But none of these things affect the fundamental correctness or incorrectness of atheism.
If atheists had not kowtowed to popular opinion as some wish you would, more would have been burned at the stake; more effort would have been put into refutations of atheism, and more time spent on indoctrination of religion as right and atheists as evil non-humans. It’s possible that this could have meant that today there would not be places where the fundamental correctness of atheism could be asserted. In many ways atheism thrives only because religions put so little effort into competing!
By the same token, the net effect of pissing off a portion of LessWrong by using fundamentally correct “racist” terminology may push back recognition of such fundamental correctness. In aggregate it may solidify political correctness into an unassailable fortress!
Something about this pro-appeasement argument strikes me as really wrong, though I wish I were able to better explain why. It just seems to me that the people historically interested in the rule of religion—say, Church hierarchy—would find it better for their agendas that any closet atheists should keep kowtowing rather than become vocal about their disbelief. Surely if nobody ever challenged orthodox ideas, they’d never get overturned?
Well, I’m no historian. But in any case, if a medievial equivalent of Less Wrong, some group of people unusually interested in forming true beliefs formed in those times, then they should be able to discuss atheism at least among themselves, surely. It would be contrary to their common goal to do otherwise. It might prevent them from figuring out that atheism is probably correct, you see.
Sure, atheism may be low status and immoral and evil and “not useful” to know about if true—but if for whatever reason they already decided they are interested in forming true beliefs, then they should consider atheism anyway.
We’re on Less Wrong because we are unusually interested in pursuing true beliefs, and methods of forming them. If other factors such as political correctness or some people’s being sensitive about some topics or whatever get in the way of that, then so much the worse for those other factors. If we have to commit heresies and be offensive to our age’s moral fashions to get closer to truth, then let us commit heresies and be offensive.
Not that I’m in favor of alienating anyone for its own sake, or when it’s avoidable at negligible cost to the discussion’s clarity and usefulness (i.e. by phrasing things neutrally and not taking potshots). All I’m saying is, let’s not let get mind-killed too easily. Currently Less Wrong strikes me as the best place in the entire Internet to pursue intelligent, sane discussion, and possibly even change your mind. Even on topics that would never have a chance in other environments.
I agree largely with MarkusRamikin’s response, but I would add that you are basically speculating here. It’s also possible that if atheists had been more vocal, their views would have more quickly become tolerated.
I agree that highly emotional issues such as race and intelligence are problematic to discuss, but Eliezer kind of opened the door by talking about atheism as a test of rationality. Today, atheism is much more accepted, at least in the West, so it’s not as good as a test. That naturally leads to the question as to what our taboos are in America in the 21st century.
If atheists had not kowtowed to popular opinion as some wish you would, more would have been burned at the stake; more effort would have been put into refutations of atheism, and more time spent on indoctrination of religion as right and atheists as evil non-humans. It’s possible that this could have meant that today there would not be places where the fundamental correctness of atheism could be asserted. In many ways atheism thrives only because religions put so little effort into competing!
By the same token, the net effect of pissing off a portion of LessWrong by using fundamentally correct “racist” terminology may push back recognition of such fundamental correctness. In aggregate it may solidify political correctness into an unassailable fortress!
Something about this pro-appeasement argument strikes me as really wrong, though I wish I were able to better explain why. It just seems to me that the people historically interested in the rule of religion—say, Church hierarchy—would find it better for their agendas that any closet atheists should keep kowtowing rather than become vocal about their disbelief. Surely if nobody ever challenged orthodox ideas, they’d never get overturned?
Well, I’m no historian. But in any case, if a medievial equivalent of Less Wrong, some group of people unusually interested in forming true beliefs formed in those times, then they should be able to discuss atheism at least among themselves, surely. It would be contrary to their common goal to do otherwise. It might prevent them from figuring out that atheism is probably correct, you see.
Sure, atheism may be low status and immoral and evil and “not useful” to know about if true—but if for whatever reason they already decided they are interested in forming true beliefs, then they should consider atheism anyway.
We’re on Less Wrong because we are unusually interested in pursuing true beliefs, and methods of forming them. If other factors such as political correctness or some people’s being sensitive about some topics or whatever get in the way of that, then so much the worse for those other factors. If we have to commit heresies and be offensive to our age’s moral fashions to get closer to truth, then let us commit heresies and be offensive.
Not that I’m in favor of alienating anyone for its own sake, or when it’s avoidable at negligible cost to the discussion’s clarity and usefulness (i.e. by phrasing things neutrally and not taking potshots). All I’m saying is, let’s not let get mind-killed too easily. Currently Less Wrong strikes me as the best place in the entire Internet to pursue intelligent, sane discussion, and possibly even change your mind. Even on topics that would never have a chance in other environments.
I’d hate to see this quality diluted. For what?
I agree largely with MarkusRamikin’s response, but I would add that you are basically speculating here. It’s also possible that if atheists had been more vocal, their views would have more quickly become tolerated.
I agree that highly emotional issues such as race and intelligence are problematic to discuss, but Eliezer kind of opened the door by talking about atheism as a test of rationality. Today, atheism is much more accepted, at least in the West, so it’s not as good as a test. That naturally leads to the question as to what our taboos are in America in the 21st century.