For example, if $religion’s teachings correctly constrain expectations in verifiable ways, I expect such debates to look something like this:
Skeptic: “Why do you follow the teachings of $religion?”
Believer: “Because its teachings correctly constrain expectations. Here, I’ll show you: here’s a real-world situation. What do you expect to happen next?”
Skeptic: “I expect $A.”
Believer: “Well, applying $religion’s teachings I conclude that $B is more likely.”
Skeptic: “Excellent! Let’s see what happens.”
(lather, rinse, repeat)
Eventually one of them says to the other: “Huh. Yeah, it seems you were right!”
“$religion’s teachings correctly constrain expectations in verifiable ways”—that’s where it fails every time. That the universe was created 6000 years ago “should not be taken literally” now, though it was back when it was not testable. There is some nice stuff about it in HPMoR, Ch 22, Belief in Belief. There is no rational argument you can make that would change someone’s belief if they are determined to keep it. Our Mormon friend here is a typical example. An honestly religious person would say that “this is what I choose to believe, leave logic out of it.”
I’m not sure if you think I disagree with you, or if you’re just echoing me for emphasis.
Just to be clear, I was answering JGWeissman’s question: if a religion were correct, for at least that understanding of “correct” (which I endorse), that’s what I would expect debates with its followers to look like.
I’ve never encountered a religious tradition for which debates with its followers actually looked like that, which I take as evidence that no religious tradition I’m familiar with correctly constrains expectations in verifiable ways.
My point was that the reason you never encountered it is because it would imply rationality, which is incompatible with faith. Not to say that a religious person cannot be rational about other things, just not about their own beliefs. Thus “if a religion were correct” is not a meaningful statement.
I think your proposed explanation for the observed event is underdetermined by the evidence we’re discussing, but it could certainly be true.
Nevertheless, I’m still inclined to attend more to how well a practice is observed to constrain anticipated experience than to how rational its practitioners can be inferred to be on general principles… though I’ll grant you that inferrable level of rationality correlates pretty well to how much energy I’ll devote to making the observations in the first place.
Depends on what you mean by “correct”.
For example, if $religion’s teachings correctly constrain expectations in verifiable ways, I expect such debates to look something like this: Skeptic: “Why do you follow the teachings of $religion?” Believer: “Because its teachings correctly constrain expectations. Here, I’ll show you: here’s a real-world situation. What do you expect to happen next?” Skeptic: “I expect $A.” Believer: “Well, applying $religion’s teachings I conclude that $B is more likely.” Skeptic: “Excellent! Let’s see what happens.” (lather, rinse, repeat) Eventually one of them says to the other: “Huh. Yeah, it seems you were right!”
“$religion’s teachings correctly constrain expectations in verifiable ways”—that’s where it fails every time. That the universe was created 6000 years ago “should not be taken literally” now, though it was back when it was not testable. There is some nice stuff about it in HPMoR, Ch 22, Belief in Belief. There is no rational argument you can make that would change someone’s belief if they are determined to keep it. Our Mormon friend here is a typical example. An honestly religious person would say that “this is what I choose to believe, leave logic out of it.”
I’m not sure if you think I disagree with you, or if you’re just echoing me for emphasis.
Just to be clear, I was answering JGWeissman’s question: if a religion were correct, for at least that understanding of “correct” (which I endorse), that’s what I would expect debates with its followers to look like.
I’ve never encountered a religious tradition for which debates with its followers actually looked like that, which I take as evidence that no religious tradition I’m familiar with correctly constrains expectations in verifiable ways.
My point was that the reason you never encountered it is because it would imply rationality, which is incompatible with faith. Not to say that a religious person cannot be rational about other things, just not about their own beliefs. Thus “if a religion were correct” is not a meaningful statement.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying.
I think your proposed explanation for the observed event is underdetermined by the evidence we’re discussing, but it could certainly be true.
Nevertheless, I’m still inclined to attend more to how well a practice is observed to constrain anticipated experience than to how rational its practitioners can be inferred to be on general principles… though I’ll grant you that inferrable level of rationality correlates pretty well to how much energy I’ll devote to making the observations in the first place.