It all goes to show that
what’s grist to the mill is nose to the grindstone.
botogol
Karma: 123
Browne’s description of his own symptoms reminds me of interviews I have read and seen of Terry Pratchett talking about his early-onset dementia—particuarly this
It’s unusual because people deal with me and they refuse to believe I have Alzheimer’s because at the moment I can speak very coherently, I can plot a novel
Yvain, thanks for this—a fascinating case I hadn’t read about before.
I think OB has improved since LW started up. OB now feels calmer and it’ better paced.
“I’m pretty sure most of my Christian friends don’t believe that any of Genesis is literally true”
Have you asked them? Probably not, it’s considered rude to ask christians questions like that, isn’t it? (which is no doubt one reason why religious beliefs are able persist)
But if you did ask them you might be surprised by the answer.
Actually I suspect you are probably somewhat right: they don’t beleive genesis literally. However I suspect they don’t disbelieve it, either.
I actually don’t think religious belief has much to to with doctrine, and I don’t thmink many western christians ever actually sit down to assess exactly ‘what’ they believe, and what they don’t. Religion isn’t about believing silly things, it’s primarily about belonging. Belinging to a group that at a social everyday level is mostly harmless, and normally well intentioned.
I also tried manually upvoting my own post—just t see what would happen.
Never never do that.
======== More seriously—shouldn’t you get Karma from people REPLYING to your comments? Lots of Karma—I mean: someone upvotes me—that’s nice—but someone actually REPLIES to me - wo hoo!
OK, so as an ardent game player and natural pedant, I need the rules and scoring sysem of this ‘karma’ thing explained to me—can I find it on the site somewhere?
To start with: I seem to get a karma point just for making a comment.. is that right?
(or is my mum on-line here upvoting my every post)
I like this article (but then I liked Dennet’s ideas of belief in belief right from the start) and I’ve been thinking about this off and on all day.
But I think perhaps Eliezer over-analyses: On the surface this person’s beliefs and thoughts seem fuzzy, so Eliezer admiraly digs deeper—but perhaps it’s just fuzz all the way down.
Perhaps she believes P and ~P, perhaps she believes P>Q and she believes P but she beleives ~Q.
Perhaps you just have to shrug, and move on.
My experience is that most religious people give very, very, very little thought to what they actually believe. (About 10,000th of the introspection that Eliezer performs, say :-) ) and analysing it terms of doctrine, beliefs (or indeed impressions) is simply using the wrong tools. Perhaps better to think about emotions invovled in ‘being religious’ and being ‘part of’ a religion.
Eliezer asks “how did you come to rationality?” It surprises me how many people answer: “this is how I lost my religion”
Clearly you can’t be rationalist, while also being religious, but there is a more to rationality than simply absence of religion..
Anyway… personally: there’s no one moment, but I’m a natural born sceptic and persistently urious analyst. Perhaps rationality attracted because it seems like methodical, organised, analytical scepticism
Single biggest book: Hofstadter’s G-E-B, right when it first came out. I just didn’t know there could be a book like that....
good luck. I am out of town today, but perhaps the next one...