Another good indicator (as djbc said) is the level of certitude : if someone expresses more certitude on a complex topic like gun control than on a slamdunk like God - then I won’t trust their confidence much.
Does that mean only hardcore atheists are worth listening to? Maybe, but some claims about religion are not that obvious—for example, is religion good or bad for society in terms of enforcing moral behaviour, facilitating cooperation, raising children, etc. ? I don’t consider that question a slamdunk.
Another red flag for me is “clannish” language, presenting issues in terms of “group A vs group B” (“this is a victory for us”, “hah, that shows them”, etc.). It’s a sign that the wrong part of the brain is being used.
I’m guessing you don’t mean hardcore as in “signaling group membership loudly”, and Eliezer already argued the point that atheism is no longer a valid synonym for reliable, rational thought.
I mostly meant “as opposed to agnostic” (“strong atheist” would be a better word then), but wanted to point out (as Eliezer had indeed already done) that extreme commitment (for example, blaming religion for all evils) was not necessarily a good signal.
You would expect rational thought to lead to a higher level of commitment on decisions about religion than gun control, but higher level of commitment on the topics is not a good signal for rational thought.
I think “hardcore atheist” generally means, “atheist who actively and loudly antagonizes religion.” That is not consistent with the poster’s usage, but I don’t think any adjective would be—the point is that people who are not atheists may be worth listening to, not that some “not-hardcore” atheists are also worth listening to in addition to the hardcore atheists.
I assume we agree that atheism is not a signal for rational thought anymore—if that’s true, are you getting any additional useful information by looking at how loudly someone antagonizes religion?
I would think that higher levels of overt religious antagonism indicate low agreeableness. It may be an indicator not so much of irrationality as of a sort of intellectual laziness or poor judgement, as it’s an unconstructive behaviour that generates a great deal of self-satisfaction for not doing anything particularly difficult.
That said, I was rather closer to that kind of atheism when I was younger, so I’m decidedly biased.
Another good indicator (as djbc said) is the level of certitude : if someone expresses more certitude on a complex topic like gun control than on a slamdunk like God - then I won’t trust their confidence much.
Does that mean only hardcore atheists are worth listening to? Maybe, but some claims about religion are not that obvious—for example, is religion good or bad for society in terms of enforcing moral behaviour, facilitating cooperation, raising children, etc. ? I don’t consider that question a slamdunk.
Another red flag for me is “clannish” language, presenting issues in terms of “group A vs group B” (“this is a victory for us”, “hah, that shows them”, etc.). It’s a sign that the wrong part of the brain is being used.
I wonder what you mean by “hardcore atheists”?
I’m guessing you don’t mean hardcore as in “signaling group membership loudly”, and Eliezer already argued the point that atheism is no longer a valid synonym for reliable, rational thought.
I’m not quite sure myself :D
I mostly meant “as opposed to agnostic” (“strong atheist” would be a better word then), but wanted to point out (as Eliezer had indeed already done) that extreme commitment (for example, blaming religion for all evils) was not necessarily a good signal.
I get it now, thank you.
You would expect rational thought to lead to a higher level of commitment on decisions about religion than gun control, but higher level of commitment on the topics is not a good signal for rational thought.
I think “hardcore atheist” generally means, “atheist who actively and loudly antagonizes religion.” That is not consistent with the poster’s usage, but I don’t think any adjective would be—the point is that people who are not atheists may be worth listening to, not that some “not-hardcore” atheists are also worth listening to in addition to the hardcore atheists.
I assume we agree that atheism is not a signal for rational thought anymore—if that’s true, are you getting any additional useful information by looking at how loudly someone antagonizes religion?
I would think that higher levels of overt religious antagonism indicate low agreeableness. It may be an indicator not so much of irrationality as of a sort of intellectual laziness or poor judgement, as it’s an unconstructive behaviour that generates a great deal of self-satisfaction for not doing anything particularly difficult.
That said, I was rather closer to that kind of atheism when I was younger, so I’m decidedly biased.
I think I have a similar point of view to yours, on this.