User Comment Replies

I don't really think it would be possible to do an experiment here because the very definition of "better" is a question of values, and different people have different values.

0fubarobfusco13y

Well, there's the anthropological concept of the psychic unity of humankind — we may have different values, but our ways of thinking (including our values) are not wholly alien from one another, but have a lot in common. And there are also things we can say about human values that descend from cultural evolution: we would not expect, for instance, that any culture would exist that did not value its own replication into the next generation. So we would expect that people would want to teach their ideas to their children (or converts), merely because societies that don't do that would tend to die out and we wouldn't get to observe them.

1TheOtherDave13y

And yet, there are many situations in which an observer does in fact look at two groups of people and claim that group A is better off than group B. On your view, are all such observers unjustified in all such claims, or are some of them sometimes justified? (And, if the latter, is there any reason we can't affect the world so as to create such a situation, wherein we are justified in claiming that people are better off after our intervention than they were before?)

Thwarting a Catholic conversion?

dymphna13y00

This is a position of profound submission to the universe. When we say "rationalist" here, we primarily don't mean someone who has a commitment to a particular set of beliefs. We mean someone who wants their beliefs to be caused by the facts of the universe, whatever those might turn out to be.

Thank you for re-clarifying this (yes, I was aware that this was the LW position). But, do most LW'ers think that it should be everyone's position?

Medieval Catholics (and some contemporary ones) wanted to make the whole world Catholic. Stalinists wan

... (read more)

0fubarobfusco13y

Good question. I haven't conducted a poll. But more problematically, what does that "should" mean? It could mean: * "Would everyone be better off if they were more rationalist?" — I think yes, they would, because they would be better equipped to change the world in directions positive for themselves, and for humanity in general. And I think that this notion is pretty strong in the LW-community. Aside from problems such as becoming a clever arguer, we expect that greater rationality should generally help people. * "Is it worthwhile for me to try to get everyone to be more rationalist?" — It isn't clear to me how much influence over other people's rationality I can directly have; although I haven't really tried outside of the LW-community and my (already rather rationalist-friendly) workplace yet. I intend to support CFAR's educational program, though. * "Would I benefit from treating people as more virtuous, trustworthy, or righteous if they agree with my position regarding rationality than if they don't?" — No, I don't really think so. Doing that sort of thing seems more likely to lead to Blue/Green political nonsense than to any beneficial result. (Although it sure is nice to hang out with / be friends with / date people who share some metaphysics and reference points ....) If none of these, what did you mean by "should" there? Sure; however, some of those different things are compatible and others aren't. Politics shows up when we have to deal with the incompatible ones. I'm predisposed to like multiculturalism in a lot of ways; it's pretty, interesting, and yields a wide range of social forms — and cultural products such as food, music, and philosophy. It does pose some serious problems, though, when different cultures have incompatible views of things such as human rights, human dignity, or dispute resolution; or when it's used as an excuse to restrain people from choosing to leave their local culture in favor of one of their choice; or when politically

1TheOtherDave13y

I won't presume to speak for most LWers. Speaking for myself, I think we would all be better off if more people's beliefs were more contingent on mutually observable events. So, yeah. I could be wrong, but I'd love to see the experiment done.

Thwarting a Catholic conversion?

dymphna13y10

Yes, I'd also really like to hear your thoughts.

Thwarting a Catholic conversion?

dymphna13y20

I often see this in discussions or debates on religion. The only use for it is to bring disagreements onto a plane of relativism and thereby removing any possibility of conclusion. "I believe this, and you believe that, but aren't we so similar in many ways? Let's be tolerant of each other and allow for whatever beliefs we like."

What's wrong with this scenario? I thought that a big part of living in a liberal democracy involves tolerating those who are different from us. Why is a conclusion needed?

2TheOtherDave13y

Depends on what we mean by "allow for" conflicting beliefs, and it depends on what's at stake. If we're trying to have lunch, and I believe hamburger tastes better than sausage, and you believe sausage tastes better than hamburger, there's no difficulty. You can order sausage, and I can order hamburger, and we're good. If we're both trying to disarm a ticking bomb, and you believe cutting the red wire will disarm it and cutting the blue wire will set it off, and I believe cutting the red wire will set it off and the blue wire will disarm it, a different strategy is called for. So one question becomes, what is disagreement about religious issues like? What does it mean to allow for different beliefs, and what's at stake?

Thwarting a Catholic conversion?

dymphna13y-30

"The most dangerous religious fundamentalisms lead people to do things such as blowing up buildings, committing mass murders, jailing and torturing people for apostasy, and throwing acid in the faces of schoolchildren. This occurs both when dangerous religious fundamentalists occupy positions of formal political power (governments), and when they do not (terrorist groups, militias, abortion-clinic bombers)."

Point taken. The phrase "most dangerous" iis hyperbolic. No, so far I don't see any Less Wrongers blowing up buildings or committin... (read more)

5fubarobfusco13y

(A meta remark: The usual way to quote another person's post here is to prefix lines with the > character, not to use quotation marks.) Of which I am very glad. Tribalism is powerful and problematic indeed. But I'm not convinced that tribalism alone is sufficient to create eliminationism — here borrowing Daniel Goldhagen's term for the belief that it is morally right and necessary to exterminate the Other. There are lots of places in the world where distinct tribes coexist, maintaining us/them distinctions, without massacring each other constantly. So there must be something else involved. It isn't really clear to me that all the things that we might label "fundamentalism" are really the same social phenomena. Sociologically, there may be different things going on in Fundamentalist Protestantism (the trope namer); in theocratic regimes such as Iranian Shia or Saudi Wahhabism; in medieval Catholicism in its persecution of the Cathars, Albigensians, and conversos — and for that matter in the Stalinist purges or other "secular" "fundamentalisms". Tribalism may be part of it; but doctrinal intolerance — the notion that people who believe differently should get bullet — seems to be another; and authoritarian loyalty seems to be another still. We could talk about intolerance in general, rather than "fundamentalism"; but even this raises the difficulty that some people take peaceful disagreement with their beliefs to be a form of "intolerance". There's not a word for this idea that isn't fraught with political conflict. This is actually an area where I suspect the LW-cluster is much more universalist than most religionists expect secularists to be. The whole concept of "the coherent extrapolated volition of mankind" explicitly takes in all human experience as significant — thus including religious experience. Religious claims don't have to be true in order for religious experience to be significant as an element of human value; after all, Hamlet isn't true either ..

6TheOtherDave13y

I suspect the quote in question is "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Thwarting a Catholic conversion?

dymphna13y30

Jay, I can certainly empathize with your concern for your friend. However, as a practicing Catholic I can assure you that your friend will not be surrounded by people trying to convince her that she needs to "repent" of her sexuality. There's less that I can say about dark side epistemology (since you would probably consider me to be an adherent of it!) but I can assure you that Leah is not going to have piles of nonsensical doctrine shoved down her throat. She will be introduced to many ideas, but ultimately she herself will decide what to accep... (read more)

3siodine13y

I often see this in discussions or debates on religion. The only use for it is to bring disagreements onto a plane of relativism and thereby removing any possibility of conclusion. "I believe this, and you believe that, but aren't we so similar in many ways? Let's be tolerant of each other and allow for whatever beliefs we like." So, yes, you can draw parallels, some of them accurate, however you can't soundly claim to have the preponderance of impersonal evidence on your side. We haven't reason to treat your beliefs with respect. You should have reason to respect our beliefs if you respect impersonal evidence. Now, given the assumption that our beliefs are reasonably accurate, are we really totalizing and dogmatic? Is it totalizing and dogmatic to say "young earth creationists are wrong," even when they have more than enough personal evidence for such beliefs? Even when we sound like them? I think it only appears totalizing and dogmatic if you ignore context--if you draw the argument onto relativistic ground. * I'm giving away more than I should by allowing for coherency in personal evidence for the proposition of a God as described by X religion. The fact is is that even accounting for personal evidence, such as personal revelation, their beliefs are wrong in the Bayesian sense when accounting for non-personal evidence.

[anonymous]13y110

Yes, there are many things wrong with the Church as an institution, but people know this and some are trying to reform these flaws (indeed, if Leah does convert, she will be a great one to do this).

I'm probably an outlier that I find some redeeming qualities in Catholicism precisely in the Church as an institution and not very much worthwhile in the beliefs of regular modern Western Christians.

0Dreaded_Anomaly13y

I don't think this is necessarily a worthwhile goal.

fubarobfusco13y160

I must confess that, as an outsider to (but occasional reader of) Less Wrong, I find certain statements and arguments on this site to be just as totalizing and dogmatic as the most dangerous religious fundamentalism.

That seems like a surprising claim! I'd like to explore it further.

The most dangerous religious fundamentalisms lead people to do things such as blowing up buildings, committing mass murders, jailing and torturing people for apostasy, and throwing acid in the faces of schoolchildren. This occurs both when dangerous religious fundamentalists... (read more)

LESSWRONG
LW

All of dymphna's Comments + Replies