In your day job, that would be like saying “I’m a String Theorist” and automatically look for arguments against, say, LQG, because LQG is not from your camp.
Kinda pointless to argue with someone whose bottom line is prewritten… But, to give you the benefit of a doubt, maybe you can coherently answer why you are Christian and not, say, Sikh, and why you want to mix Science and Religion, instead of compartmentalizing them (Mon-Fri: quantum gravity, Sun: church).
In your day job, that would be like saying “I’m a String Theorist” and automatically look for arguments against, say, LQG, because LQG is not from your camp.
Kinda pointless to argue with someone whose bottom line is prewritten…
Do you think the same about someone who says “I’m an atheist”?
Do you think the same about someone who says “I’m an atheist”?
It’s a good question. I get annoyed at them, for sure, if only because they make an untestable assertion. However, most atheists, at least in the US, did not start out this way, so they at some point overcame the motivated cognition fallacy of sticking with the religion of their upbringing. If someone proudly says “I’m an atheist, I grew up in an atheist house” I find it little better then someone looking for supporting arguments for their parents’ faith.
On the contrary, I want to take seriously all the reasonable arguments on both sides. The fact that I have an opinion about where the evidence as a whole leads does not prima facie make me impossible to argue with. Do you think it’s pointless to argue with anyone who has a strong opinion about anything? Or do you think religion is a special case?
As for why I think Christianity is better than other religions, it’s mainly because I believe that the Christian miracle claims are supported by better historical evidence than the miracle claims of other religions. Obviously in order to demonstrate this one would have to get into the nitty-gritty historical data, which I don’t want to do here. But surely you can at least imagine a hypothetical set of historical data for which I’d be right. I think you have to actually think about each religion on a case-by-case basis, and not assume in advance they are all the same.
Why not just compartmentalize Science and Religion? Because I actually believe them both, as facts about the real world, so of course they can’t live in totally watertight compartments. There may be situations in which I’m thinking more about one than the other, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s only one world and that everything has to fit consistently together. What would you do if someone asked you: Why not just compartmentalize physics and economics? I’m having a hard time making sense of this question.
In other words, I agree with rationalism in its claim that we ought to apply Reason responsibly to everything, even Religon. I just disagree about what follows when you do that...
The fact that I have an opinion about where the evidence as a whole leads does not prima facie make me impossible to argue with.
So you’re saying that if the evidence goes against you, you are going to stop being a Christian and self-identify as atheist (note that we do not capitalize that word)?
Does that mean that you are purely focused on having a true belief system and don’t want to believe in God because believing in God makes you happy or provides other benefits?
On 18 December 2012 09:13:14PM, user “aronwall” replied “yes” to the question “So you’re saying that if the evidence goes against you, you are going to stop being a Christian and self-identify as atheist (note that we do not capitalize that word)?”. This comment is to ensure that user “aronwall” shall not be able to disavow this reply; please ignore it otherwise.
So, I’m sorry if I’m missing something here, but… your claim is that you have evidence, but you don’t wish to discuss ANY specifics? Not even one single example?
I mean, yes, I can IMAGINE a hypothetical set of historical data that does that, but I can also imagine the caloric requirements of an elder red dragon.
So, I’m sorry if I’m missing something here, but… your claim is that you have evidence, but you don’t wish to discuss ANY specifics? Not even one single example?
I got the impression aronwall is willing to discuss specifics, just not here & now (where they’re instead trying to sum up their POV rather than start an object-level argument). Hence the separate blog.
“surely you can at least imagine a hypothetical set of historical data for which I’d be right”
aronwall
It feels dishonest to say “The evidence supports me, and I’m sure a reasonable person can see how that would be the case” until and unless you actually are willing to share that evidence.
I know I’d be just as irked if Eliezer made a post saying “Science has proven Cryonics right! I’ll let you know the details in a few months”, so I don’t think it’s just bias against the conclusion.
As a POLICY, I don’t want posts like the one I replied to here in LessWrong. I want people I can actually engage and talk to, or who are at least clear and up-front that they will engage me later.
If he’d just said “I’m still collecting my thoughts, but I’ll get back to you when I’m done” I’d be totally satisfied, but he instead argued for his position AND didn’t provide evidence, and that combination just seems like a poisonous mix that could easily lay waste to a nice walled garden like this.
To be clear: my issue is NOT with aronwall, just this one particular comment.
In your day job, that would be like saying “I’m a String Theorist” and automatically look for arguments against, say, LQG, because LQG is not from your camp.
Kinda pointless to argue with someone whose bottom line is prewritten… But, to give you the benefit of a doubt, maybe you can coherently answer why you are Christian and not, say, Sikh, and why you want to mix Science and Religion, instead of compartmentalizing them (Mon-Fri: quantum gravity, Sun: church).
Do you think the same about someone who says “I’m an atheist”?
It’s a good question. I get annoyed at them, for sure, if only because they make an untestable assertion. However, most atheists, at least in the US, did not start out this way, so they at some point overcame the motivated cognition fallacy of sticking with the religion of their upbringing. If someone proudly says “I’m an atheist, I grew up in an atheist house” I find it little better then someone looking for supporting arguments for their parents’ faith.
On the contrary, I want to take seriously all the reasonable arguments on both sides. The fact that I have an opinion about where the evidence as a whole leads does not prima facie make me impossible to argue with. Do you think it’s pointless to argue with anyone who has a strong opinion about anything? Or do you think religion is a special case?
As for why I think Christianity is better than other religions, it’s mainly because I believe that the Christian miracle claims are supported by better historical evidence than the miracle claims of other religions. Obviously in order to demonstrate this one would have to get into the nitty-gritty historical data, which I don’t want to do here. But surely you can at least imagine a hypothetical set of historical data for which I’d be right. I think you have to actually think about each religion on a case-by-case basis, and not assume in advance they are all the same.
Why not just compartmentalize Science and Religion? Because I actually believe them both, as facts about the real world, so of course they can’t live in totally watertight compartments. There may be situations in which I’m thinking more about one than the other, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s only one world and that everything has to fit consistently together. What would you do if someone asked you: Why not just compartmentalize physics and economics? I’m having a hard time making sense of this question.
In other words, I agree with rationalism in its claim that we ought to apply Reason responsibly to everything, even Religon. I just disagree about what follows when you do that...
So you’re saying that if the evidence goes against you, you are going to stop being a Christian and self-identify as atheist (note that we do not capitalize that word)?
yes
Does that mean that you are purely focused on having a true belief system and don’t want to believe in God because believing in God makes you happy or provides other benefits?
On 18 December 2012 09:13:14PM, user “aronwall” replied “yes” to the question “So you’re saying that if the evidence goes against you, you are going to stop being a Christian and self-identify as atheist (note that we do not capitalize that word)?”. This comment is to ensure that user “aronwall” shall not be able to disavow this reply; please ignore it otherwise.
So, I’m sorry if I’m missing something here, but… your claim is that you have evidence, but you don’t wish to discuss ANY specifics? Not even one single example?
I mean, yes, I can IMAGINE a hypothetical set of historical data that does that, but I can also imagine the caloric requirements of an elder red dragon.
I got the impression aronwall is willing to discuss specifics, just not here & now (where they’re instead trying to sum up their POV rather than start an object-level argument). Hence the separate blog.
It feels dishonest to say “The evidence supports me, and I’m sure a reasonable person can see how that would be the case” until and unless you actually are willing to share that evidence.
I know I’d be just as irked if Eliezer made a post saying “Science has proven Cryonics right! I’ll let you know the details in a few months”, so I don’t think it’s just bias against the conclusion.
As a POLICY, I don’t want posts like the one I replied to here in LessWrong. I want people I can actually engage and talk to, or who are at least clear and up-front that they will engage me later.
If he’d just said “I’m still collecting my thoughts, but I’ll get back to you when I’m done” I’d be totally satisfied, but he instead argued for his position AND didn’t provide evidence, and that combination just seems like a poisonous mix that could easily lay waste to a nice walled garden like this.
To be clear: my issue is NOT with aronwall, just this one particular comment.
Never mind.