One explanation why you would not find religion discussed much on Lesswrong:
The sequences are definitely anti-religion in a lot of places, so this might filter out people who are good at epistemology all else being equal, but feel insulted by Eliziers writing. Someone wanting to discuss religion on LessWrong is therefore probably a strong signal for someone clueless who “doesn’t get it”. So discussing religion here is low status.
This component makes sense, but I’m trying to find out whether there is also some other objection that I should take more warning from. I expect some conformity / accidental status dynamics on LW like everywhere else (though less here than most places). But I think there is more than this in LW’s responses to religion. The observations I’m trying to make sense of include not just the absence of much religious discussion, but also e.g.:
The heatedness of the discussion in Valentine’s old post about Kensho
My post here having received multiple downvotes, despite downvotes being fairly rare in general. (I am not at all complaining! You are giving me the discussion I was seeking in the comments, and I am grateful. I don’t think people downvote much just for low status topics, though; I think there’s some other dynamic.)
My guess is that there is some active, endorsed, intelligent opposition to religion on LW, maybe because some people understand something I don’t. I want to figure out whether that’s so. I want this in case there’s a good reason to fear religion (so I can know this important true thing), and in case there isn’t (so I can bridge to LW-ers better, and can avoid being spooked by something silly).
My guess is that there is some active, endorsed, intelligent opposition to religion on LW, maybe because some people understand something I don’t. I want to figure out whether that’s so. I want this in case there’s a good reason to fear religion (so I can know this important true thing), and in case there isn’t (so I can bridge to LW-ers better, and can avoid being spooked by something silly).
I think “active, endorsed, intelligent opposition” is the wrong framing. LW is very lightly moderated, and it’s unlikely that anyone is organizing any downvote-brigades. (note: it does happen sometimes, but I don’t know your history so I can’t tell if all your posts and comments simultaneously got bombed, or if you just tried a few times and got small numbers of downvotes).
Instead, think of religion, like current politics, as “hard mode” for discussion on LW. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer is the standard warning, and “people go funny in the head when discussing ” can end in religion just as easily as politics. In order to have a fruitful discussion about LW-relevant topics (rationality, empiricism, and even social organization), it requires a fair bit of preparation and specificity to make specific claims and points of discussion that can easily be evaluated without bringing in a large amount of vague and controversial connotations.
There is definitely reason to have some trepidation in bringing up religion among people who don’t share your underlying framework. True among family, at work, and on message boards like LW. I suspect that trying to “bridge to LW-ers” is a doomed idea. If you have aspects of rationality which include religion that you’d like to explore together, that’s probably achievable, but not guaranteed to succeed. And especially so if you mean “a religion” rather than “religion”.
edit: I went and looked at the posts linked in the grandparent comment. I hadn’t paid much attention to them when posted, but now I bothered to read them, and downvoted the one about god, leaving un-voted the one about LW’s reaction to it. I note the similarity to this post, and would like to point out “talking about religion’s role in human behavior” is fine, talking about “god” as if that were a real thing separate from the religion who defines the god is likely to get downvoted.
My post here having received multiple downvotes, despite downvotes being fairly rare in general
Downvotes are not fairly rare in general on LessWrong. A key reason for downvoting is likely that you assert “LW has an aversion against truth” without providing any evidence for it. You also didn’t engage in intellectual work to be precise and set out to find out whether more precise claims are true.
One explanation why you would not find religion discussed much on Lesswrong: The sequences are definitely anti-religion in a lot of places, so this might filter out people who are good at epistemology all else being equal, but feel insulted by Eliziers writing. Someone wanting to discuss religion on LessWrong is therefore probably a strong signal for someone clueless who “doesn’t get it”. So discussing religion here is low status.
This component makes sense, but I’m trying to find out whether there is also some other objection that I should take more warning from. I expect some conformity / accidental status dynamics on LW like everywhere else (though less here than most places). But I think there is more than this in LW’s responses to religion. The observations I’m trying to make sense of include not just the absence of much religious discussion, but also e.g.:
This comment of Vladimir_Nesov’s
The heatedness of the discussion in Valentine’s old post about Kensho
My post here having received multiple downvotes, despite downvotes being fairly rare in general. (I am not at all complaining! You are giving me the discussion I was seeking in the comments, and I am grateful. I don’t think people downvote much just for low status topics, though; I think there’s some other dynamic.)
My guess is that there is some active, endorsed, intelligent opposition to religion on LW, maybe because some people understand something I don’t. I want to figure out whether that’s so. I want this in case there’s a good reason to fear religion (so I can know this important true thing), and in case there isn’t (so I can bridge to LW-ers better, and can avoid being spooked by something silly).
I think “active, endorsed, intelligent opposition” is the wrong framing. LW is very lightly moderated, and it’s unlikely that anyone is organizing any downvote-brigades. (note: it does happen sometimes, but I don’t know your history so I can’t tell if all your posts and comments simultaneously got bombed, or if you just tried a few times and got small numbers of downvotes).
Instead, think of religion, like current politics, as “hard mode” for discussion on LW. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer is the standard warning, and “people go funny in the head when discussing ” can end in religion just as easily as politics. In order to have a fruitful discussion about LW-relevant topics (rationality, empiricism, and even social organization), it requires a fair bit of preparation and specificity to make specific claims and points of discussion that can easily be evaluated without bringing in a large amount of vague and controversial connotations.
There is definitely reason to have some trepidation in bringing up religion among people who don’t share your underlying framework. True among family, at work, and on message boards like LW. I suspect that trying to “bridge to LW-ers” is a doomed idea. If you have aspects of rationality which include religion that you’d like to explore together, that’s probably achievable, but not guaranteed to succeed. And especially so if you mean “a religion” rather than “religion”.
edit: I went and looked at the posts linked in the grandparent comment. I hadn’t paid much attention to them when posted, but now I bothered to read them, and downvoted the one about god, leaving un-voted the one about LW’s reaction to it. I note the similarity to this post, and would like to point out “talking about religion’s role in human behavior” is fine, talking about “god” as if that were a real thing separate from the religion who defines the god is likely to get downvoted.
Downvotes are not fairly rare in general on LessWrong. A key reason for downvoting is likely that you assert “LW has an aversion against truth” without providing any evidence for it. You also didn’t engage in intellectual work to be precise and set out to find out whether more precise claims are true.
Wait, where do I do that?
Right in the start, you say “I want to understand LW’s aversion to religion”. That sentence presumes that LW has an aversion to religion.