But I don’t have any “evidence” to share with you, especially if you are committed to explaining it away … I’m young, and I myself am trying to find good, rational arguments in favor of God. … But what it seems I’ve found is that no, most of the people on this site (based on my representative sample of about a dozen, I know) have never been presented with solid arguments in favor of religion.
I was honest when I said that I’d love to see some convincing evidence for the existence of any god. If you have some, then by all means, please present it. However, if I look at your evidence and find that it is insufficient to convince me, this does not necessarily mean that I’m closed-minded (though I still could be, of course). It could also mean that your reasoning is flawed, or that your observations can be more parsimoniously explained by a cause other than a god.
A big part of being rational is learning to work around your own biases. Consider this: if you can’t find any solid arguments for the existence of your particular version of God… is it possible that there simply aren’t any ?
Yes, it’s possible that there aren’t any. That makes your beliefs much, much simpler. But I think that it’s much safer and healthier to assume that you just haven’t been exposed to any yet. I can’t call you closed-minded for not having been exposed, and I’m sure that if some good arguments did pop up you at least would be willing to hear them. I’m sorry that I don’t myself have any; I’m going to keep looking for a few years, if you don’t mind.
I do mind. If you look for a few years for “rational” arguments for Mormonism you will be wasting your life duplicating the effort of thousands of people before you. Please don’t. Even if you remain Mormon, there are far better things you can do than theology.
What should I spend my next few years of rationalism doing then?
It seems that according to you, my options are
a) leave my religion in favor of rationalism. (feel free to tell me this, but if my parents find out about it they’ll be worried and start telling me you’re a satanic cult. I can handle it.)
b) leave rationalism in favor of religion. (not likely. I could leave Less Wrong if it’s not open-minded enough, but I won’t renounce rational thinking.)
In descending order of my preference: a, c, then b.
I think c is the path chosen by most people who are reasonable but want to remain religious.
C is much more feasible if you can happily devote your time to causes other than religion/rationality. math, science, writing, art, I think all are better for you and society than theology
C seems likely as a long-term solution, because I don’t see a or b as very realistic right now. And even if I don’t make it a focused pursuit, I’ll still be on the lookout for option d.
(I’m not seriously interested in theology, don’t worry. I’m quite into math and such things.)
These are not “options”, but possible outcomes. You shouldn’t decide to work on reaching a particular conclusion, that would filter the arguments you encounter. Ignore these whole “religion” and “rationality” abstractions, work on figuring out more specific questions that you can understand reliably.
That’s not either/or. Plenty of participants here are quietly religious (I don’t recall what the last survey said), yet they like the site for what it has to offer. It may well happen some day that some of the sequence posts will click in a way that would make you want to decide to distance yourself from your fellow saints. Or it might not. If you find some discussion topics which interest you more, then just enjoy those. As I mentioned originally, pure logical discourse is rarely the way to change deep-seated opinions and preferences. Those evolve as your subconscious mind integrates new ideas and experiences.
Yes, that’s what I think I’ll do. But many people here seem to be telling me that’s impossible without some sort of cognitive dissonance. I don’t think so.
many people here seem to be telling me that’s impossible without some sort of cognitive dissonance
“People here” are not perfectly rational and prone to other-optimizing. Including yours truly. Even the fearless leader has a few gaping holes in his rationality, and he’s done pretty well. I don’t know which of his and others’ ideas speak to you the most, but apparently some do, so why not enjoy them. If anything, the spirit of altruism and care for others, so prominent on this forum, seems to fit well with Mormon practice, as far as I know.
I honestly haven’t gotten much of a sense of altruism or care for others. (You were serious, right?) I mean, yes, there’s the whole optimizing charity thing, but that’s often (not always) for personal gratification as much as sincere altruism. I suppose people here think that their own cryonic freezing is actually doing the world a huge favor.
And care for others...that’s something Mormons definitely have on you guys.
But I like this environment anyways. Because people here are smart and educated, and some of them are even honest. :)
By signing up for cryonics you help make cryonics more normal and less expensive, encouraging others to save their own lives. I believe there was a post where someone said they signed up for cryonics so that they wouldn’t have to answer the “why aren’t you signed up then?” crowd when trying to convince other people to do so.
I’m sure that many folks who have signed up for cryonics are happy that their behavior normalizes it for others. But I’m doubtful that any significant number would have made a different decision if normalizing cryonics was not an effect of their actions.
I suppose people here think that their own cryonic freezing is actually doing the world a huge favor.
I don’t believe you really think that. Probably your frustration is talking. But you can probably relate to the standard analogy with a religious approach: if you believe that you have a chance for a happy immortality, it’s a lot easier to justify spending some of your mortal toil on helping others to be happy. Even if there is no correlation between how much good you do in this life and how happy you will be in the next, if any.
Hmm. Is it really better to assume they’re entirely selfish? I could do that. But I know that Harry James P-E-V at least actually believes he’s going to save the world. (Maybe not specifically with cryonics.)
(But yes, my tendency for sarcasm is something I need to work on. When I’m on Less Wrong, at least.)
there’s the whole optimizing charity thing, but that’s often (not always) for personal gratification as much as sincere altruism.
There’s two issue here: (1) the difference between donating because it is useful and donating because it makes one feel good, and (2) many donations that make one feel good are really social status games.
I really do think many people here are sincere altruists (re the second issue).
I suppose people here think that their own cryonic freezing is actually doing the world a huge favor.
I hope they don’t. It’s an awfully stupid position. I’m not aware of anyone who is signed up for cryonics for anything other than self-oriented (selfish?) desire to live forever.
My recommendation is that you commit to/remain committed to basing your confidence in propositions on evaluations of evidence for and against those propositions. If that leads you to conclude that LessWrong is a bad place to spend time, don’t spend time here. If that leads you to conclude that your religious instruction has included some falsehoods, stop believing those falsehoods. If it leads you to conclude that your religious instruction was on the whole reliable and accurate, continue believing it. If it leads you to conclude that LessWrong is a good place to spend time, keep spending time here.
But I think that it’s much safer and healthier to assume that you just haven’t been exposed to any yet.
At what point do I stop looking, though ? For example, a few days ago I lost my favorite flashlight (true story). I searched my entire apartment for about an hour, but finally gave up; my guess is that I left it somewhere while I was hiking. I am pretty sure that the flashlight is not, in fact, inside my apartment… but should I keep looking until I’d turned over every atom ?
I was honest when I said that I’d love to see some convincing evidence for the existence of any god. If you have some, then by all means, please present it. However, if I look at your evidence and find that it is insufficient to convince me, this does not necessarily mean that I’m closed-minded (though I still could be, of course). It could also mean that your reasoning is flawed, or that your observations can be more parsimoniously explained by a cause other than a god.
A big part of being rational is learning to work around your own biases. Consider this: if you can’t find any solid arguments for the existence of your particular version of God… is it possible that there simply aren’t any ?
Yes, it’s possible that there aren’t any. That makes your beliefs much, much simpler. But I think that it’s much safer and healthier to assume that you just haven’t been exposed to any yet. I can’t call you closed-minded for not having been exposed, and I’m sure that if some good arguments did pop up you at least would be willing to hear them. I’m sorry that I don’t myself have any; I’m going to keep looking for a few years, if you don’t mind.
I do mind. If you look for a few years for “rational” arguments for Mormonism you will be wasting your life duplicating the effort of thousands of people before you. Please don’t. Even if you remain Mormon, there are far better things you can do than theology.
What should I spend my next few years of rationalism doing then?
It seems that according to you, my options are
a) leave my religion in favor of rationalism. (feel free to tell me this, but if my parents find out about it they’ll be worried and start telling me you’re a satanic cult. I can handle it.)
b) leave rationalism in favor of religion. (not likely. I could leave Less Wrong if it’s not open-minded enough, but I won’t renounce rational thinking.)
c) learn to live with the conflict in my mind.
Suggestions?
In descending order of my preference: a, c, then b.
I think c is the path chosen by most people who are reasonable but want to remain religious.
C is much more feasible if you can happily devote your time to causes other than religion/rationality. math, science, writing, art, I think all are better for you and society than theology
C seems likely as a long-term solution, because I don’t see a or b as very realistic right now. And even if I don’t make it a focused pursuit, I’ll still be on the lookout for option d. (I’m not seriously interested in theology, don’t worry. I’m quite into math and such things.)
These are not “options”, but possible outcomes. You shouldn’t decide to work on reaching a particular conclusion, that would filter the arguments you encounter. Ignore these whole “religion” and “rationality” abstractions, work on figuring out more specific questions that you can understand reliably.
That’s not either/or. Plenty of participants here are quietly religious (I don’t recall what the last survey said), yet they like the site for what it has to offer. It may well happen some day that some of the sequence posts will click in a way that would make you want to decide to distance yourself from your fellow saints. Or it might not. If you find some discussion topics which interest you more, then just enjoy those. As I mentioned originally, pure logical discourse is rarely the way to change deep-seated opinions and preferences. Those evolve as your subconscious mind integrates new ideas and experiences.
Yes, that’s what I think I’ll do. But many people here seem to be telling me that’s impossible without some sort of cognitive dissonance. I don’t think so.
“People here” are not perfectly rational and prone to other-optimizing. Including yours truly. Even the fearless leader has a few gaping holes in his rationality, and he’s done pretty well. I don’t know which of his and others’ ideas speak to you the most, but apparently some do, so why not enjoy them. If anything, the spirit of altruism and care for others, so prominent on this forum, seems to fit well with Mormon practice, as far as I know.
I honestly haven’t gotten much of a sense of altruism or care for others. (You were serious, right?) I mean, yes, there’s the whole optimizing charity thing, but that’s often (not always) for personal gratification as much as sincere altruism. I suppose people here think that their own cryonic freezing is actually doing the world a huge favor.
And care for others...that’s something Mormons definitely have on you guys.
But I like this environment anyways. Because people here are smart and educated, and some of them are even honest. :)
By signing up for cryonics you help make cryonics more normal and less expensive, encouraging others to save their own lives. I believe there was a post where someone said they signed up for cryonics so that they wouldn’t have to answer the “why aren’t you signed up then?” crowd when trying to convince other people to do so.
I’m sure that many folks who have signed up for cryonics are happy that their behavior normalizes it for others. But I’m doubtful that any significant number would have made a different decision if normalizing cryonics was not an effect of their actions.
I don’t believe you really think that. Probably your frustration is talking. But you can probably relate to the standard analogy with a religious approach: if you believe that you have a chance for a happy immortality, it’s a lot easier to justify spending some of your mortal toil on helping others to be happy. Even if there is no correlation between how much good you do in this life and how happy you will be in the next, if any.
Hmm. Is it really better to assume they’re entirely selfish? I could do that. But I know that Harry James P-E-V at least actually believes he’s going to save the world. (Maybe not specifically with cryonics.)
(But yes, my tendency for sarcasm is something I need to work on. When I’m on Less Wrong, at least.)
There’s two issue here: (1) the difference between donating because it is useful and donating because it makes one feel good, and (2) many donations that make one feel good are really social status games.
I really do think many people here are sincere altruists (re the second issue).
I hope they don’t. It’s an awfully stupid position. I’m not aware of anyone who is signed up for cryonics for anything other than self-oriented (selfish?) desire to live forever.
My recommendation is that you commit to/remain committed to basing your confidence in propositions on evaluations of evidence for and against those propositions. If that leads you to conclude that LessWrong is a bad place to spend time, don’t spend time here. If that leads you to conclude that your religious instruction has included some falsehoods, stop believing those falsehoods. If it leads you to conclude that your religious instruction was on the whole reliable and accurate, continue believing it. If it leads you to conclude that LessWrong is a good place to spend time, keep spending time here.
At what point do I stop looking, though ? For example, a few days ago I lost my favorite flashlight (true story). I searched my entire apartment for about an hour, but finally gave up; my guess is that I left it somewhere while I was hiking. I am pretty sure that the flashlight is not, in fact, inside my apartment… but should I keep looking until I’d turned over every atom ?
You stop looking when you decide it’s no longer helpful, obviously. You’ve stopped looking, and I’m not blaming you for that. I am still looking.
Fair enough; I wish you luck in your search.