Is there a post in the Sequences about when it is justifiable to not pursue going down a rabbit hole? It’s a fairly general question, but the specific context is a tale as old as time. My brother, who has been an atheist for decades, moved to Utah. After 10 years, he now asserts that he was wrong and his “rigorous pursuit” of verifying with logic and his own eyes, leads him to believe the Bible is literally true. I worry about his mental health so I don’t want to debate him, but felt like I should give some kind of justification for why I’m not personally embarking on a bible study. There’s a potential subtext of, by not following his path, I am either not that rational, or lack integrity. The subtext may not really be there, but I figure if I can provide a well thought out response or summarize something from EY, it might make things feel more friendly, e.g. “I personally don’t have enough evidence to justify spending the time on this, but I will keep an open mind if any new evidence comes up.”
More concrete than your actual question, but there’s a couple options you can take:
acknowledge that there’s a form of social truth whereby the things people insist upon believing are functionally true. For instance, there may be no absolute moral value to criticism of a particular leader, but in certain countries the social system creates a very unambiguous negative value to it. Stick to the observable—if he does an experiment, replicate that experiment for yourself and share the results. If you get different results, examine why. IMO, attempting in good faith to replicate whatever experiments have convinced him that the world works differently from how he previously thought would be the best steelman for someone framing religion as rationalism.
There is of course the “which bible?” question. Irrefutable proof of the veracity of the old testament, if someone had it, wouldn’t answer the question of which modern religion incorporating it is “most correct”.
It’s entirely valid and consistent with rationalism to have the personal preference to not accept any document as fully and literally true. If you can gently find out how he handles the internal contradictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible), you’ve got a ready-made argument for taking some things figuratively.
And as unsolicited social advice, distinct from the questions of rationalism—don’t strawman him into someone who criticizes your atheism until he as an actual human tells you what if any actual critiques he has. That’s not nice. What is nice is to frame it as a harm reduction option, because organized religion can be great for some people with mental health struggles, and tell him the truth about what you see in his current behavior that you like and support. For instance if his church gets him more involved with the community, or encourages him to do more healthy behaviors or less unhealthy ones, maintain common ground by endorsing the outcomes of his beliefs rather than endorsing the beliefs themselves.
Is there a post in the Sequences about when it is justifiable to not pursue going down a rabbit hole? It’s a fairly general question, but the specific context is a tale as old as time. My brother, who has been an atheist for decades, moved to Utah. After 10 years, he now asserts that he was wrong and his “rigorous pursuit” of verifying with logic and his own eyes, leads him to believe the Bible is literally true. I worry about his mental health so I don’t want to debate him, but felt like I should give some kind of justification for why I’m not personally embarking on a bible study. There’s a potential subtext of, by not following his path, I am either not that rational, or lack integrity. The subtext may not really be there, but I figure if I can provide a well thought out response or summarize something from EY, it might make things feel more friendly, e.g. “I personally don’t have enough evidence to justify spending the time on this, but I will keep an open mind if any new evidence comes up.”
More concrete than your actual question, but there’s a couple options you can take:
acknowledge that there’s a form of social truth whereby the things people insist upon believing are functionally true. For instance, there may be no absolute moral value to criticism of a particular leader, but in certain countries the social system creates a very unambiguous negative value to it. Stick to the observable—if he does an experiment, replicate that experiment for yourself and share the results. If you get different results, examine why. IMO, attempting in good faith to replicate whatever experiments have convinced him that the world works differently from how he previously thought would be the best steelman for someone framing religion as rationalism.
There is of course the “which bible?” question. Irrefutable proof of the veracity of the old testament, if someone had it, wouldn’t answer the question of which modern religion incorporating it is “most correct”.
It’s entirely valid and consistent with rationalism to have the personal preference to not accept any document as fully and literally true. If you can gently find out how he handles the internal contradictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible), you’ve got a ready-made argument for taking some things figuratively.
And as unsolicited social advice, distinct from the questions of rationalism—don’t strawman him into someone who criticizes your atheism until he as an actual human tells you what if any actual critiques he has. That’s not nice. What is nice is to frame it as a harm reduction option, because organized religion can be great for some people with mental health struggles, and tell him the truth about what you see in his current behavior that you like and support. For instance if his church gets him more involved with the community, or encourages him to do more healthy behaviors or less unhealthy ones, maintain common ground by endorsing the outcomes of his beliefs rather than endorsing the beliefs themselves.