Not so much on the individual beliefs, as on what your thought processes are and in what ways you might want to improve them.
Is it possible to glimpse or understand someone’s thought processes are without delving into their particular beliefs? I assume yes. Since Religion is some of a touchy subject, I offer everything else I say as evidence of my thought processes. Is that enough?
We do not possess isolated beliefs, but networks of beliefs. And a belief isn’t, by itself, irrational; what is irrational is the process whereby beliefs are arrived at, or maintained, in the face of evidence.
Yeah, that makes sense. There are a few interesting discussions that can lead from this, but I am fairly certain we agree on the major issues. The basic reason I did not want to go into the particular beliefs here is because (a) I felt the meta-discussion about how people should deal with these things was important and (b) I was unsure what the reaction would be.
Since Religion is some of a touchy subject, I offer everything else I say as evidence of my thought processes. Is that enough?
That’s for you to say.
You chose to bring up religion—more specifically “belief in God”. You could have illustrated how you think without bringing up that particular confession; you did so of your own initiative.
The major “meta” question of your post has already been addressed here: yes, you can strive to become “less wrong” whatever your starting point happens to be. All that seems to be required is a capacity for inquiry and a sense of what “wrong” is.
We couldn’t function if we weren’t rational to some extent. Any adult LessWronger presumably earns enough money to keep a roof over their head, food on the table and an Internet connection within easy reach; this is evidence that some at least of their actions are rational in the sense of making appropriate contributions to their projects.
This community seems to be about more than that basic ability to function in society. There is a strong sense of a more global responsibility: refining the art of human rationality enough to defend not just myself, not just my family, not just my friends, but much bigger groups. Before hanging around here I thought I had ambition, to the extent that I wanted to save my profession from itself. Well, this is a group of people attracted to the notion of at least saving humanity from itself.
In that context, no, I don’t think your plea for a “waterline exception” covering your specific pet belief should be taken seriously.
I do, however, think we stand to gain by taking a closer look at religious belief, without attempting to turn it into a bogeyman or a caricature. For this to happen, it seems to me we need to examine the beliefs themselves.
Religious, in fact even spiritual belief is something of a mystery to me; what I find particularly puzzling is precisely how some very smart people I know are able to simultaneously hold those (to me) bizarre beliefs and still function very well in other intellectual domains.
The closest I’ve come to understanding it was while reading Michael Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge; even so, and though I found useful insights in that book, my major conclusion was simply that I lacked enough “spiritual knowledge” to even understand the possibility of spiritual knowledge.
Okay, that makes sense. To be clear, I am not trying to resist your questions or curiosity. The more I read the responses here the more I am internally committing to have the discussion about the particulars of my religiousness.
In that context, no, I don’t think your plea for a “waterline exception” covering your specific pet belief should be taken seriously.
Fair enough. This answers the question adequately.
I do, however, think we stand to gain by taking a closer look at religious belief, without attempting to turn it into a bogeyman or a caricature. For this to happen, it seems to me we need to examine the beliefs themselves.
Religious, in fact even spiritual belief is something of a mystery to me; what I find particularly puzzling is precisely how some very smart people I know are able to simultaneously hold those (to me) bizarre beliefs and still function very well in other intellectual domains.
I completely agree. Standing on the other side, I find it puzzling that more people are puzzled.
Is it possible to glimpse or understand someone’s thought processes are without delving into their particular beliefs? I assume yes. Since Religion is some of a touchy subject, I offer everything else I say as evidence of my thought processes. Is that enough?
Yeah, that makes sense. There are a few interesting discussions that can lead from this, but I am fairly certain we agree on the major issues. The basic reason I did not want to go into the particular beliefs here is because (a) I felt the meta-discussion about how people should deal with these things was important and (b) I was unsure what the reaction would be.
That’s for you to say.
You chose to bring up religion—more specifically “belief in God”. You could have illustrated how you think without bringing up that particular confession; you did so of your own initiative.
The major “meta” question of your post has already been addressed here: yes, you can strive to become “less wrong” whatever your starting point happens to be. All that seems to be required is a capacity for inquiry and a sense of what “wrong” is.
We couldn’t function if we weren’t rational to some extent. Any adult LessWronger presumably earns enough money to keep a roof over their head, food on the table and an Internet connection within easy reach; this is evidence that some at least of their actions are rational in the sense of making appropriate contributions to their projects.
This community seems to be about more than that basic ability to function in society. There is a strong sense of a more global responsibility: refining the art of human rationality enough to defend not just myself, not just my family, not just my friends, but much bigger groups. Before hanging around here I thought I had ambition, to the extent that I wanted to save my profession from itself. Well, this is a group of people attracted to the notion of at least saving humanity from itself.
In that context, no, I don’t think your plea for a “waterline exception” covering your specific pet belief should be taken seriously.
I do, however, think we stand to gain by taking a closer look at religious belief, without attempting to turn it into a bogeyman or a caricature. For this to happen, it seems to me we need to examine the beliefs themselves.
Religious, in fact even spiritual belief is something of a mystery to me; what I find particularly puzzling is precisely how some very smart people I know are able to simultaneously hold those (to me) bizarre beliefs and still function very well in other intellectual domains.
The closest I’ve come to understanding it was while reading Michael Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge; even so, and though I found useful insights in that book, my major conclusion was simply that I lacked enough “spiritual knowledge” to even understand the possibility of spiritual knowledge.
But I’m still curious about it.
Okay, that makes sense. To be clear, I am not trying to resist your questions or curiosity. The more I read the responses here the more I am internally committing to have the discussion about the particulars of my religiousness.
Fair enough. This answers the question adequately.
I completely agree. Standing on the other side, I find it puzzling that more people are puzzled.