First, you should consider the possibility that your dad is right. I don’t think he is, but if you want to really know anything, you need to seriously consider his arguments. If you are looking for counterarguments, you’ll find them. But if you want to know what’s really true, you have to evaluate the arguments yourself.
I guess I’ll give you a hint on the “evolution predisposes us to see minds in everything” argument: Humans are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers. So, it’s absolutely true that being able to model other humans has historically key to our survival—just as enjoying sugar has been. So, we believe in a god or gods because of that tendency. However, just because a certain tendency has historically helped us, doesn’t mean it won’t hurt us now or in the future.
Imagine yourself in your dad’s place. You present a more fleshed out version of this argument to him. What does he say? Can he defeat this argument?
Imagine that he defeats this argument, which is a Genuine Less Wrong™-style argument (well, the sketch of one). It’s even got a gratuitous link to a post in the Sequences™ Are you going to then give up your beliefs? If not, why are you arguing at all?
First, you should consider the possibility that your dad is right. I don’t think he is, but if you want to really know anything, you need to seriously consider his arguments. If you are looking for counterarguments, you’ll find them. But if you want to know what’s really true, you have to evaluate the arguments yourself.
I guess I’ll give you a hint on the “evolution predisposes us to see minds in everything” argument: Humans are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers. So, it’s absolutely true that being able to model other humans has historically key to our survival—just as enjoying sugar has been. So, we believe in a god or gods because of that tendency. However, just because a certain tendency has historically helped us, doesn’t mean it won’t hurt us now or in the future.
Imagine yourself in your dad’s place. You present a more fleshed out version of this argument to him. What does he say? Can he defeat this argument?
Imagine that he defeats this argument, which is a Genuine Less Wrong™-style argument (well, the sketch of one). It’s even got a gratuitous link to a post in the Sequences™ Are you going to then give up your beliefs? If not, why are you arguing at all?