I haven’t read your entire post, but I find it very strange (and distracting, if I’m honest) that you would word it as if you believed it was irrational to believe in God. It is as if you either believe your belief is irrational (in which case, why believe it?) or you believe that it is polite to defer linguistically to the local majority position in this case. (Or something I haven’t thought of—it’s not like I’ve mathematically shown that these constitute all cases.)
I expect to find your discussion interesting—I love meta-discussions—but I’m just throwing that out there.
Edit: Ah, I see you discussed that very thing just a few paragraphs later. Interesting.
I thought about addressing this directly in the post but figured it would show up in a comment rather quickly. There are a handful of small reasons for me doing so:
Linguistically, LessWrong thinks of religious beliefs as irrational. I do think it is polite to defer to this usage.
I understand why this community considers religion to be irrational and do not feel like contending the point.
The post is not about religious beliefs but irrational beliefs. I use religion as an example because I used myself as an example of what I was talking about.
I expect it to be jarring to read, which hopefully forces the reader to realize that the post has little to do with the beliefs themselves.
I can buy that—although now I feel as if my second reply is rather patronizing. I apologize if the links therein are inapplicable to your situation; I would not have worded it as I did if I believed that the reason for your phrasing was as you described.
I haven’t read your entire post, but I find it very strange (and distracting, if I’m honest) that you would word it as if you believed it was irrational to believe in God. It is as if you either believe your belief is irrational (in which case, why believe it?) or you believe that it is polite to defer linguistically to the local majority position in this case. (Or something I haven’t thought of—it’s not like I’ve mathematically shown that these constitute all cases.)
I expect to find your discussion interesting—I love meta-discussions—but I’m just throwing that out there.
Edit: Ah, I see you discussed that very thing just a few paragraphs later. Interesting.
I thought about addressing this directly in the post but figured it would show up in a comment rather quickly. There are a handful of small reasons for me doing so:
Linguistically, LessWrong thinks of religious beliefs as irrational. I do think it is polite to defer to this usage.
I understand why this community considers religion to be irrational and do not feel like contending the point.
The post is not about religious beliefs but irrational beliefs. I use religion as an example because I used myself as an example of what I was talking about.
I expect it to be jarring to read, which hopefully forces the reader to realize that the post has little to do with the beliefs themselves.
I can buy that—although now I feel as if my second reply is rather patronizing. I apologize if the links therein are inapplicable to your situation; I would not have worded it as I did if I believed that the reason for your phrasing was as you described.
It’s all good. I found something useful in the comment. :)