So...you’re agreeing with me? I’m not sure if you’re meaning to add anything, or depart in any way, from what I said above—if you did, please clarify, because I missed it
Essentially agreeing with you. I thought it might be helpful to give a slightly different example, from someone who didn’t just have that sort of experience once, but still continues to have it.
I’m willing to break off into a discussion of the word “discriminate,” but not willing to defend it strongly, as I think my initial post already specified all the hesitancy I had around it. Can you suggest a better word?
I’m not sure. I guess, part of the issue is that this is the parts where I’m more inclined to disagree with you. The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we’re talking to an outside entity when we aren’t isn’t something that should be protected. If it turned out that some people had a brain form that forced them to engage in some cognitive errors, I’d feel sorry for them, but getting the rest of the population to understand that those are cognitive errors would still be a good thing. If PZ or Dawkins had an opportunity to press a button and remove all religion in the world, they would probably do it, and if I had to tell them what to do, I’d probably advocate for pressing the button, even though that means I’m no longer going to be able to get my semi-regular hit of religion.
The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we’re talking to an outside entity when we aren’t isn’t something that should be protected.
Mm, okay, I think I see your point. No, it shouldn’t be protected at the expense of true understanding.
But my point is that I think the feeling of spiritual unity (which is an intensely desirable feeling) can be preserved, even while a frame of realistic cognitive understanding is added. I mean, it sounds like that’s what you’re already doing—exploiting the “hit” of religion while recognizing that it comes entirely from “material aspects of [your] own brain.” Right?
Essentially agreeing with you. I thought it might be helpful to give a slightly different example, from someone who didn’t just have that sort of experience once, but still continues to have it.
I’m not sure. I guess, part of the issue is that this is the parts where I’m more inclined to disagree with you. The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we’re talking to an outside entity when we aren’t isn’t something that should be protected. If it turned out that some people had a brain form that forced them to engage in some cognitive errors, I’d feel sorry for them, but getting the rest of the population to understand that those are cognitive errors would still be a good thing. If PZ or Dawkins had an opportunity to press a button and remove all religion in the world, they would probably do it, and if I had to tell them what to do, I’d probably advocate for pressing the button, even though that means I’m no longer going to be able to get my semi-regular hit of religion.
Mm, okay, I think I see your point. No, it shouldn’t be protected at the expense of true understanding.
But my point is that I think the feeling of spiritual unity (which is an intensely desirable feeling) can be preserved, even while a frame of realistic cognitive understanding is added. I mean, it sounds like that’s what you’re already doing—exploiting the “hit” of religion while recognizing that it comes entirely from “material aspects of [your] own brain.” Right?