That’s an unbelievable overgeneralisation. There are lots of theists who understand probability theory and who consider themselves “rational” or even “rationalists”. Myself pre-July 2011, Mason “Tailsteak” Williams (who is worth Googling, by the way), et cetera.
Sometimes, but they’re not aware that’s what they’re doing. So in practice that probability is irrelevant, but I’m pretty sure that in practice Richard Dawkins is never going to assign a significant probability to “God exists”. He still assigned a not-zero probability when asked. Same with such theists.
Other times, they’re genuinely quite rational people who have literally never heard of most of the evidence and arguments against their position. I once saw a theist renounce their faith after an hour of real debate, because that was just the first time they’d had that conversation with an atheist who knew what they were talking about.
(I’m sorry to be so contrary, but the dismissive attitude I see on LW towards the insanely huge fraction of humanity that belongs to one religion or another is annoying. They’re not all dumb cultists. Some of them are Robert Aumann.)
EDIT: For clarity, before any replies were posted.
I’m sorry to be so contrary, but the dismissive attitude I see on LW towards the insanely huge fraction of humanity that belongs to one religion or another is annoying.
I agree, believing in zero gods does not warrant the feeling of superiority.
Well, I guess there are lots of non-Bayesians among non-believers too. And I’ve heard quite a few believers who, while they were likely not familiar with the concept of probability, made a distinction between belief and knowledge (IIRC, a priest saying “the devil believes in God more strongly than any man, including the Pope: he knows God exists because he has seen him, unlike the Pope who hasn’t and so might still have some doubt”.)
Believers do not assign probabilities in the matters of faith.
That’s an unbelievable overgeneralisation. There are lots of theists who understand probability theory and who consider themselves “rational” or even “rationalists”. Myself pre-July 2011, Mason “Tailsteak” Williams (who is worth Googling, by the way), et cetera.
Yes, but in the matters of faith they start with the bottom line, and make up the relevant probabilities along the way to match it.
Sometimes, but they’re not aware that’s what they’re doing. So in practice that probability is irrelevant, but I’m pretty sure that in practice Richard Dawkins is never going to assign a significant probability to “God exists”. He still assigned a not-zero probability when asked. Same with such theists.
Other times, they’re genuinely quite rational people who have literally never heard of most of the evidence and arguments against their position. I once saw a theist renounce their faith after an hour of real debate, because that was just the first time they’d had that conversation with an atheist who knew what they were talking about.
(I’m sorry to be so contrary, but the dismissive attitude I see on LW towards the insanely huge fraction of humanity that belongs to one religion or another is annoying. They’re not all dumb cultists. Some of them are Robert Aumann.)
EDIT: For clarity, before any replies were posted.
I agree, believing in zero gods does not warrant the feeling of superiority.
Well, I guess there are lots of non-Bayesians among non-believers too. And I’ve heard quite a few believers who, while they were likely not familiar with the concept of probability, made a distinction between belief and knowledge (IIRC, a priest saying “the devil believes in God more strongly than any man, including the Pope: he knows God exists because he has seen him, unlike the Pope who hasn’t and so might still have some doubt”.)
Most people are non-Bayesians, including non-believers.
Clearly the Devil should be more rational. How does he know he’s not a soul in a vat?