday Addams. If the kid doesn't like the name they will call her Wendy instead. (They want two girls and a boy: Wednesday, Christabel, and Nicodemus.)

Comment author: wallowinmaya 06 June 2011 09:29:11PM 4 points [-]

If the question is "Should I, as an outside observer, do my best to convince Wednesday religion is wrong?" the answer depends on your moral system. I'm a utilitarian, so I would say no - I think it's a background assumption here that she's happier being deceived.

( I hope it's ok to respond to such an old comment...)

Um, but IMO most humans will be happier if they become atheists ( eventually). AND, what is far more important, with every new atheist the Sanity Waterline will raise which in turn increases the likelihood of surviving existential risks. And that should be ( or at least close to) the primary concern of every utilitarian. There are many more reasons I can think of, but these should suffice;) Or do I miss something?

Comment author: Bugmaster 25 April 2012 01:04:18AM 0 points [-]

I know your comment is quite old, but I just wanted to say that this was my favorite comment on LW so far.

Comment author: mattnewport 27 April 2009 05:46:16PM 11 points [-]

What would have to happen to her to get her to give up those beliefs? Well, for starters, she'd have to dramatically change her opinion of her family.

I don't really buy this line of your argument. I disagree with my parents about quite a number of issues, religion and politics included. I also in retrospect disagree with some of their choices about how to bring me up (school choice etc.). At no point did I have to dramatically change my opinion of them. I didn't have to stop thinking they had my best interests at heart, or stop thinking they were intelligent and educated people. Part of the process of growing up and being exposed to the wider world is the realization that people disagree on all kinds of issues and that you can't rely on any single authority as a source of truth. People can be wrong without being liars, stupid or ill-informed (by comparison to the general population).

Comment author: [deleted] 05 May 2010 05:23:46PM 9 points [-]

Should you be Wednesday's "atheist auntie?" I would say yes.

You're asking, "What does she gain from being an atheist?" Well, there are several possibilities -- someone mentioned a happier sexuality -- but, in my opinion, what really matters is the end of the divided will. Sooner or later, most people find some tenet of their religion that they disagree with, or think is silly, or even horrible, but they're convinced that God wills it. How do you disagree with God? Well, in my case, for a long time, my basic moral premise was "I suck." That's no way to live.

Religion can work very well for people who can compartmentalize, or not take it too seriously. Most religious people treat it as a pleasant tradition and an impetus to do right, and that's pretty much okay in my book. Not everyone is a big fan of consistency the way I am -- I have a rather black-and-white personality. But if you are a stickler for consistency then religion will break you and terrify you, and actually prevent you from living well.

You do her no harm if you're her "atheist auntie." If she stays a Mormon she'll just be a cosmopolitan one who can say "some of my best friends are atheist," which isn't so bad in itself. If she doesn't -- well, she may have to endure secrecy (while her parents are still supporting her) but she may be better off for it in the long run.

Should we be nicer to theists? I actually have a pet peeve against smarmy atheists. That can be just another bias. There can be a snotty, ignorant tone -- less often here, but familiar from people I know in real life who were raised non-religious. I don't like it, it serves no good purpose, and maybe we should consciously avoid it. Stop and think for a minute and there are historical and present-day heroes who believe in God.

Comment author: ata 05 May 2010 10:55:08PM *  7 points [-]

Sooner or later, most people find some tenet of their religion that they disagree with, or think is silly, or even horrible, but they're convinced that God wills it. How do you disagree with God?

In my experience, people in non-fundamentalist religious traditions tend to change their God to match their new opinions.

(That's no way to live either, but at least it can be less mentally burdensome than blaming oneself.)

Edit: I'm saying that sincerely, and I hope it doesn't come off as smarmy/ignorant atheism. It's an accurate description of most of the liberal religious people I know.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 May 2010 11:43:15PM 10 points [-]

I don't think there's much harm in that. It's what my parents and best friend do, and I admire them. They say they're religious, but when it comes to brass tacks they'll use their own common sense every time.

Religion, worn lightly in that way, is just clothing for whatever your beliefs are. If you believe in social justice, say, you may quote Jesus or Isaiah to that end, but your convictions are pretty much your own. Religion, if not taken at face value, is a pretty nice bundle of poetry, song, holidays, and moral precepts, which may not be bad as a component of one's life. I'm not entirely sure I don't want to keep up participating myself, just to be a member of the community.

Religion taken seriously is a completely different animal. If you're sufficiently literal-minded, you can't wear it lightly. You wind up like I did in high school, working in a genetics lab and seriously believing that my gel electrophoresis wasn't working because God was angry with me. I can look back on that time with some degree of amusement now, but it was hell. I was pretty damn close to drinking acrylamide on several occasions. (Happy ending of sorts: there turned out to be a physical explanation for why my experiments didn't work. It wasn't divine retribution, but contaminated reagents.)

The thing is, nobody asked me to be a superstitious, cringing freak. Most people where I grew up took their religion lightly. They had a little healthy hypocrisy. But I didn't; I took it at face value, because I was literal-minded and had a good eye for logical consistency. And when you do that, you wind up praying over your gels.

Comment author: MinibearRex 08 March 2011 04:47:56AM 2 points [-]

Didn't come off that way to me. It's what I did for a few years, before I finally gave up my beliefs.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 April 2009 06:42:43PM *  23 points [-]

I reject out of hand the idea that she should deconvert in the closet and systematically lie to everyone she knows.

I had to do this until I was able to sever myself from parental support at age 20. It certainly wasn't pleasant and sometimes I still have nightmares about being discovered breaking the Sabbath (though I've told my parents long since). But if you ask me whether I would have rather remained religious,

TEN THOUSAND TIMES NO!

Is it really essential that, as a community, we exclude or dismiss or reflexively criticize theists who are good at partitioning, who like and are good at rational reasoning in every other sphere - and who just have higher priorities than being right?

If Wednesday can partition, that puts an upper bound on her ability as a rationalist; it means she doesn't get on a deep level why the rules are what they are. She doesn't get, say, that the laws regarding evidence are not social customs that can be different from one place to another, but, rather, manifestations of the principle that you have to walk through a city in order to draw an accurate map of it. She can't understand the causality behind the rules, or she would simply know beyond all attempts at partitioning; she would no more be able to convince herself that faith works than convince herself that 2 + 2 = 3; it's a simple rule, and once you see it, it's obvious in one step.

In an absolute sense, God is no more plausible than Santa Claus or fairies. If you can believe in God, you can believe in anything. If Wednesday is amateur-level rational in other domains, then she may be able to contribute interesting comments to Less Wrong. But people, like chains, tend to break at their weakest link, not their strongest; and so being semi-rational in the domain of e.g. biochemistry may do her less good than you think.

Comment author: abigailgem 28 April 2009 09:35:36AM 12 points [-]

if you can believe in God, you can believe in anything.

The trouble with that is that I believe in some pretty weird things. I believe in a universe with a hundred billion galaxies, each of a hundred billion stars, of the Earth being a globe rushing round the sun when it appears to be still, with the sun going round it. I believe these things not because I have worked them out for myself, but because I understand that Academe believes them, more or less, and people with whom I associate believe them.

Comment author: AlexU 29 April 2009 03:14:55PM *  5 points [-]

Right. The idea that we as individuals arrive at our scientific beliefs via perfect rationality is a fiction. It's good to keep in mind that our scientific beliefs are a product of a particular social network -- we believe things largely because people and institutions we trust believe those things. The difference between being a Mormon and being a scientific materialist is less a qualitative difference (i.e., one person is rational, the other is not) than one of degree, circumstance, and where you place your faith.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 29 April 2009 03:26:14PM *  3 points [-]

The historical causes of the different kinds of worldviews held by different people may be similar, but it doesn't make the different worldviews themselves similar. The evolution was implemented on the same kind of physics that fires up the stars, yet a snail is nothing like a giant ball of plasma. The answer to "2+2=" doesn't depend on where you place your faith. Even if you zealously believe that the answer is 78, even if that's what you were taught in school, just like the other kids who were taught different answers, the answer is still 4.

And there is a rational reason to believe the global scientific community, once you grow strong enough to pose the question: they are often right, and they self-check their correctness.

Comment author: AlexU 29 April 2009 03:43:28PM 1 point [-]

Of course, different worldviews may be qualitatively very different, but the point I'm making is that our personal reasons for adopting one over the other aren't all that different. My reasons for believing various scientific findings have much more to do with the sociology of my upbringing and current environment than with the actual truth or falsity of those findings. I did some lab experiments in high school and college, but to extrapolate from those personal verifications to the truth of all scientific findings is to make quite an inductive leap.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 29 April 2009 03:53:43PM *  1 point [-]

When you are still weak enough to be shaped into a zealot by any community, independently of their goodness, of course you don't make that choice, by definition. You may well remain unable to make that choice, if this ability is taken away from you by the worldview you were fed with. But rocks don't have that power either.

So, there are two questions on the table: whether there is objective difference, relative to your implicit own goals, between different worldviews instilled in you by the environment of your upbringing, and whether the people are capable of noticing that difference and acting on it.

On the presence of objective difference, I wrote in the comment to which you replied, and you seem to agree. Whether you ever grow strong enough to consider the decision to change your worldview currently significantly depends on your initial worldview, and on your native intelligence. With native intelligence a given, we can only improve this situation by spreading empowering memes.

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 07:29:21PM *  2 points [-]

I reject out of hand the idea that she should deconvert in the closet and systematically lie to everyone she knows.

I had to do this until I was able to sever myself from parental support at age 20. It certainly wasn't pleasant and sometimes I still have nightmares about being discovered breaking the Sabbath (though I've told my parents long since). But if you ask me whether I would have rather remained religious, TEN THOUSAND TIMES NO!

I don't know your parents, but I know the people who will be Wednesday's. Nothing terrible will happen to Wednesday if she deconverts: she would make her parents a little sad, and they would probably try to argue her around, but they would not do her harm or kick her out of the house or otherwise mistreat her in any way, shape, or form. I do not object to deception in self-defense (or defense of others in Jews-in-the-attic-in-Nazi-Germany situations), but Wednesday will not require deceptive self-defense.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 April 2009 07:51:13PM 13 points [-]

Isn't this an argument in favor of her becoming an atheist, if the side effects to her are less than to me?

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 07:52:33PM 10 points [-]

Just because she'd incur a lesser cost doesn't mean she has to value the end enough to tolerate even that lesser cost.

Comment author: jscn 28 April 2009 11:08:10PM *  1 point [-]

Nothing terrible will happen to Wednesday if she deconverts

The terrible thing has already happened at this stage. Telling your children that lies are true (i.e., that Mormonism is true), when they have no better way of discerning the truth than simply believing what you say, is abusive and anti-moralistic. It is fundamentally destructive of a person's ability to cope with reality.

I have never heard a story of deconversion that was painless. Everyone I know who has deconverted from a religious upbringing has undergone large amounts of internal (and often external) anguish. Even after deconverting most have not been capable of severing ties to the destructive people who doomed them to this pain in the first place.

Comment author: smoofra 28 April 2009 06:19:13PM *  10 points [-]

Is it really essential that, as a community, we exclude or dismiss or reflexively criticize theists....

I don't think we should exclude them. But that doesn't mean we can't confidently inform them when we know they're wrong.

My favorite rationalist quote ever is "I don't have to agree with you to like or respect you" (Anthony Bourdain). Just because we know theists are wrong doesn't mean we have to be jerks about it. If Newton could make that mistake, anyone can, and we all know how hard it is to climb out of those sorts epistemic holes once you've found yourself in one.

But we shouldn't confuse "not being jerks" with "pretending not to know things that we do in fact know, so that people don't think we're jerks"

Comment author: byrnema 28 April 2009 06:36:15PM *  3 points [-]

we all know how hard it is to climb out of those sorts epistemic holes once you've found yourself in one.

What is the relationship between being a good rationalist and having above average or exceptional intelligence? Is climbing out an epistemic hole something anyone can do?

It's not an idle question: it has an immediate consequence of whether or not we can fault Wednesday for being religious. Would it be an ethical failing, a failing of innate talent, or something else?

Comment author: smoofra 28 April 2009 08:05:36PM 2 points [-]

Innate talent helps, good teachers help, good parents help, good books help.

But luck helps more I think.

Most people only get one chance to get it right, if they're lucky. Wednesday probably won't even get that.

Comment author: ciphergoth 27 April 2009 11:17:24PM *  8 points [-]

I think it's far from clear that staying religious will make her happier than not.

What if she's gay?

OK, I'm guessing that your Mormon parent friend isn't very comfortable with those teachings of the church. Perhaps they even openly reject them, and will make sure their daughter knows they think anyone who says otherwise is talking nonsense, even if it's the preacher. Perhaps they'll make sure and do that long before they know anything about her sexuality. How will they be with the next boundary?

Maybe it's bisexuality, or SM, or polyamory, or trans, or maybe it's something we'll hear more about in fifteen or twenty years time. Being surrounded by Mormons when you discover you have an inclination like that is uncomfortable. From what I gather about experiences like that, though, it helps to know at least that the religion isn't true, and that there's no Hell.

Even if she's none of these things, I hazard that conversion to atheism can significantly enhance the joy she can take in her sexuality. That's just one of many ways it can bring joy, it's just one dear to my heart.

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 11:33:23PM *  1 point [-]

For the purposes of the point I had in mind I'm assuming Wednesday will be cisgendered, heterosexual (or bisexual and unaware of that/aware but okay with not expressing it), and at least vanilla enough to be comfortable in Mormon culture.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 05 May 2010 07:35:40PM 6 points [-]

It's quite likely that Wednesday will have children, and not unlikely that at least one of them won't have a sexuality that fits well with Mormonism.

Are those odds enough to say that Mormonism is a loss for Wednesday?

Comment author: MBlume 02 May 2009 07:22:12AM 8 points [-]

I really don't think there is any "vanilla enough to be comfortable in Mormon culture" -- Mormon culture teaches overwhelming repression of fundamental sexual drives. It tries to make people feel guilty for masturbating, for Cthulu's sake.

I don't care who you are, what your orientation is, what your kinks are -- that kind of repression is damaging.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 May 2009 01:15:49PM *  4 points [-]

What if you're a (romantically inclined) asexual?

Edit: They exist. I know one. (I also know a non-romantic asexual, so I know the difference.)

Comment author: MBlume 02 May 2009 07:50:51PM *  3 points [-]

Wouldn't the expectation of bearing children be a bit of a problem there? Mormons are supposed to have (procreative) sex eventually, as I understand it.

Still, it was a mistake on my part to try to hold and defend the proposition "there is no such thing as a well-adjusted Mormon" -- I'm sure they are a few. My point is simply that the belief structure is very widely damaging -- that knowing nothing about Wednesday, the overwhelming probability is that she would be much better off were she free of it.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 May 2009 08:15:07PM 10 points [-]

Yes, they are expected to have kids, but asexuals don't have to be repulsed by sex, it just doesn't interest them in and of itself. The one I mentioned plans to have children naturally if possible and doesn't talk about sex as a horrifying ordeal, just a neutral prerequisite. If she were going to adopt, I'd expect her to talk about the paperwork similarly.

Comment author: frozenchicken 08 August 2010 03:55:15PM 6 points [-]

As a member of the aforementioned subgroup, I endorse this representation. Well said.

Comment author: lessdazed 25 May 2011 06:19:42AM 0 points [-]

Impressed you said so publicly and hope it helps people feel less restrained from "coming out" in general. I would not have been able to do so were I in a position like yours. I was able to recently share something a few orders of magnitude less difficult to talk about.

Comment author: MBlume 02 May 2009 08:55:28PM 1 point [-]

huh, didn't know that, thanks =)

Comment author: ciphergoth 28 April 2009 09:25:28AM 3 points [-]

Er, am I missing a reason why it's valid to look only at that side of the scales when weighing up what our attitude to religion should be?

Comment author: Alicorn 28 April 2009 02:30:39PM 3 points [-]

Hence my disclaimer. I'm only talking about a small subset of theists, represented by Wednesday, who are happy, comfortable, and totally immersed in their religion. An uncomfortable Wednesday would have extra reasons to be suspicious of Mormonism, and I would have less sympathy for the choice to remain in the faith.

Comment author: simplicio 31 January 2013 12:36:20AM 3 points [-]

Interesting post. Are your friends Jasper fforde fans? (Wednesday...)

Atheism tends to be treated as an open-and-shut case here and in other intellectually sophisticated venues, but is that fair? What about Wednesday? What would have to happen to her to get her to give up those beliefs? Well, for starters, she'd have to dramatically change her opinion of her family. Her parents care enough about honesty that they are already planning not to deceive her about Santa Claus - should she believe that they're liars?

That would be very uncharitable of her. She should continue loving them while evaluating their beliefs for herself, and criticize their beliefs to the extent that that is a good idea under the circs. That's what we all do with loved ones whom we consider wrong, isn't it? (Are other LWers ruining Christmas dinners with atheist ranting?)

Note, the whole reason we are having this conversation is because some beliefs are badges of identity, especially religious beliefs, so criticizing them is similar in emotional impact to saying "your identity sucks." This is unfortunate, but I do wish to gently point out that it is not the fault either of LessWrong or of Atheism that the rhetorical temperature is so high when such beliefs are questioned.

Is it really essential that, as a community, we exclude or dismiss or reflexively criticize theists who are good at partitioning, who like and are good at rational reasoning in every other sphere - and who just have higher priorities than being right?

I think the criticism should be done tactfully, and on their terms. But it would disrespectful of them as fellow epistemic agents to refuse to criticize their beliefs, where relevant. A person who has experienced such kid gloves "respect" will tell you that it is very unpleasant to be condescended to.

I have priorities that I'd probably put ahead of being right, too; I'm just not in a position where I really have to choose between "keeping my friends and being right", "feeling at home and being right", "eating this week and being right". That's my luck, not my cleverness, at work.

Wait: "being right" != "always blurting out what you believe." As a quote I saw recently has it, "you keep two books, not no books."

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2013 12:42:36AM 0 points [-]

"you keep two books, not no books"

What does this mean? (I had a look on the web and found only what I take to be your source -- a blog entry at "The Last Psychiatrist" -- and a few other references to that. Its meaning was no clearer to me in that context. It looks as if TLP is also quoting but if so there's no indication of where from.)

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 31 January 2013 01:00:09AM *  4 points [-]

"Books" refers to accounting (e.g. the records you would use to keep track of your business transactions). A common euphemism for manipulating your records, e.g. to lie to the IRS for tax purposes, is "cooking the books." "Keep two books" means "have two sets of records of your business transactions, one which is the actual set and one which you use to lie to people." "Keep no books" means "don't keep track of your business transactions."

The metaphor, as I interpret it, is that you should maintain a distinction between what you believe and what you signal believing (or else you run the risk of losing track of both, mixing them up, etc.).

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2013 01:18:35AM 0 points [-]

Yes, I'd thought it was probably "books" in the accounting sense. However, I was either too dim or too ethical or both for the idea "a person or company might deliberately not keep accounts, in an attempt to make fraud easier" to have occurred to me. Thank you.

(Personally, I prefer to keep exactly one book.)

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 31 January 2013 01:31:21AM *  4 points [-]

(Personally, I prefer to keep exactly one book.)

Really? I interpret this to mean "signal believing exactly the things I actually believe," which strikes me as a terrible idea in general. If you're determined to believe true things, some of the things you believe will end up being things you can't say, and saying them would not be instrumentally a good idea. Michael Vassar once pointed out that a commitment to saying what you believe disincentivizes believing things you can't say, which is, y'know, bad, and his advice was that rationalists should become more comfortable with lying.

(This is of course distinct from "signal that I signal believing exactly the things I believe," which is a great idea. If that's what you were doing, then great! Carry on.)

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2013 02:52:35AM 2 points [-]

I am determined to believe true things. I don't believe there's anything I can't say (though I have a little trouble with "heteroskedasticity") but indeed there are things it's usually better not to say. So I usually avoid saying them. If this requires a load of extra bookkeeping then I've failed to notice so far. Lying requires that second book; not saying things when saying them would have bad consequences, even if you'd otherwise feel like saying them doesn't appear to.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 31 January 2013 03:05:55AM *  1 point [-]

I don't make a strong distinction between lies in the colloquial sense and lies by omission. "Not saying things when saying them would have bad consequences" still requires that you keep track of what things it would have bad consequences to say.

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2013 10:47:48AM 6 points [-]

I find extremely few occasions when there's any need to be actually deceptive by not saying things. For the rest, no keeping track is required; a policy of the form "tell the truth, but don't say things that will cause too much trouble" suffices.

A difference between this and actually lying (in which category I include "lying by omission") is that in order to lie credibly and not get caught, you need to remember just what lies you've told to whom (in the best case, I suppose you can get by with just two "books", keeping track of the truth for yourself and a single set of lies for everyone else) and make sure it's all coherent. But any two subsets of the truth are consistent with one another.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 31 January 2013 11:33:08AM 5 points [-]

Fair. I think I shouldn't have used the word "lie" because it seems to have primed you into a direction other than the one I was headed, but I don't know a good substitute. One kind of lie I have in mind is things like explaining Newtonian physics to physics students instead of quantum mechanics or relativity. The implicit claim that Newtonian physics accurately models reality is in some sense a lie, but it's a good enough approximation for many purposes and also useful for understanding what comes after.

An analogous kind of lie in interpersonal relationships is the following. Suppose I'm on OKCupid and it asks "are you a feminist?" Before a few months ago, my answer would have been an unhesitating "yes." Now I'm not so sure. I'm trying to keep my identity small, and "feminist" is a term that comes with a lot of baggage. I don't know if I want that baggage in my identity. I'd at least like to taboo "feminist" by default.

Nevertheless, very little has changed about how I actually treat women. I want people on OKCupid to know that. They'll have a better understanding of me, or more precisely how I treat women, if I answer "yes" to this question than they will if I answer "no."

Comment author: CCC 31 January 2013 12:37:04PM 3 points [-]

One kind of lie I have in mind is things like explaining Newtonian physics to physics students instead of quantum mechanics or relativity.

I have heard this sort of thing referred to as "lies-to-children". Your average junior school is full of them. (All numbers are on the number line! The atom is like a very tiny solar system!)

Comment author: satt 11 February 2013 06:25:38AM 2 points [-]

I've been thinking that "keep your identity emergent" or "keep your identity honest" might be better advice than "keep your identity small". That is, people should let their identity emerge as a consequence of their individual object-level views, instead of deriving their individual object-level views from their identity. That reversal of causation seems to me the problem with identity, not identity in itself. So instead of deleting almost all of my identity (and how would I know which little bits to keep?), I should figure out my object-level beliefs first, and then summarize them as aspects of my identity.

Using feminism as an example, if I notice one day that I'm identifying as a feminist, I stop and ask myself about each of the individual object-level issues that feminism touches upon. If my views on those object-level issues really & truly align with those connoted by the "feminism" label, I might as well identify as a feminist; the identifier arises organically from the beliefs. If my views don't align with it, then I should stop identifying as a feminist. (My views could of course change over time, in which case I adopt/drop the identification accordingly.)

Your comment shows one advantage to this approach: it's less liable to mislead people than simply keeping one's identity "small". If I agree with the X-ist cluster of beliefs and behave accordingly, other people might well have a more accurate model of me if I self-identify as an X-ist than if I stoutly refuse to identify as such. (Of course, if I want to taboo "X-ism" in a conversation, it can make sense to avoid identifying as an X-ist. But doing so indiscriminately can increase confusion & exasperation rather than reduce them.)

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2013 04:10:50PM 1 point [-]

With the first sort of kinda-lie, there's again little keeping-track needed. You have some particular not-quite-right theory that you're putting forward; it's basically coherent and matches the world reasonably well, because otherwise you wouldn't be using it. And even if you slip up and mention some quantum or relativistic stuff to your students, no serious harm is done.

With the second sort, surely it's universally understood that all you're saying when you answer this sort of question is that "yes" is a less misleading answer than "no". So again I don't see any particular need for keeping-track on this account. If I were making an OKCupid profile and had to answer that question, I too would answer yes. If asked in a context that allowed for a more detailed answer, I would give one. No lying or other deception required. (Of course that might discourage possible partners who don't like detailed answers, but that's a feature, not a bug.)

I have encountered very few situations in interpersonal relationships where deliberate deception is required.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that I absolutely never lie. But not lying is my goal, I seldom deviate from it, I strongly suspect that most such deviations I make are actually not in my best interests, and I have not found it necessary to keep track of anything much about The Lies I Tell Others.

You may of course believe me or not, as you please :-).

Comment author: [deleted] 31 January 2013 12:12:23PM 0 points [-]

(though I have a little trouble with "heteroskedasticity")

That doesn't feel particularly tongue-twisty to me, for a word of that length. Try “red lorry, yellow lorry”. :-)

Comment author: gjm 31 January 2013 03:29:55PM 0 points [-]

Oh yes, there are other worse things of similar length. I confess that I chose that example partly because I like the word.

Comment author: Dan_Moore 31 January 2013 08:09:54PM 0 points [-]

I think homoskedasticity has more intriguing possibilities as a desired-for attribute that begins with 'homo.'

Comment author: Oligopsony 31 January 2013 01:39:25AM 0 points [-]

signal

Aaaarghdvghhv

Comment author: scientism 27 April 2009 08:53:33PM 3 points [-]

The thing with atheism, or a naturalistic outlook generally, is not what it does for individuals but what it does for society generally to have more "out" atheists/naturalists. Maybe individually-speaking it'd make some peoples' lives harder but the more openly atheistic individuals we have the better off we all are. I think that's a good reason to both encourage others to become openly atheistic and to become openly atheistic oneself despite negative consequences.

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 08:56:24PM 0 points [-]

It's unlikely that Wednesday would - without deconversion - think that having more open atheists wandering around would be a good thing in and of itself.

Comment author: MBlume 27 April 2009 09:08:27PM 3 points [-]

Funny thing: before deconversion, I read Dispatches From the Culture Wars and occasionally Pharyngula, and generally perceived them as being the good guys and many of my own coreligionists as the bad guys.

Of course, this state of cognitive dissonance only lasted a few months, but still.

Comment author: Alicorn 28 April 2009 02:38:17AM 3 points [-]

It's not at all uncommon to side with the perspective character, so to speak, when you read about someone - even someone who disagrees with you. Additionally, siding with certain sorts of atheist bloggers and against the theists they oppose could signify a desire for tolerance more than a belief in the metaphysical propositions at hand.

Comment author: MrHen 27 April 2009 05:58:44PM *  3 points [-]

Would giving up her religion help Wednesday win? [...] It doesn't seem that it would make her any richer, happier, more successful - especially if she carries on living in Utah. [...] It would make her right. And that would be all it would do - if she were lucky.

When asking if she wins it would help to understand what winning means. Is the contest being right? Than she wins by being right. Is the contest not pissing your family off? Than she wins by not pissing her family off.

If "winning" is maximizing value, what does she gain by being wrong? Friends and fuzzies? If that is more useful, than so be it. The danger here is establishing some form of cognitive dissonance where everything in the back of the rationalist Wednesday's mind is screaming that Mormonism is wrong but she smiles and says she believes. I do not consider this to be useful, so I claim this is a losing scenario. If you bump into the obvious truth it is difficult to close Pandora's Box. You may want to close it, but simply pretending it is close is not a winning option.

Ironically, I personally think that some atheists do the same thing. They want to believe God does not exist but never really do. Saying that you believe something when you don't is bad. The particular belief is irrelevant.

The short summary:

  • Wednesday should not be afraid of the truth because she fears what others may do to her
  • Wednesday should not lie to herself about what she believes
  • If Wednesday looks at the evidence and considers Mormonism to be lacking she should face the crisis of faith instead of trying to ignore the evidence
  • Wednesday should ask her family and friends how they respond to the evidence. This may or may not ease tensions but it usually helps amongst reasonable, friendly people.
  • If Wednesday sees the evidence and decides to believe Mormonism, she has made her choice. If she believes the evidence and decides to try Mormonism anyway... that may be bad.

ETA:

When Wednesday has been born and has learned to read, it would be nice if there were a place for her here.

And I completely agree with this. I am not a terribly bit fan of kicking anyway out unless they are explicitly causing trouble. Someone who makes a bunch of stupid posts should get their karma hammered and will no longer post. Sounds right to me.

Comment author: MBlume 27 April 2009 06:27:25PM 9 points [-]

If Wednesday sees the argument for cryonics and dismisses it out of hand because her religion guarantees her an infinite life, and if a positive singularity occurs >100 years from now, Wednesday will lose nearly everything in that one moment of dismissal, because of her religion.

Comment author: AlexU 28 April 2009 09:30:18PM *  7 points [-]

A problem I have with the LW community is this background assumption that infinite life somehow equals infinite utility, that living forever is clearly the rational goal, and that anyone (the vast majority of people, it seems) who doesn't express any particular zeal for this notion is deluded, irrational, or under religion's spell. A long, healthy life is certainly desirable to most people, but I think there are good, irreligious, perfectly sensible reasons for not placing any great value on immortality or living to see the distant future.

Comment author: lessdazed 25 May 2011 06:29:10AM 2 points [-]

My pet peeve is when people equate living for a long time with living forever or immortality.

Pet peeves are like opinions, everybody has one.

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 07:17:50PM 3 points [-]

Not necessarily. I have a different Mormon friend who wants to be immortal - not just in the going to heaven sense, but also in the not dying sense. She'd probably go for cryonics, if she saw an argument informing her of its potential. Maybe Wednesday would too.

Comment author: JenniferRM 06 May 2010 09:49:14PM *  9 points [-]

Stephanie Meyer's "Twilight" books are fascinating in this regard. Meyer is Mormon and she doesn't inject her religion into her books any obvious ways (for example, theological issues are never mentioned and none of the characters attends church) but there is a fascinating "pro life" theme that includes both the desire to procreate and the desire to be an immortal vampire if and only if it is possible to be a vampire who restrains their innate urge to tear out the necks of mortals and feast upon their blood.

Once I started reading vampire chick lit with an interpretative frame that it was a sort of "publicly accessible" meditation on the real world ethics of transhumanist immortalism, these stories became a lot more philosophically interesting. I watched Vampire Hunter D after seeing the connection and found myself rooting for the vampire :-P

The critical thing I'm trying to point to is that Meyer's story appears to be anti-abortion and also pro-vampire. And then there's the existence of the Mormon Transhumanist Association...

Personally I think that the lesswrong community might have a phobic reaction to theism specifically because some religious people (especially first generation converts to new religions of which Mormonism has many) are prone to mentally flinching from obvious conclusions... and sometimes they use their theology to justify doing kind of messed up things to their children. The children grow up and sometimes leap to specifically materialist atheism in an emotional counter-reaction.

I have not seen strong evidence in either direction for materialism versus an idea like simulationism except to the degree that materialism inherently pre-judges the answers to questions like (1) whether there might be some "supernatural" monkey business going on in the corners of apparent physical reality or (2) whether a timing attack on physics might produce interesting results (or cause reality to crash).

I think second and third generation theists are more likely to be open to the idea of cryonics and the reasonableness of ethically pursued transhumanist aspirations. You can put all kinds of mumbo-jumbo in people's heads, and while it might make them very frustrating parents, after a generation or three I don't think it will hurt very much, and it might selfishly help them cooperate with other members of their tribe (more than it hurts government policy if people signal their tribal allegiance by voting for, say, dumb educational policies).

By the same token, it wouldn't totally surprise me if first generation converts from theism to rationality may be going beyond the evidence in some of their initial conclusions, specifically because of the passion with which they left a fundamentalist theism and started subscribing to "fundamentalist rationality".

Comment author: Alicorn 06 May 2010 10:00:12PM 3 points [-]

I don't see a sufficient justification to interpret Twilight as anti-abortion independent of the fact that Meyer is a Mormon. It's against forced abortion, but the person whose choice is relevant - the pregnant woman - wants her baby, and takes steps to keep it, over the objections of generally sympathetic characters who advise her otherwise.

Comment author: Sticky 06 May 2010 10:08:49PM 0 points [-]

So... have you provided her with the arguments?

Comment author: Alicorn 06 May 2010 10:11:05PM 2 points [-]

She wants to sign up but needs to a) talk to her fiancé, and b) wait until after the wedding, which is currently eating her money very hungrily.

Comment author: gjm 27 April 2009 07:20:38PM 0 points [-]

That's a lot of ifs.

If Wednesday deconverts, and then there's a positive singularity 30 years from now and it happens that some key people involved in its early stages are Mormons who somehow take steps to ensure that ex-Mormons get as little of the benefits as possible, then she will lose nearly everything on account of her deconversion. But so what?

Comment author: hamflask 28 April 2009 02:31:46AM 7 points [-]

I would say that a religious person dismissing cryonics is at least an order of magnitude more likely than the scenario you proposed.

Comment author: gjm 28 April 2009 09:06:00AM 4 points [-]

I take it you mean that the whole scenario MBlume proposed is at least an order of magnitude more likely than the whole scenario I proposed. Quite possibly; but not, I think, much more than an order of magnitude. And I don't think either scenario dominates the landscape in such a way that we can tell whether or not Wednesday should deconvert on the basis of that one scenario.

"If you do X, the very bad thing Y could be a consequence" is not generally a good argument for doing X.

Comment author: ChrisPine 09 May 2010 12:51:31PM 6 points [-]

It doesn't seem that it would make her any richer, happier, more successful...

Sounds like you weren't raised Mormon. :)

I was, so naturally what I'm about to say is extremely personal and important to me, and likely to be subject to the "what's true for me must be true for all Mormons", which is absurd, as most Mormons do not go one to become atheists as I have, but still...

...I cannot imagine how one could embrace the beauty and magnificence of this big world if one is stuck in the much smaller world of Mormonism. The contradictions mount and mount, until one of the following must happen:

  • one gives up on Mormonism,
  • one gives up on Worldly Things,
  • one learns to not be bothered by contradictions. (am I missing any possiblilities?)

I claim that giving up on the Extra-Mormon world does make one much less happy, and I just can't imagine being happy in a life of contradictions... but maybe that's just me?

Anyway, for the sake of their happiness, I want my children to have the whole world open to them, and I hope Wednesday will have the same.

Comment author: JohnH 20 April 2011 08:05:12PM 0 points [-]

what contradictions?

Comment author: ChrisPine 11 May 2011 09:55:13AM 3 points [-]

Wow... this was from a long time ago, and I don't remember exactly what I was thinking at the time, but I can try some guesses:

Contradictions in fact: there's really no good evidence for god or Jesus or the Book of Mormon or the Bible... these things are (at least to me) clearly false. (This is a site on rationality, not atheism, so I don't want to get caught up in a discussion on atheism... but if one is honest and rational, the contradictions abound.)

Contradictions in morality: Is alcohol really wrong? Smoking? Coffee?? Not sure what the Mormon positions are on things like oral/anal sex with one's spouse, but I'm pretty sure that they are not at all into masturbation, threesomes/foursomes/moresomes, bi-/homosexuality, swinging, or just about any form of polyamory. Sorry, but these things are fun!! They are simply not sinful, and not wrong. (Sure, any of these could be abused, but the same could be said of candles or canned corn... "could be abused" is not a sufficient condition for "sinful".)

And finally... I'm not sure if there are any vegan Mormons (there probably are), but it seems like the Mormon position on such things (I don't claim to know! only guessing!) is that animals are here for humans to use. As a vegan, I vehemently disagree. I'm guessing that the Mormon church would not have a problem with a member living a vegan lifestyle (would not consider it wrong to so do), but would consider it wrong (at least in the sense of "incorrect", if not in the sense of "immoral") to believe that killing animals is wrong.

I don't think there's a lot of room for one to make up one's own mind about morality/ethics in the Mormon church (and probably in many religions). Considering how many things I think are wrong that the church is just fine with, and how many things the church thinks are wrong that I think are tons of fun... I would be far less happy to still be Mormon.

I'm guessing that's what I was trying to say, almost exactly one year ago.

Comment author: ChrisPine 28 January 2013 05:39:11PM 2 points [-]

I read this, and thought of Wednesday: "Among all American religions, Mormonism is the single most sexually guilt ridden. Mormonism scores 37%% higher in sexual guilt than even Catholics."

from here: http://www.atheismresource.com/2012/sex-god-a-new-and-fascinating-book-by-darrel-ray

I don't know how many ex-mormons you've talked to, but I've talked to quite a few, and in nearly every case we were miserable in the church, and much happier outside of it.

Comment author: MixedNuts 28 January 2013 05:55:31PM 2 points [-]

That's purely filtering, isn't it? Anyone who isn't miserable, or doesn't expect to stop being miserable if they get out, stays in.

Comment author: ChrisPine 01 February 2013 06:39:54PM 1 point [-]

The second part is largely a filtering effect, yes. I probably should have left that part out. But the first part was a study done on Mormons, not ex-Mormons. Extreme sexual guilt is a big part of growing up Mormon.

I've heard a number of stories of "good" Mormons getting married and finally being allowed to have sex, and... they can't do it. They can't handle it. Or they manage to, several days later, only to end up feeling horribly guilty about it, locked in the bathroom, crying...

It's not a happy religion.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 28 January 2013 06:09:18PM *  0 points [-]

That seems to assume that people always do what would make them less miserable, even if they don't know that to be the case.

Comment author: Nornagest 28 January 2013 06:26:19PM 0 points [-]

I wouldn't venture to speculate how much more dissatisfied with the church ex-Mormons are than average active Mormons, but I think we can expect to see a substantial difference just from identity effects.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 May 2012 01:04:15PM 2 points [-]

we exclude or dismiss or reflexively criticize theists who are good at partitioning

Well, yes. That heuristic tends to work, because partitioned theism is usually correlated with bleed-over into other spheres of reasoning, which can hurt people (immortal soul belief discounting cryonics thus leaving person-containing brains to rot in graves). Human partitions are never perfect, and so it is better from a mathematical standpoint to have none.

After all, we are required under pain of stupidity and becoming victims of clever fraudsters, to follow the mathematical theorems of bayesian reasoning.

Comment author: steven0461 27 April 2009 06:57:28PM 2 points [-]

If everybody outside your state believed you were adopted, wouldn't that make you want to reconsider? That's one point where I don't accept the analogy.

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 07:22:37PM *  0 points [-]

Less than a quarter of all Mormons live in Utah, and less than half of them live in the United States. They're just very thick on the ground in that one location.

Comment author: steven0461 27 April 2009 07:31:52PM 2 points [-]

OK, not literally everyone. Point stands, though -- you cannot rationally treat your family's beliefs as more informative than the beliefs of strangers on the other side of the planet with the same relevant characteristics.

Comment author: infotropism 27 April 2009 05:25:41PM 2 points [-]

In maybe 15 years of time, Wednesday comes to this place, or what this place has become by then. She is still a Mormon, and is welcomed. She is interested in participating, because she is open minded enough, educated, and the community is tolerant and helpful. So she gets to learn about rationality, and is taken into the process of becoming a rationalist herself, and a productive, healthy member of the rationalist community.

My question : and after a few months or years of that, does she still remain a Mormon, or a believer in the supernatural ?

If yes, how does she reconcile that with the fact that a few of the priors behind religions are wrong ? That religion requires self deception to work, at some level ? Will there be some projects in which she won't be able to participate, simply because they are at odds with those beliefs ?

If not, then how does she reconcile that with her past life ? How will it impact her already established relationships ? How easy or difficult will it be for her to change her mind ?

Comment author: Furcas 27 April 2009 06:42:59PM *  5 points [-]

It would make her right. And that would be all it would do - if she were lucky.

Huh. Do you need me to post a few dozen links to articles detailing incidents where Mormons did evil acts because of their religious beliefs? I mean, Mormonism isn't as inherently destructive as Islam, but it's not Buddhism either.

Anyway, even if Wednesday ended up living her life without once doing harm to others or to herself because of her beliefs, deconverting would still be a good idea: At the very least, theism will distort the rest of her priorities, because they will be in competition with delusion-based priorities like "I want to please God", and "I want my friends and family to go to the highest level of Heaven". Becoming an atheist would therefore allow her to put the right importance on her real priorities.

Comment author: Simetrical 28 April 2009 09:29:46PM 4 points [-]

Huh. Do you need me to post a few dozen links to articles detailing incidents where Mormons did evil acts because of their religious beliefs? I mean, Mormonism isn't as inherently destructive as Islam, but it's not Buddhism either.

Do you have empirical evidence that Mormons are more likely to cause harm than atheists? (Let's say in the clear-cut sense of stabbing people instead of in the sense of spreading irrationality.) Mormons might do more bad things because their god requires it, but atheists might do more bad things because they don't have a god to require otherwise. They might be more likely to become nihilists or solipsists and not care about other people, say, acting purely selfishly. A priori, I have no idea which one is correct.

It seems that as a rationalist, you should be wary of assigning high probabilities here without direct empirical evidence. Especially since you presumably suffer from in-group bias. But perhaps you're aware of studies that support your view that religion is harmful in a simple sense?

(If you consider spreading religion inherently evil, then you have more reason to presume that Mormonism is harmful. You would still have to argue that the harm outweighs any possible benefit, but you'd have a stronger case for assuming that. However, by your comparisons to Islam and Buddhism you seem to mean plain old violence and so forth.)

Comment author: CronoDAS 02 May 2009 02:42:51PM *  4 points [-]

Do you have empirical evidence that Mormons are more likely to cause harm than atheists? (Let's say in the clear-cut sense of stabbing people instead of in the sense of spreading irrationality.)

I'll claim that, yes, I do have such evidence. The Mormon Church funded many advertisements in favor of California Proposition 8 which denies civil rights to homosexuals.

Comment author: Simetrical 04 May 2009 11:42:07PM 0 points [-]

Even accepting the premise that voting for the proposition was clearly wrong, that's a single anecdote. It does nothing to demonstrate that Mormons are overall worse people than atheists. It is only a single point in the atheists' favor. I could respond with examples of atheists doing terrible things, e.g., the amount of suffering caused by communists.

Anecdotes are not reliable evidence; you need a careful, thorough, and systematic analysis to be able to make confident statements. It's really surprised me how commonly people supply purely anecdotal evidence here and expect it to be accepted (and how often it is accepted!). This is a site all about promoting rationalism, and part of that is reserving judgment unless you have good evidence.

I really don't think a systematic analysis of the morality of Mormons vs. atheists exists, for any given utility function. That kind of analysis is probably close to impossible, in fact, even if you can precisely specify a utility function that a lot of people will agree on. To begin with, it would absolutely have to be controlled to be meaningful ― the cultural, etc. backgrounds of atheists are surely not comparable on average to those of Mormons.

I think this is an issue that rationalists just need to admit uncertainty about. That's life, when you're rational. Only religious people get to be certain most of the time about moral issues. A Mormon asked the same question would be able to say with confidence that the atheists caused more evil, since not following Mormonism is so evil that it would clearly outweigh any minor statistical differences between the two groups in terms of things like violent crime. If you believe in utility functions that depend on all sorts of complex empirical questions, you really can't answer most moral questions very confidently.

Comment author: badger 05 May 2009 12:07:41AM 5 points [-]

It does nothing to demonstrate that Mormons are overall worse people than atheists. It is only a single point in the atheists' favor.

I think these two sentences are contradictory. If it is a point in favor of the proposition that atheists are better in some regard than Mormons, then it does something to demonstrate the general case, if only weakly.

Rationality is not about reserving judgment until ideal evidence is available. Rationality is incorporating all the evidence at your disposal. I agree that most of the evidence available is mixed and weak, so it shouldn't be overweighted, but it is still relevant.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 May 2009 02:52:25PM 0 points [-]

I agree that this was not a good thing for them to do, but I don't think it falls into the "clear-cut sense of stabbing people".

Comment author: byrnema 27 April 2009 09:13:25PM 1 point [-]

Wednesday will also be regularly informed that several of these people are in a position to have special knowledge on the subject via direct prayer-derived evidence

I don't think we can fault Wednesday for not challenging the anecdotal evidence of God if it hasn't occurred to her to do so. She might not be very interested in religion, and, having no desire to think deeply on the subject, is willing to take their word for it. In fact, she may really be agnostic about religion, and is a prime candidate for conversion.

It is when she is faced with evidence that God does not exist and still persists in her belief that she is irrational. She may choose to continue believing in her religion for many really good reasons X,Y,Z, but the bottom line is that those reasons are more important to her than the truth. So she's not rational in the sense of a person trying to optimally base decisions on the truth (the whole truth). She would rather have her decisions based on her societal norms, for the reasons X, Y, Z.

Comment author: Alicorn 28 April 2009 02:36:26AM 2 points [-]

It is my suspicion that "agnostic" may be too generous a word for someone who accepts a convenient religion because she doesn't care. "Apatheist"?

Comment author: byrnema 28 April 2009 04:16:54AM 1 point [-]

Do you dislike this version of Wednesday?

Certain words ("too generous", "convenient", "doesn't care") make me feel like you're angry with her.

Comment author: Alicorn 28 April 2009 04:35:51AM *  1 point [-]

Hmm. I hadn't been aware of disliking this version. However, I do have a general dislike of thoughtless (by which I just mean not thinking very much, not "inconsiderate") people. And that combines with the unease I have with the idea of a future in which her parents have - by their own lights - failed to parent her well enough; I have enough empathy with my friend to be disturbed by such a scenario, even though by certain standards of course I think some such situations would be an improvement. It's possible one or both of those emotional reactions was conveyed in my word choice.

Comment author: steven0461 27 April 2009 05:15:49PM 1 point [-]

Almost everyone who thinks he or she has higher priorities than being right actually does not have higher priorities than being right, but doesn't place enough priority on being right to see that this is the case. This is why we should avoid the "rationalists should win" mantra -- figuring out what "winning" means is at least as essential as actually winning.

I reject out of hand the idea that she should deconvert in the closet and systematically lie to everyone she knows.

Rejecting options out of hand is bad, especially when the alternatives suck.

Comment author: Alicorn 27 April 2009 05:22:20PM 0 points [-]

Almost everyone who thinks he or she has higher priorities than being right actually does not have higher priorities than being right, but doesn't place enough priority on being right to see that this is the case.

Can you help me disentangle what you mean by this? There seems to be some equivocation.

Rejecting options out of hand is bad, especially when the alternatives suck.

I rejected that option for ethical reasons. The alternatives do suck, but "carry on believing as always" and "deconvert, then tell an uncomfortable truth" are at least not unethical.

Comment author: steven0461 27 April 2009 06:37:04PM 4 points [-]

For clarification, see my reply to MrHen.

The alternatives do suck, but "carry on believing as always" and "deconvert, then tell an uncomfortable truth" are at least not unethical.

Choosing to believe falsely and then speaking honestly is at least as unethical as choosing to believe truly and then lying. The former amounts to lying and then committing the further ethical crime of believing one's own lies.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 27 April 2009 05:32:01PM *  0 points [-]

Almost everyone who thinks he or she has higher priorities than being right actually does not have higher priorities than being right, but doesn't place enough priority on being right to see that this is the case. This is why we should avoid the "rationalists should win" mantra -- figuring out what "winning" means is at least as essential as actually winning.

That's open to interpretation. The procedure by which you are figuring out what " winning " means is itself a rational pursuit, that should better be precisely targeted, with " winning' " in that meta-game already fixed. You have to stop somewhere, and actually write the code.

Comment author: steven0461 27 April 2009 06:42:48PM 0 points [-]

You do indeed have to stop somewhere, but any algorithm that stops before rejecting everything that's at least one tenth as wrong as Mormonism is broken.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 27 April 2009 08:17:19PM 1 point [-]

Huh? The algorithm doesn't stop, the meta-meta-goal has to be fixed at some point.

Comment author: CCC 31 January 2013 06:47:52AM 1 point [-]

When Wednesday has been born and has learned to read, it would be nice if there were a place for her here.

Well, I'm not Mormon (and not called Wednesday), but I'm not atheist either. I've never felt particularly unwelcome here. So I think that there is a place for Wednesday.

Comment author: jooyous 31 January 2013 07:30:07AM 1 point [-]

When Wednesday has been born and has learned to read, it would be nice if there were a place for her here.

Maybe there are implementable and surveyable things we can do to become more welcoming?

Comment author: CCC 31 January 2013 08:30:15AM 2 points [-]

Maybe there are implementable and surveyable things we can do to become more welcoming?

From my point of view, one of the best ways to be welcoming is simply to be polite. It's simple but extremely effective. A second, simple method is to avoid the use of sarcasm; in a pure-text medium, it will almost always be misinterpreted as sincere by someone.

Add in a good understanding of the halo effect and how to avoid bias on that count and I think you're halfway there. The other half relies on the visitor; for best results, the visitor should operate under the same constraints of politeness, avoiding sarcasm, and avoiding halo-effect bias.

That's my view, anyhow. I'm not quite sure how best to survey these, although they do seem to be fairly widely implemented already.

Comment author: jooyous 31 January 2013 08:47:59AM *  2 points [-]

I agree with most of those, but I'm not convinced that's the best we can do? For example, it's not quite the same thing to be polite as it is to be effusively welcoming (I was just reading this article and I believe religious groups are extremely good at that that initial meeting where they really effusively offer to help you out with everything) which also is difficult to do in a text medium. (I feel like I use the most exclamation marks out of anyone here!) Feeling like people are tolerating you is different than feeling like they like you and want you around. =]

I also think politeness is not quite enough to handle frustration, which may mess up otherwise productive discussions. For example, when someone offers interesting counter-arguments, I usually don't have a problem thinking about them pretty calmly. But I've found people will frequently talk past each other? Like someone will say a lot of correct things that I agree with that, but that don't really address my initial concern -- which is pretty frustrating and causes me to make less sense when replying to them. Maybe adding some kind of handshake culture where we have a "Do I understand that you are saying (paraphrase)?" before we start discussing something would help with that issue? This would be consistent with making sure we understand the problem before offering solutions. And maybe we could mark different threads with different levels of these handshake requirements? Something! But also just generally writing in a style that takes into account that the person we're engaging ... might be frustrated.

Comment author: CCC 31 January 2013 09:50:00AM 1 point [-]

For example, it's not quite the same thing to be polite as it is to be effusively welcoming

But would that be better? If one is too effusively welcoming, that might be seen as creepy and chase people away.

Now, the optimal strategy would be one that creates a true impression that one is liked, and that others would like one to remain around. (If someone is not liked, then the optimal strategy, assuming infinite resources and time, would be to persuade them to become more likeable). The question, then, is what strategy creates that impression?

I think that the karma system does a part of that; it allows a visitor to find out which behaviours are appreciated and which are not in a simple and straightforward way.


I also think politeness is not quite enough to handle frustration, which may mess up otherwise productive discussions. For example, when someone offers interesting counter-arguments, I usually don't have a problem thinking about them pretty calmly. But I've found people will frequently talk past each other?

Ah; I think that this is, strictly speaking, a seperate issue; the issue of clear communication. Paraphrasing the other person's argument is, I've found, often a helpful way of dealing with such a situation; so the handshake that you propose is a valid solution. However, the already-present meme of tabooing certain words seems to me to have the same, if not greater, benefits.

A certain degree of empathy - by which I mean, understanding what the other person is thinking - is also a useful skill to develop for this sort of situation.

Comment author: jooyous 01 February 2013 07:19:30PM 4 points [-]

Ooh, here's another community practice that would be nice to adopt: after you have a long comment thread with someone where you clarify some stuff, if they said "oh okay, now I undstand!" instead of just disappearing when they understand, it would feel much better. That's happened to me a few times here. =\

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 01 February 2013 07:26:06PM 1 point [-]

If they disappear, how do you know it's because they understand and not because they don't understand and don't care anymore?

Comment author: jooyous 01 February 2013 07:37:00PM 2 points [-]

That's exactly the problem! There's currently no way to tell, although it would be useful to know. It would be nice if disappearing consistently indicated not caring anymore so you could gauge how effective you are at clarifying things.

Comment author: CCC 02 February 2013 07:03:23PM 1 point [-]

I quite see your point, and I agree. That would be useful data. While some may simply upvote the post that made them understand instead of replying, I don't think that that would be sufficient; neither the identity of the upvoter nor the reason for the upvote would be readily apparent.

Comment author: jooyous 31 January 2013 10:17:35AM *  3 points [-]

Now, the optimal strategy would be one that creates a true impression that one is liked, and that others would like one to remain around. (If someone is not liked, then the optimal strategy, assuming infinite resources and time, would be to persuade them to become more likeable). The question, then, is what strategy creates that impression?

I think the practice of chewing apart someone's religion is pretty emotionally trying and leaves the person feeling like the community hates their entire being/identity, despite their generally polite and civil tone, and the top level article is about acknowledging and repairing emotional damage after exchanges like this. So, some sort of active statement of "I still like you! You are still cool! Thank you for the nice discussion! Would you like to also talk about this here math thing? I would love to know what you think!" would hopefully make chewed-apart people (Wednesday?) feel much better about hanging around here.

Actually, I think the "I still like you!" issue is pretty similar to the sarcasm issue in written word. Because IRL you can use subtle clues to show you still like the person, like smile and speak softer after you're done debating god and things. Or pat them! Here, all I've got is exclamation marks. And text emoticons?

Comment author: CCC 31 January 2013 12:33:46PM 1 point [-]

I think the practice of chewing apart someone's religion is pretty emotionally trying and leaves the person feeling like the community hates their entire being/identity,

Yes, it would be. In my experience, I haven't felt that my religion has been chewed apart; by and large, most people on the site seem to shrug and ignore it. So this situation hasn't yet turned up here for me.

Though you are right; such a sentiment would go a long way towards repairing emotional damage. Actively pointing out and encouraging behaviour that you like is a good way to get people to behave that way more often. I think that's most of the reason for the karma system; to upvote posts encourages similar behaviour in the future. Replying, with specific reasons for an upvote, encourages a more specific behaviour (and upvoting the encouraging post will probably reinforce the enouragement).

In person, I'm told that eye contact and attentive listening work surprisingly well.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 27 April 2009 06:05:24PM *  1 point [-]

Wednesday is wrong. Yet it might well be better for an average Wednesday to remain religious.

The costs associated with remaining religious depend on how you'd live your life otherwise, on whether you'd realistically find something better to do with your attention and caring. In a perfect world, deconversion will always be worthwhile. Given the real-world overhead and apathy/blindness to opening opportunities, it may not be.

Comment author: HughRistik 27 April 2009 05:56:18PM 1 point [-]

The case of Wednesday an excellent example of why I argued that religious belief can be perfectly sane.

Is it really essential that, as a community, we exclude or dismiss or reflexively criticize theists who are good at partitioning, who like and are good at rational reasoning in every other sphere - and who just have higher priorities than being right?

I think many theists criticized are not quite as immersed as Wednesday will be. Believing what you thinking is right doesn't require going out and alienating all your friends with it (though I've had some pretty heated discussions with friends). I agree that being a closet atheist in Wednesday's case would be very hard, but it might not be so hard for other theists.

The way I understand rationality is that at least cognitively, there is no higher priority than being right. For various reasons, such as those that you observe in this post, this ideal is difficult for humans to achieve. Consequently, rationality is better seen as a virtue that humans embody on a continuum (though there may be qualitative and categorical differences at some points on that continuum, such as engaging in a certain logical fallacy vs. not engaging in it, or whether you question the views of people on your "side," ever).

When Wednesday has been born and has learned to read, it would be nice if there were a place for her here.

I hope there is a place here for anyone interested in rational discourse, regardless of whether 100% of their beliefs are rational. There are many other other failures of rationality besides theism. Anyone coming here holding ideological beliefs (whether theistic or not) should not be surprised when those beliefs are met with skepticism, however.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 October 2013 04:26:09PM 0 points [-]

When Wednesday has been born and has learned to read, it would be nice if there were a place for her here.

Maybe we should add an option to the next censur that asks whether people feel welcome to know whether the theists that exist on lesswrong actually feel unwelcome?

Comment author: JohnH 20 April 2011 08:02:01PM 0 points [-]

Wednesday will be informed that not only several but everyone in the entire world is in a position to have special knowledge on the subject via direct prayer-derived experience. She will also be informed to seek out these experiences for herself as ones persons experiences can not be applied to another person. Further those experiences should not be a general feeling of good-will, feeling at one with the universe, strong emotions, uncontrollable crying, etc. as those are not the characteristics of the spirit per LDS doctrine (or dogma if you insist). Instead the experience, whether it includes visions or just the still small voice of the spirit should provide her with knowledge that she could not other wise obtain that is actionable and if testable turn out to be correct as well as making sense. Not everything is testable as we are not able to go back and make a different decision to see what would have happened. As a desire to believe is sufficient to be baptized she will most likely be baptized even if she has not actually had such experiences, but if she takes her religion seriously (which hopefully she should) then she will seek such experiences and from my own experience she will receive them if she does so in the correct manner (being actually wanting an answer and willing to follow whatever the answer is, assuming the answer fits the criteria of what is an actual answer and what is not.

Further if Wednesday's parents are familiar with the doctrine enough then they should welcome you or anyone else that has a different view of the world in to present that view to them and Wednesday. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claims to deal in truth wherever it is to be found so if you have some truth they should welcome it and if you have falsehoods then they should be easy enough to correct. Further, if her and her parents take the doctrine seriously they should not make fun of you for doing so, though they may present their beliefs and reasoning’s for them to you. As per one of the central tenets: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. “ -Articles of Faith, 11

Further if her parents understand their religion they should not shun or ostracize her should she decide not continue to be a saint. Please be aware that not everyone understands this with in the LDS church, we do not claim to be perfect people but to be people seeking perfection.

Comment author: CuSithBell 20 April 2011 08:40:41PM 4 points [-]

It sounds like you're saying you've received testable knowledge you couldn't otherwise have received in this manner. Would you mind expanding on that?

Comment author: JohnH 20 April 2011 11:12:34PM -1 points [-]

Miracles do not follow belief but follow those that believe. Having read a fair number of articles on this site, I know the kind of dismissal to expect should I share any specific experience of mine. As these are sacred to me, I consider it not prudent to share them in a place where I know they'll be ridiculed.

However, I know that everyone that is willing may themselves have such experiences. I know that God is real, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and Thomas S. Monson is a Prophet. I know that if anyone follows the steps laid out in Moroni 10:3-5 (see also Alma 32, James 1:3-5) they can for themselves gain such knowledge.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 April 2011 12:12:48AM *  3 points [-]

Miracles do not follow belief but follow those that believe. Having read a fair number of articles on this site, I know the kind of dismissal to expect should I share any specific experience of mine. As these are sacred to me, I consider it not prudent to share them in a place where I know they'll be ridiculed.

Question: If a chassidic Jew came in here and said the same thing about miracles he saw his Rebbe perform, would you take his miracles with the same level of credence that you assign your own? If not, why not?

Comment author: JohnH 21 April 2011 01:09:24AM -1 points [-]

A complete answer of this would require a fairly detailed look at the LDS view of faith. To be short there are many multiples of ways that miracles may occur. Miracles do not by themselves produce faith in anything as the chassidic Jew should know. ( per Egypt not being converted and the unfaithfulness of the children of Israel in the wilderness despite the miracles that were performed (at some point daily) in their behalf). The existence of a miracle does not by itself say anything about a belief system.

"And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith." - 2 Nephi 26:13

You might want to look more at the topic of LDS and their view of Jews (see Orson Hyde's dedication of Jerusalem for the gathering of the Jews in 1842, as well as Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and most other prophets in all of LDS scripture).

Interesting question for someone that isn't interested in apologetics.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 April 2011 01:17:58AM 3 points [-]

I'm sorry if the example of a chassidic Jew created more theological complications than intended. The point was a member of another religion. If it helps, imagine a religion completely orthogonal to anything in the Abrahamic tradition, like say Hinduism. Do you treat your own perceived miracles as different from those of the Hindu? If so, why are they different?

Interesting question for someone that isn't interested in apologetics.

I am not the general LW community. I consider apologetics to be very interesting. But LW has a general established set of goals and attitudes about these things, so I will focus here purely on the basic issues related to epistemological and rationalist considerations. Hence the focus on how you would respond to other religions making fundamentally similar claims. And I'll only do so as long as there's not a feeling that our discussion is damaging the signal to noise ratio. I will however recommend that you read the Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions sequence (it is admittedly rather long).

Comment author: JohnH 21 April 2011 05:08:23PM -2 points [-]

Faith is a principle of action as well as power. The first part of my response still holds. Even the scripture in part still holds, the Holy Ghost testifies of truth wherever it is to be found. So miracles are not a basis for belief but arise out of belief. Further there are other supernatural entities that can be a part of miracles besides God.

I have read a fair number of those, somehow I hadn't stumbled on the whole sequence, thank you for the link.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 22 April 2011 01:29:22AM 0 points [-]

That doesn't answer the question in any useful way.

So miracles are not a basis for belief but arise out of belief.

I'm not sure what this means. If miracles are not part of the basis for belief why do you think that Wednesday can use them as part of the justification for her faith?

Further there are other supernatural entities that can be a part of miracles besides God.

And if someone performs miracles and says that Mormon deity isn't real or is actually an evil entity, how would you respond?

Comment author: JohnH 22 April 2011 01:44:19AM -1 points [-]

I didn't say Wednesday could use miracles but could use the Holy Spirit (which might be considered miraculous).

"And if someone performs miracles and says that Mormon deity isn't real or is actually an evil entity, how would you respond?"

Having actually dealt with this claim before I can point to "by their fruits ye shall know them" with the rest of that chapter. As well as "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself". As well as "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith". I also would say pretty much what I have already said.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 22 April 2011 01:52:08AM 0 points [-]

I didn't say Wednesday could use miracles but could use the Holy Spirit (which might be considered miraculous).

The same point applies. I don't care whether one calls it "miracles" or "special knowledge"- the essential point applies. If someone else had access to the essentially the same claimed experiences how would you respond?

Having actually dealt with this claim before I can point to "by their fruits ye shall know them" with the rest of that chapter. As well as "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself". As well as "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith".

I see. And if the other individual has his own set of contradictory scriptures, how do you decide that your set is better than his set?

Comment author: CuSithBell 21 April 2011 12:05:14AM 2 points [-]

Okay. Could you instead share why exactly you think your experiences would be dismissed, and why you think these reasons are incorrect?

Comment author: JohnH 21 April 2011 04:51:29AM 0 points [-]

See JoshuaZ's comment below for exactly why I think my experiences would be dismissed.

Comment author: CuSithBell 21 April 2011 08:38:24AM 2 points [-]

He seems to be asking why your miracles count as evidence for your faith when other people have similar experiences deriving from contradictory faiths.

However, it seems like you're saying that these miracles don't count as evidence for any faith, including your own (except in a strict Bayesian sense, I guess). Is that accurate?

My question was different - it was about the nature of these miracles in themselves, not their relationship to a faith. If you're able to extract information from miraculous sources, I'd be very interested in your methods (especially as they are intended to be reproducible). Could you demonstrate this?

Alternately, if you still think a demonstration would be dismissed, could you explain on what grounds it would be dismissed and why one would be incorrect to do so? (Or, alternately, whether you believe that we would be correct to dismiss your claims due to some sort of information disparity - though this seems an unlikely position.)

Alternately-alternately, when you say that "if anyone follows the steps laid out in Moroni 10:3-5 (see also Alma 32, James 1:3-5) they can for themselves gain such knowledge", that seems to imply I could try it myself and validate your claim. Is that your understanding?

Comment author: JohnH 21 April 2011 04:44:44PM -2 points [-]

I think you looked at the above comment, not the below one.

You are basically accurate in saying miracles don't count as evidence of any faith, by themselves. The Spirit is a nescessary condition for determining what faith is right. (faith in this post is a collection of beliefs, faith in the other post is action, or trust, in beliefs) In as much as the Spirit is miraculus I should amend the statement to outward miracles do not, by themselves, count as evidence of anything, they merely indicate that more information is needed.

It is only reasonable that I trust my own experiences. It is also reasonable that I validate my exeriences by keeping a journal of those experiences and periodically reviewing what was recieved and what happened afterwards. This should cut down on the confirmation bias.

My experiences are valid for me, but for anyone else they are point of data that like a miracle doesn't provide sufficient evidence for anything as there are mutliple competing claims. Throwing out evidence you disagree with or that you think is a black-swan event is not a halmark of rationality. However as they can be viewed as low probability events and there could be errors in reasoning, errors in observation, and errors in transmission of those observations means that your model of the world should not be updated unless you yourself can replicate the events.

The method of how to recieve a response is in the scriptures cited. The response should be in both your mind and in your heart. You can try it yourself and validate my claims. Realize though that you are dealing with an entity that is both intelligent and has your best interest in mind, see Alma 32:17-20 for more on that subject.

Comment author: CuSithBell 22 April 2011 06:57:12AM 1 point [-]

So I take it you're not willing to demonstrate this ability? Say, by predicting what I've written on an index card (or whatever similar sort of verifiable prediction you're able to access)?

If that's the case, then I could certainly try to do so. Could you help me figure out what precisely I have to do such that you will predict success? The language of the text seems a little opaque. For others' convenience, I'll repost them here:

Moroni 10 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

So it sounds like what I have to do is simply ask honestly for a sign of some verifiable sort? Or do I ask for more specific knowledge?

Comment author: JohnH 22 April 2011 02:44:44PM 0 points [-]

Already covered this:

"Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?" Alma 32:17-19

Further, "An adulterous generation asks for a sign" which should itself be sign enough.

Or do I ask for more specific knowledge?

Yes. See also D&C 9:7-9 which gives a further example, though it is for translating sacred text so while the method of asking is the same the method of response may not be.

Also, you may want to define what you mean by honestly. Honestly being curious as to what will happen is not sufficient if it does not also include a real intention to follow God's commands if a response is received. You cannot fool God and He isn't a wish granting genie.

Comment author: CuSithBell 22 April 2011 03:50:58PM 4 points [-]

Essentially what I'm asking for is a reason to believe it. That could include accurate predictions about things regarding which I have no relevant knowledge. It does not include reports that such things are possible and have happened but cannot be produced right now, and it does not include the fact that I am asking for a reason.

I am willing to ask, in humility, for such a reason, from anything that can hear my inner thoughts directly so as to be able to respond. If there is a God that can do so, and belief is in my best interests, and that God has my best interests in mind, then it follows that I should be presented with something convincing to me. If I actually discovered that, say, there is an afterlife and an eternity of reward or punishments depends on one's mental state, I'd seriously consider proselytizing (though in a different manner from most proselytizers). If I discovered that some notion of objective good was not only coherent but obtained in our world, I'd probably alter my behavior drastically. Certainly, I think the prior probability of any specific organized religion being true is infinitesimal (and would in most cases I'd first have to be convinced that it's logically consistent), and a particular religious experience of nonspecific fuzzies would cause me to question my sanity first, but if I had a coherent religious experience that held up on future observation, and provided real reasons to alter my beliefs, I'd do it in an instant.

We do not disbelieve because we have seen even the slightest hint that it is true but we wish to rebel or disobey. We disbelieve because there is absolutely no reason to believe.

I have in fact actually tried this in a different context, and managed to produce an altered mental state, but saw no evidence of the supernatural, nor even a subjective 'experience of the divine'.

But it sounds like, when you imagine someone actually trying what you said would work for anyone, your mind jumps to reasons why it won't work, rather than expectations that it will.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 April 2011 08:32:10PM *  3 points [-]

Further those experiences should not be a general feeling of good-will, feeling at one with the universe, strong emotions, uncontrollable crying, etc. as those are not the characteristics of the spirit per LDS doctrine (or dogma if you insist). Instead the experience, whether it includes visions or just the still small voice of the spirit should provide her with knowledge that she could not other wise obtain that is actionable and if testable turn out to be correct as well as making sense. Not everything is testable as we are not able to go back and make a different decision to see what would have happened. As a desire to believe is sufficient to be baptized she will most likely be baptized even if she has not actually had such experiences, but if she takes her religion seriously (which hopefully she should) then she will seek such experiences and from my own experience she will receive them if she does so in the correct manner (being actually wanting an answer and willing to follow whatever the answer is, assuming the answer fits the criteria of what is an actual answer and what is not.

There a lot of problems with this. Confirmation bias is a major one (people are likely to remember the times that their perceived/claimed revelations turned out to be correct and not think as much about the misses), as is the fact that people do engage in unconscious processing.

Personally, I've had dreams where I've talked to dead mathematicians. They've been helpful. Does that mean one should believe that I was talking to those spirits? Or, more relevantly for this purpose, do you think that Ramanujan's beliefs that his math came from Hindu deities were justified given the correct, novel mathematical results he received?

Moreover, when Mormons do speak of personal revelation, they aren't almost ever testable claims (e.g. will this coin flip land heads or tails), but personal life advice issues, just like in many other religions, making it essentially impossible to tell if the revelation was at all helpful.

This also is connected to the fairly serious problem that if the LDS church wants to be tested based on its capacity for correct revelation, one needs to deal with both the fact that the revealed claimed in the LDS texts (such as the claimed ancient civilizations) don't fit with archeology at all.

Further if her parents understand their religion they should not shun or ostracize her should she decide not continue to be a saint. Please be aware that not everyone understands this with in the LDS church, we do not claim to be perfect people but to be people seeking perfection.

Except that shunning isn't just something that is done by some members of the LDS. It is a practice that is so common that separate communities have been built for such individuals (The LDS church is not the only example of such, Charedi(ultra-Orthodox Jews) have the same thing but that's not what is relevant here.)

You may want to be aware that in general, at Less Wrong, we aren't terribly interested in LDS apologetics or apologetics from any other religion. As far as we're concerned almost all traditional notions of deities have very low probabilities, and general apologetica is unlikely to do much. There are forums to discuss that sort of thing; we are not one of them. In the case of the Wednesday post, the point had very little to do with Mormonism, but was using that example to point out a general possible problem in a certain common heuristic. Trying to argue that Wednesday would have other reasons to believe in Mormonism is both not compelling and misses the point of Alicorn's post.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 19 September 2009 10:04:19PM 0 points [-]

Let's say we live in a world where it is not clear who is adopted and who is not. Most believe a Billion or less are non-adopted, and that they themselves are non-adopted. A few say everyone is non-adopted, some say being non-adopted isn't even possible.

If you believe just 13 million* people worldwide are non-adopted, you need good evidence to believe you happen to be one of them.

Believing you're not adopted based on little evidence makes perfect sense if you're in a world where the vast majority of people are not adopted (or know they are)

*13 million=LDS membership (wikipedia)