I think the minimal level of rationality necessary to participate successfully here has almost nothing to do with actual beliefs and everything to do with possessing the right attitude—willing to change your mind, a desire to be have more accurate beliefs, updating with new evidence etc. See the Twelve Virtues of Rationality. You seem to be more than adequate in that regard.
If being a theist is a big part of your life, if you do things that you wouldn’t do if you were an atheist then I suggest that your theism might be a big enough deal that you should stop beating around the bush and just subject your views to examination and argument in an open thread or in a dedicated thread for people to discuss issues where they don’t agree with the rest of the community. But that is a recommendation, not a demand or anything.
If your theism is just a comforting, abstract belief it may well be harmless and you might as well take your time.
I wonder if we make too big a deal out of atheism here. Once you are an atheist it seems obviously true, but it is one of the hardest beliefs to change when you’re a theist because it is so entangled in community, identity and normative issues. Scientology (while evil) might have the right strategic approach here. They say Scientology is totally compatible with traditional religious beliefs and then later teach that traditional religions are all false (implanted by Xenu, I guess). Maybe we should be saying “Yeah, most of us are atheists. But rationality can work for anyone!”. Only to later explain why there is no god. Would that be wrong?
And in the interests of organizing information and arguments on LW, there is an argument to be made for separate posts to discuss the differences that lead to really lengthy discussions—for example, there are posts dedicated to different angles of tolerating theism and—now—more posts dedicated to the problem of consciousness. Long after the discussions under these posts have died down, these posts are still places where the ideas can be picked up and probed by a newcomer.
If being a theist is a big part of your life, if you do things that you wouldn’t do if you were an atheist then I suggest that your theism might be a big enough deal that you should stop beating around the bush and just subject your views to examination and argument in an open thread or in a dedicated thread for people to discuss issues where they don’t agree with the rest of the community. But that is a recommendation, not a demand or anything.
One day I expect to have this conversation here. Until then, I expect a handful of discussions leading into why I still believe in God. There is a lot of ground to cover before I address the mean questions head on. As it is now, I am completely ill equipped for such a task.
Maybe we should be saying “Yeah, most of us are atheists. But rationality can work for anyone!”. Only to later explain why there is no god. Would that be wrong?
Wrong as in incorrect or wrong as in immoral? I don’t think its wrong under either usage. The only reason I would think it is incorrect is because some people no longer have what it takes to be a rationalist.
I think the minimal level of rationality necessary to participate successfully here has almost nothing to do with actual beliefs and everything to do with possessing the right attitude—willing to change your mind, a desire to be have more accurate beliefs, updating with new evidence etc. See the Twelve Virtues of Rationality. You seem to be more than adequate in that regard.
If being a theist is a big part of your life, if you do things that you wouldn’t do if you were an atheist then I suggest that your theism might be a big enough deal that you should stop beating around the bush and just subject your views to examination and argument in an open thread or in a dedicated thread for people to discuss issues where they don’t agree with the rest of the community. But that is a recommendation, not a demand or anything.
If your theism is just a comforting, abstract belief it may well be harmless and you might as well take your time.
I wonder if we make too big a deal out of atheism here. Once you are an atheist it seems obviously true, but it is one of the hardest beliefs to change when you’re a theist because it is so entangled in community, identity and normative issues. Scientology (while evil) might have the right strategic approach here. They say Scientology is totally compatible with traditional religious beliefs and then later teach that traditional religions are all false (implanted by Xenu, I guess). Maybe we should be saying “Yeah, most of us are atheists. But rationality can work for anyone!”. Only to later explain why there is no god. Would that be wrong?
There’s this one.
And in the interests of organizing information and arguments on LW, there is an argument to be made for separate posts to discuss the differences that lead to really lengthy discussions—for example, there are posts dedicated to different angles of tolerating theism and—now—more posts dedicated to the problem of consciousness. Long after the discussions under these posts have died down, these posts are still places where the ideas can be picked up and probed by a newcomer.
One day I expect to have this conversation here. Until then, I expect a handful of discussions leading into why I still believe in God. There is a lot of ground to cover before I address the mean questions head on. As it is now, I am completely ill equipped for such a task.
Wrong as in incorrect or wrong as in immoral? I don’t think its wrong under either usage. The only reason I would think it is incorrect is because some people no longer have what it takes to be a rationalist.