I wouldn’t walk into a Mormon forum and call atheism a settled question. ’Twould be logically rude to them.
Is this an atheist forum?
...
That’s a serious question. You have been pretty clear about the issue, but users are quick to point out that just because you say something doesn’t mean the community believes it.
There are a few theists on this site, but based on last year’s survey results it’s an awfully small number. However, the fact that this forum is composed mostly of atheists does not mean it’s officially an “atheist forum.” Is LW a rationality community, or a rationality and atheism community? I don’t believe that rationality in general is incompatible with religious belief, but if this community thinks that their particular brand of rationality is, people like me would love to know that.
I think, in fact, that it might help your outside perception to clearly state the site’s philosophy when it comes to issues like religion. If you say that you’re a rationality community, but are actually an atheist community as well, people accuse you of being an atheist cult under the guise of rationality. If you say up front that you are an atheist community as well as a rationality one, you appear a lot more “legit.”
And if you don’t like theists like me on this site, then officially declaring the site’s atheism would a) deter most of them, and b) give you full justification for rejecting the rest out of hand.
I think it that most of your problems with theists would go away if you clarified LW’s actual position. If this is an atheist forum, say so from the beginning. (Not just that there are a lot of atheists—that atheism is the “state religion” around here.) If LW is not necessarily atheist, kindly stop saying things that make it seem like it is.
(Ridiculous idea: you could hold a referendum! I’d be very curious to see what the community thinks.)
I know this is all-or-nothing thinking, but the alternative is harmful ambiguity.
It’s a forum where taking atheism for granted is widespread, and the 10% of non-atheists have some idea of what the 90% are thinking. Being atheist isn’t part of the official charter, but you can make a function call to atheism without being questioned by either the 10% or the 90% because everyone knows where you’re coming from. If I was on a 90% Mormon forum which theoretically wasn’t about Mormonism but occasionally contained posters making function calls to Mormon theology without further justification, I would not walk in and expect to be able to make atheist function calls without being questioned on it. If I did, I wouldn’t be surprised to be downvoted to oblivion if that forum had a downvoting function. This isn’t groupthink; it’s standard logical courtesy. When you know perfectly well that a supermajority of the people around you believe X, it’s not just silly but logically rude to ask them to take Y as a premise without defending it. I would owe this hypothetical 90%-Mormon forum more acknowledgement of their prior beliefs than that.
I like your use of “function calls” as an analogy here, but I don’t think it’s a good idea; you could just as easily say “use concepts from” without alienating non-programmer readers.
Since I’m momentarily feeling remarkably empowered about my own life, I’m going to take this chance to officially bow out for a few weeks.
We all knew it was coming—it’s the typical reaction for an overwhelmed newbie like me, I know, and I’m always very determined not to give up, but I really think I had better take a break.
My last week has hardly involved anything except LW and related sites, and we all know that having one’s mind blown is a very strenuous task. I’ve learned a lot, and I will definitely be back after four weeks or so.
I’ve decided I’m not going to let myself be pressured into expressly arguing in favor of religion. I’ve said several times I’m not interested in that, and that I don’t have these supposed strong arguments in favor of religion. If you guys want a good theist, check out William Lane Craig.
When I come back I will, however, explain my own beliefs and why I can’t fully accept the LW way of thinking. Please don’t get misunderstand what I’m saying: I think you guys are right, more so than any group of people I’ve ever met. But for now I’m going to shelve philosophy and take advantage of my situation. In the next four weeks I’m going to a) learn Lambda Calculus and b) study Arabic intensively.
This is not an atheist forum, in much the same way that it is not an a-unicorn-ist forum. Not because we do not hold a consistent position on the existence of unicorns, but because the issue itself is not worth discussing. The data has spoken, and there is no reason to believe in them. Whatever. Let’s move on to more important things like anthropics and the meta-ethics of Friendly AI.
You are fixating on atheism for some reason. Assigning low probability to any particular religion, and only a marginally higher probability to some supernatural creator still actively shaping the universe results naturally from rationally considering the issue and evaluating the probabilities. So do many other conclusions. This reminds me of the creationists picking a fight against evolution, whereas they could have picked a fight against Copernicanism, the way flat earthers do.
I don’t believe that rationality in general is incompatible with religious belief, but if this community thinks that their particular brand of rationality is, people like me would love to know that.
Might we not, instead, disagree with you about rationality in general being compatible with religious belief, rather than asserting that we have some special incompatible brand of rationality?
I think it that most of your problems with theists would go away if you clarified LW’s actual position.
The comment above from EY is over-broad in calling this an “atheist forum”, but I think it still has a good point:
It’s logically rude to go to a place where the vast majority of people believe X=34, and you say “No, actually X=87, but I won’t accept any discussion on the matter.” To act that way is to treat disagreement like a shameful thing, best not brought up in polite company, and that’s as clear an example of logical rudeness as I can think of.
It’s logically rude to go to a place where the vast majority of people believe X=34, and you say “No, actually X=87, but I won’t accept any discussion on the matter.”
You’re right, that would be very rude.
I’ve been happy to take part in extensive discussion on the matter already, and now I’m working on putting a post together. I have no problem with disagreement. I never thought I could avoid disagreement, posting the way I did. But it’s also true that I can’t hope to win a debate against fifteen of you. And so I didn’t come here looking to win any debates.
Sounds fine to me. Consider it this way: whether or not you “win the debate” from the perspective of some outside audience, or from our perspective, isn’t important. It’s more about whether you feel like you might benefit from the conversation yourself.
Is this an atheist forum?
...
That’s a serious question. You have been pretty clear about the issue, but users are quick to point out that just because you say something doesn’t mean the community believes it.
There are a few theists on this site, but based on last year’s survey results it’s an awfully small number. However, the fact that this forum is composed mostly of atheists does not mean it’s officially an “atheist forum.” Is LW a rationality community, or a rationality and atheism community? I don’t believe that rationality in general is incompatible with religious belief, but if this community thinks that their particular brand of rationality is, people like me would love to know that.
I think, in fact, that it might help your outside perception to clearly state the site’s philosophy when it comes to issues like religion. If you say that you’re a rationality community, but are actually an atheist community as well, people accuse you of being an atheist cult under the guise of rationality. If you say up front that you are an atheist community as well as a rationality one, you appear a lot more “legit.”
And if you don’t like theists like me on this site, then officially declaring the site’s atheism would a) deter most of them, and b) give you full justification for rejecting the rest out of hand.
I think it that most of your problems with theists would go away if you clarified LW’s actual position. If this is an atheist forum, say so from the beginning. (Not just that there are a lot of atheists—that atheism is the “state religion” around here.) If LW is not necessarily atheist, kindly stop saying things that make it seem like it is.
(Ridiculous idea: you could hold a referendum! I’d be very curious to see what the community thinks.)
I know this is all-or-nothing thinking, but the alternative is harmful ambiguity.
It’s a forum where taking atheism for granted is widespread, and the 10% of non-atheists have some idea of what the 90% are thinking. Being atheist isn’t part of the official charter, but you can make a function call to atheism without being questioned by either the 10% or the 90% because everyone knows where you’re coming from. If I was on a 90% Mormon forum which theoretically wasn’t about Mormonism but occasionally contained posters making function calls to Mormon theology without further justification, I would not walk in and expect to be able to make atheist function calls without being questioned on it. If I did, I wouldn’t be surprised to be downvoted to oblivion if that forum had a downvoting function. This isn’t groupthink; it’s standard logical courtesy. When you know perfectly well that a supermajority of the people around you believe X, it’s not just silly but logically rude to ask them to take Y as a premise without defending it. I would owe this hypothetical 90%-Mormon forum more acknowledgement of their prior beliefs than that.
I regard all of this as common sense.
As part of said minority, I fully endorse this comment.
I like your use of “function calls” as an analogy here, but I don’t think it’s a good idea; you could just as easily say “use concepts from” without alienating non-programmer readers.
I understand it now knowing that it’s a programming reference (I program), but I wouldn’t have recognized it otherwise. Thanks for the clarification.
Since I’m momentarily feeling remarkably empowered about my own life, I’m going to take this chance to officially bow out for a few weeks.
We all knew it was coming—it’s the typical reaction for an overwhelmed newbie like me, I know, and I’m always very determined not to give up, but I really think I had better take a break.
My last week has hardly involved anything except LW and related sites, and we all know that having one’s mind blown is a very strenuous task. I’ve learned a lot, and I will definitely be back after four weeks or so.
I’ve decided I’m not going to let myself be pressured into expressly arguing in favor of religion. I’ve said several times I’m not interested in that, and that I don’t have these supposed strong arguments in favor of religion. If you guys want a good theist, check out William Lane Craig.
When I come back I will, however, explain my own beliefs and why I can’t fully accept the LW way of thinking. Please don’t get misunderstand what I’m saying: I think you guys are right, more so than any group of people I’ve ever met. But for now I’m going to shelve philosophy and take advantage of my situation. In the next four weeks I’m going to a) learn Lambda Calculus and b) study Arabic intensively.
May the Force be with you ’til we meet again.
For the record, I once challenged Craig to a Bloggingheads but he refused.
This is not an atheist forum, in much the same way that it is not an a-unicorn-ist forum. Not because we do not hold a consistent position on the existence of unicorns, but because the issue itself is not worth discussing. The data has spoken, and there is no reason to believe in them. Whatever. Let’s move on to more important things like anthropics and the meta-ethics of Friendly AI.
You are fixating on atheism for some reason. Assigning low probability to any particular religion, and only a marginally higher probability to some supernatural creator still actively shaping the universe results naturally from rationally considering the issue and evaluating the probabilities. So do many other conclusions. This reminds me of the creationists picking a fight against evolution, whereas they could have picked a fight against Copernicanism, the way flat earthers do.
To clarify: you think LW’s brand of rationalism is incompatible with religious belief?
Might we not, instead, disagree with you about rationality in general being compatible with religious belief, rather than asserting that we have some special incompatible brand of rationality?
Do we really have “problems with theists”...?
I don’t. I just consider the debates about theism boring if they don’t bring any new information.
The comment above from EY is over-broad in calling this an “atheist forum”, but I think it still has a good point:
It’s logically rude to go to a place where the vast majority of people believe X=34, and you say “No, actually X=87, but I won’t accept any discussion on the matter.” To act that way is to treat disagreement like a shameful thing, best not brought up in polite company, and that’s as clear an example of logical rudeness as I can think of.
You’re right, that would be very rude.
I’ve been happy to take part in extensive discussion on the matter already, and now I’m working on putting a post together. I have no problem with disagreement. I never thought I could avoid disagreement, posting the way I did. But it’s also true that I can’t hope to win a debate against fifteen of you. And so I didn’t come here looking to win any debates.
Sounds fine to me. Consider it this way: whether or not you “win the debate” from the perspective of some outside audience, or from our perspective, isn’t important. It’s more about whether you feel like you might benefit from the conversation yourself.