For the avoidance of doubt, I was putting that in the mouth of Hypothetical Modern-Day Karl Marx rather than expressing my own attitude to religion. (In case you care: I am an atheist; my wife is an active Christian; I firmly disagree with all the religions I know enough about to have an opinion but don’t think words like “delusion” are generally helpful for describing them.)
As for the use of religion in the Sequences, I think what’s going on is this:
Eliezer thinks it’s really obvious, when one thinks clearly, that the usual religions are wrong.
He expects most of his readers to agree and have similar reasons.
On the other hand, there are plenty of religious people about, some of whom are very smart.
So he uses religion as an example of something that convinces lots of people despite being very wrong.
Of course some of his readers will disagree, but he anticipates less disagreement on religion than on other topics where he sees widespread wrongness.
He doesn’t spend time arguing against religion because (1) he expects most people who remain religious despite exposure to hardcore rational thinking to be basically unpersuadable and (2) discussions of religion have a way of taking over (a bit like discussions of hot-button political issues) and he didn’t want everyone engaged in religious flamewars rather than discussions of other things.
That all seems reasonable (whether or not correct) to me.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was putting that in the mouth of Hypothetical Modern-Day Karl Marx rather than expressing my own attitude to religion.
...ah. I completely misconstrued your intentions there. My apologies.
As for the use of religion in the Sequences, I think what’s going on is this:
I think you are very probably correct, or close to correct. Unfortunately, it seems to have had the effect of turning atheism into something of an applause light in the comments.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was putting that in the mouth of Hypothetical Modern-Day Karl Marx rather than expressing my own attitude to religion. (In case you care: I am an atheist; my wife is an active Christian; I firmly disagree with all the religions I know enough about to have an opinion but don’t think words like “delusion” are generally helpful for describing them.)
As for the use of religion in the Sequences, I think what’s going on is this:
Eliezer thinks it’s really obvious, when one thinks clearly, that the usual religions are wrong.
He expects most of his readers to agree and have similar reasons.
On the other hand, there are plenty of religious people about, some of whom are very smart.
So he uses religion as an example of something that convinces lots of people despite being very wrong.
Of course some of his readers will disagree, but he anticipates less disagreement on religion than on other topics where he sees widespread wrongness.
He doesn’t spend time arguing against religion because (1) he expects most people who remain religious despite exposure to hardcore rational thinking to be basically unpersuadable and (2) discussions of religion have a way of taking over (a bit like discussions of hot-button political issues) and he didn’t want everyone engaged in religious flamewars rather than discussions of other things.
That all seems reasonable (whether or not correct) to me.
...ah. I completely misconstrued your intentions there. My apologies.
I think you are very probably correct, or close to correct. Unfortunately, it seems to have had the effect of turning atheism into something of an applause light in the comments.
Well, religious (and anti-religious) debates have the reputation they have for a reason :-).