If so, they are those who can afford to burn some status to avow it.
Sure, but you don’t really think IQ and education have nothing to do with whether someone is an atheist, right?
Here is a question; are people among the cognitive and educational who have other status hits more or less likely to be an atheist? If you’re right then men who are educated and have high IQs but are gay should be less likely to admit to atheism, yes?
… why? Some try what you suggest, but I hardly see it as an slam-dunk superior strategy.
The point isn’t even whether one is better than the other (though it certainly seems plausible that a less radical, more comforting position made with a kinder, politer tone would do better). The point is people who try that strategy don’t get book deals. They don’t even get popular on the internet. And that is despite it probably being the more popular position over all. They don’t get popular because the readership of pro-atheist arguments are people who already agree with the arguments. Remember this quote:
Why is it that few, if any, outsiders will be persuaded by Craig’s apology? From the way he presents it, we get the impression that he thinks nobody who is informed, rational, and sincere could disagree with it...
You could replace “Craig” with Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens and no one would even notice.
Sure, but you don’t really think IQ and education have nothing to do with whether someone is an atheist, right?
If they do because people with those traits can more afford to lose the status, that’s still having something to do with it.
Besides, there’s the huge confounding factor that being educated or high IQ is more likely to lead to lead you to truth and atheism is true.
If you’re right then men who are educated and have high IQs but are gay should be less likely to admit to atheism, yes?
If the status lost by being atheist and the status lost by being gay are completely different, this would be true. I would suggest that the status that is lost by either one overlaps heavily, given the nature of anti-gay bias. Someone who already lost that portion of status because of being gay cannot lose it again by being atheist. This would neutralize or even reverse the effect.
If you’re right then men who are educated and have high IQs but are gay should be less likely to admit to atheism, yes?
Sure, if they don’t perceive religious people pushing them away. Not sure what community of high-IQ men would let you test this, but perhaps you could study Unitarians.
The point is people who try that strategy don’t get book deals.
Did you mean to say something less blatantly false?
I’m not sure how many on that list actually qualify as non-believers who who write books targeted to religious fundamentalists urging them to moderate their views. Most sound like religious people trying to get atheists to be more spiritual. But even to the extent that they exemplify that approach: outside of the Dalai Lama how many books have the last 20 winners sold? How many are idolized by atheists?
Sure, but you don’t really think IQ and education have nothing to do with whether someone is an atheist, right?
That was a confounding factor so obvious that I thought it didn’t need to be mentioned. Its existence certainly doesn’t strengthen your case!
If you’re right then men who are educated and have high IQs but are gay should be less likely to admit to atheism, yes?
That’s a very interesting question! It does seem to be an implication, at least at first glance. I suspect that it will depend on the relative prevalence of anti-gay sentiment in religious and atheistic communities, which will vary from locale to locale.
(so far, this is basically a +1 to Jiro’s comment)
The point is people who try that strategy don’t get book deals.
That provides a selection effect. It’s another step from there to it warping the motivations. And it’s a doozy. You’re asking us to believe that atheists would seriously consider writing books just to get people to adopt a more moderate tone in their religion, without advocating for atheism, just because that would be more effective, and that it took a monetary incentive to get them to change their minds?
The idea that they couldn’t possibly write such a volume seems like it ought to enter into the reasoning process somewhere.
That was a confounding factor so obvious that I thought it didn’t need to be mentioned. Its existence certainly doesn’t strengthen your case!
Of course it does: being high status (having a high IQ and a good education) makes you an atheist. So when norms are changed to benefit atheists they’re benefiting a high-status group of people. If atheist books are about making atheists higher status it’s about making high-status people have higher status.
It’s like if I wrote about how bespoke suits are awesome. Sure you could point to lots of people who make fun of bespoke suits (“you look like a dandy” or “sell-out!”) and suggest that rich educated people are the only people who can accept the status hit to wear them. But wearing a bespoke suit is a marker of high status groups. If you don’t have a great job in certain sectors and make a lot of money you don’t end up wearing one. It isn’t meaningful to try to think about the status effects of atheism and suit-wearing in isolation from the cultural environment in which they exist. Being an atheist is part of being part of the cognitive elite.
You’re asking us to believe that atheists would seriously consider writing books just to get people to adopt a more moderate tone in their religion, without advocating for atheism, just because that would be more effective, and that it took a monetary incentive to get them to change their minds?
I’m saying that atheist apologetics is more or less symmetrical to Christian apologetics in it’s function. They provide people with confidence in their worldview and bolster their status. As such, the market for books by atheists is driven by atheists just like the market for books by Christians is driven by Christians. If atheist writing and activism were actually about trying to reduce the social costs of religion they wouldn’t sound like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens.
I’m not saying there is some conspiracy among atheist book publishers to keep people from being moderate. I’m saying the market reflects what people value: signalling intelligence and status, not an altruistic drive to help society by reducing the impact of religion. I’m not saying there is anything sinister at work. I’m certain atheists and Christians both think they are trying to improve the world: but really it’s mostly about signaling.
Of course it does: being high status (having a high IQ and a good education) makes you an atheist.
Whoa, you’re mucking around with the causality here.
Having high IQ and good education → high status;
same factors → atheist.
They share causes. One does not follow from the other.
On the publishing, you just said right there that the filter lies at the publisher level—not the author level. The more controversial, less useful books sell better. That I would agree with, but that’s not what you said earlier—you specifically addressed the authors’ motivations. Nothing you’ve said addresses that.
Neither of us even moved towards suggesting a conspiracy. Where did that come from?
On the publishing, you just said right there that the filter lies at the publisher level—not the author level. The more controversial, less useful books sell better. That I would agree with, but that’s not what you said earlier—you specifically addressed the authors’ motivations. Nothing you’ve said addresses that.
Authors respond to incentives like everyone else in the history of the world. But I was never talking about authors motivations: I was talking about the values illustrated by the atheist movement as can be seen from what the book market produces.
Neither of us even moved towards suggesting a conspiracy. Where did that come from?
I can’t understand what you disputable about my position so I was guessing at possible miscommunications.
“Outspoken atheists” is a much, much larger group than “atheist authors”, though authors are certainly a part of that group. But my argument is that the values of the former group are revealed in their book preferences. Obviously the case for any one author will be weaker- about as weak as the case for William Lane Craig not caring about converting people is (why can’t he just be telling the truth, works just as well for him).
Sure, but you don’t really think IQ and education have nothing to do with whether someone is an atheist, right?
Here is a question; are people among the cognitive and educational who have other status hits more or less likely to be an atheist? If you’re right then men who are educated and have high IQs but are gay should be less likely to admit to atheism, yes?
The point isn’t even whether one is better than the other (though it certainly seems plausible that a less radical, more comforting position made with a kinder, politer tone would do better). The point is people who try that strategy don’t get book deals. They don’t even get popular on the internet. And that is despite it probably being the more popular position over all. They don’t get popular because the readership of pro-atheist arguments are people who already agree with the arguments. Remember this quote:
You could replace “Craig” with Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens and no one would even notice.
If they do because people with those traits can more afford to lose the status, that’s still having something to do with it.
Besides, there’s the huge confounding factor that being educated or high IQ is more likely to lead to lead you to truth and atheism is true.
If the status lost by being atheist and the status lost by being gay are completely different, this would be true. I would suggest that the status that is lost by either one overlaps heavily, given the nature of anti-gay bias. Someone who already lost that portion of status because of being gay cannot lose it again by being atheist. This would neutralize or even reverse the effect.
Sure, if they don’t perceive religious people pushing them away. Not sure what community of high-IQ men would let you test this, but perhaps you could study Unitarians.
Did you mean to say something less blatantly false?
I’m not sure how many on that list actually qualify as non-believers who who write books targeted to religious fundamentalists urging them to moderate their views. Most sound like religious people trying to get atheists to be more spiritual. But even to the extent that they exemplify that approach: outside of the Dalai Lama how many books have the last 20 winners sold? How many are idolized by atheists?
That was a confounding factor so obvious that I thought it didn’t need to be mentioned. Its existence certainly doesn’t strengthen your case!
That’s a very interesting question! It does seem to be an implication, at least at first glance. I suspect that it will depend on the relative prevalence of anti-gay sentiment in religious and atheistic communities, which will vary from locale to locale.
(so far, this is basically a +1 to Jiro’s comment)
That provides a selection effect. It’s another step from there to it warping the motivations. And it’s a doozy. You’re asking us to believe that atheists would seriously consider writing books just to get people to adopt a more moderate tone in their religion, without advocating for atheism, just because that would be more effective, and that it took a monetary incentive to get them to change their minds?
The idea that they couldn’t possibly write such a volume seems like it ought to enter into the reasoning process somewhere.
Of course it does: being high status (having a high IQ and a good education) makes you an atheist. So when norms are changed to benefit atheists they’re benefiting a high-status group of people. If atheist books are about making atheists higher status it’s about making high-status people have higher status.
It’s like if I wrote about how bespoke suits are awesome. Sure you could point to lots of people who make fun of bespoke suits (“you look like a dandy” or “sell-out!”) and suggest that rich educated people are the only people who can accept the status hit to wear them. But wearing a bespoke suit is a marker of high status groups. If you don’t have a great job in certain sectors and make a lot of money you don’t end up wearing one. It isn’t meaningful to try to think about the status effects of atheism and suit-wearing in isolation from the cultural environment in which they exist. Being an atheist is part of being part of the cognitive elite.
I’m saying that atheist apologetics is more or less symmetrical to Christian apologetics in it’s function. They provide people with confidence in their worldview and bolster their status. As such, the market for books by atheists is driven by atheists just like the market for books by Christians is driven by Christians. If atheist writing and activism were actually about trying to reduce the social costs of religion they wouldn’t sound like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens.
I’m not saying there is some conspiracy among atheist book publishers to keep people from being moderate. I’m saying the market reflects what people value: signalling intelligence and status, not an altruistic drive to help society by reducing the impact of religion. I’m not saying there is anything sinister at work. I’m certain atheists and Christians both think they are trying to improve the world: but really it’s mostly about signaling.
Whoa, you’re mucking around with the causality here.
Having high IQ and good education → high status;
same factors → atheist.
They share causes. One does not follow from the other.
On the publishing, you just said right there that the filter lies at the publisher level—not the author level. The more controversial, less useful books sell better. That I would agree with, but that’s not what you said earlier—you specifically addressed the authors’ motivations. Nothing you’ve said addresses that.
Neither of us even moved towards suggesting a conspiracy. Where did that come from?
Authors respond to incentives like everyone else in the history of the world. But I was never talking about authors motivations: I was talking about the values illustrated by the atheist movement as can be seen from what the book market produces.
I can’t understand what you disputable about my position so I was guessing at possible miscommunications.
vs
“Outspoken atheists” is a much, much larger group than “atheist authors”, though authors are certainly a part of that group. But my argument is that the values of the former group are revealed in their book preferences. Obviously the case for any one author will be weaker- about as weak as the case for William Lane Craig not caring about converting people is (why can’t he just be telling the truth, works just as well for him).