Interesting that the two came from opposite origins. I genuinely didn’t know there were serious followers of those religions. It seems I incorrectly generalized from the people I’ve encountered, who merely use those religions for jest and argument.
So I’ll retract my claim and instead agree with the author’s risk evaluation. If you’re going to analyze and critique a belief system, be wary of developing an unconscious Us Vs Them dichotomy in your mental model. If the argument is conceived of as strictly a two-player game, then weaknesses in your theory are strengths in your opponent’s. But where the range of alternative theories is practically infinite, a reduction in the probability of your belief is balanced by only an infinitesimal increase in the probability of a specific other belief.
Interesting that the two came from opposite origins. I genuinely didn’t know there were serious followers of those religions. It seems I incorrectly generalized from the people I’ve encountered, who merely use those religions for jest and argument.
So I’ll retract my claim and instead agree with the author’s risk evaluation. If you’re going to analyze and critique a belief system, be wary of developing an unconscious Us Vs Them dichotomy in your mental model. If the argument is conceived of as strictly a two-player game, then weaknesses in your theory are strengths in your opponent’s. But where the range of alternative theories is practically infinite, a reduction in the probability of your belief is balanced by only an infinitesimal increase in the probability of a specific other belief.