There are probably better places on the web for that.
That’s an interesting question, actually. I would have been inclined to agree—I agree that a lot of religious thinking is irrational—but when I tried to think of places to send people, most of them are communities like the FRDB. These are not precisely dispassionate.
No, I don’t, though Googling is always worth a try. Using search strings containing words like discussion, theology, agnostic, first cause, and apologetics, I found a variety of resources and communities in which at least the spelling, grammar, and punctuation were tolerable.
In trying to work your way through these kinds of questions, you obviously need to avoid sites where a consensus exists that “The truth is already known”. But, I suspect that you also need to avoid getting too deeply emersed in communities like this one where the consensus is that “The way to the truth is known”. In my experience, people who believe they know the way are even more passionate, evangelical, and just plain impolite than are the self-satisfied folk who think they have already arrived at the truth.
Which, of course, is not to say that passionate impolite evangelists are not worth listening to occasionally.
In my experience, people who believe they know the way are even more passionate, evangelical, and just plain impolite than are the self-satisfied folk who think they have already arrived at the truth.
I would recommend totally eliminating your impressions of “the kind of people who think X” from your considerations about X, unless the X-ites are actually torturing babies.
By paying attention to their personal characteristics, you’re essentially guaranteeing that your opinions will be hijacked by how socially comfortable you feel with their group, which has nothing to do with truth. New agers are great people to hang out with, very… undogmatic, but I wouldn’t recommend swallowing any of their truth claims.
Oh, I agree. I am busy evaluating exactly that. But I will point out that a large fraction of the techniques taught here have to do with how to communicate clearly, rather than simply how to think clearly. One presumes that the reason we wish to communicate is that we wish to be understood. If certain “personal characteristics” (I mentioned passion and etiquette) either promote or interfere with successful communication, then I think that both sender and receiver have some responsibility to make adjustments. In fact, in a broadcast model, with one sender and many receivers, the onus of adjustment lies mainly on the sender.
[Edit: spelling]
I will point out that a large fraction of the techniques taught here have to do with how to communicate clearly, rather than simply how to think clearly.
Really? A quick survey of recent posts suggests that we care a lot more about thinking than communication.
To the extent that communicating clearly affects one’s explicit verbal reasoning with oneself, the two are not at odds. Understanding why using words with excessively strong connotations is a cheap move in an argument will also help you understand why it’s a bad mode of thinking.
That’s an interesting question, actually. I would have been inclined to agree—I agree that a lot of religious thinking is irrational—but when I tried to think of places to send people, most of them are communities like the FRDB. These are not precisely dispassionate.
Did you have an Internet community in mind?
No, I don’t, though Googling is always worth a try. Using search strings containing words like discussion, theology, agnostic, first cause, and apologetics, I found a variety of resources and communities in which at least the spelling, grammar, and punctuation were tolerable.
In trying to work your way through these kinds of questions, you obviously need to avoid sites where a consensus exists that “The truth is already known”. But, I suspect that you also need to avoid getting too deeply emersed in communities like this one where the consensus is that “The way to the truth is known”. In my experience, people who believe they know the way are even more passionate, evangelical, and just plain impolite than are the self-satisfied folk who think they have already arrived at the truth. Which, of course, is not to say that passionate impolite evangelists are not worth listening to occasionally.
I would recommend totally eliminating your impressions of “the kind of people who think X” from your considerations about X, unless the X-ites are actually torturing babies.
By paying attention to their personal characteristics, you’re essentially guaranteeing that your opinions will be hijacked by how socially comfortable you feel with their group, which has nothing to do with truth. New agers are great people to hang out with, very… undogmatic, but I wouldn’t recommend swallowing any of their truth claims.
If LW thinks it knows the Way to the Truth, then the thing to evaluate is what exactly our way is, and why we think it leads to the truth.
Oh, I agree. I am busy evaluating exactly that. But I will point out that a large fraction of the techniques taught here have to do with how to communicate clearly, rather than simply how to think clearly. One presumes that the reason we wish to communicate is that we wish to be understood. If certain “personal characteristics” (I mentioned passion and etiquette) either promote or interfere with successful communication, then I think that both sender and receiver have some responsibility to make adjustments. In fact, in a broadcast model, with one sender and many receivers, the onus of adjustment lies mainly on the sender. [Edit: spelling]
Aha. Agreed, in that case; the onus is on us.
Really? A quick survey of recent posts suggests that we care a lot more about thinking than communication.
To the extent that communicating clearly affects one’s explicit verbal reasoning with oneself, the two are not at odds. Understanding why using words with excessively strong connotations is a cheap move in an argument will also help you understand why it’s a bad mode of thinking.