I can tell you what triggered me becoming an atheist.
I was reading a lot of Isaac Asimov books, including the non-fiction ones. I gained respect for him. After learning he was an atheist, it started being a possibility I considered. From there, I was able to figure out which possibility was right on my own.
This seems to be a trend. I never seriously worried about animals until joining felicifia.org where a lot of people do. I never seriously considered that wild animals’ lives aren’t worth living until I found out some of the people on there do. I think it’s a lot harder to seriously consider an idea if nobody you respect holds it. Just knowing that a good portion of the population is atheist isn’t enough. Once you know one person, it doesn’t matter how many people hold the opposite opinion. You are now capable of considering it.
I didn’t think unfriendly AI was a serious risk until I came here, but that might have been more about the arguments. I figured that an AI could just be programmed to do what you tell it to and nothing more (and from there can be given Asimov-style laws). It wasn’t until I learned more about the nature of intelligence that I realized that that is not likely going to be easy. Intelligence is inherently goal-based, and it will maximize whatever utility function you give it.
Theism isn’t about god. It has also social and therefore strong emotional consequences. If I stop being a theist, does it mean I will lose my friends, my family will become more cold to me, and I will lose an access to world’s most wide social networks?
In such case the new required information isn’t a disproved miracle or an essay on Occam’s razor. That has zero impact on the social consequences. It’s more important to get an evidence that there is a lot of atheists, they can be happy, and some of them are considered very cool even outside of atheist circles. (And after having this evidence, somehow, the essays about Occam’s razor become more convincing.)
Or let’s look at it from the opposite side: Even the most stupid demostrations of faith send the message that it is socially accepted to be religious; that after joining a religion you will never be alone. Religion is so widespread not because the priests are extra cool or extra intelligent. It’s because they are extra visible and extra audacious: they have no problem declaring that everyone who disagrees with them is stupid and evil and will go to hell (or some more polite version of this, which still gets the message across) -- and our brains perceive that as a demonstration of social power, and it triggers our instinct to join the winning side.
Complaining about Dawkins that he is too audacious, too impolite, and seems too certain—that is complaining that he is using the winning strategy. Certainly he would be more palatable to his opponents if he chose a losing strategy instead, like most atheists are socially conditioned to do. He should be extra humble and mumble in a silent voice “we can never know for sure...” until some cocksure priest goes around and says “shut up you idiot, I am sure, my followers are sure, and you will burn in hell” and then all believers will clap their hands about this demonstration of power. Well, Dawkins is smart enough to refuse to play this game, probably because he understands the rules.
(There is a different topic about whether this approach is optimal for epistemic rationality. Probably it isn’t. But it simply means that in the middle of a battle it is not the best moment to read your textbooks; you do that in the safety of your home. Religious people are motivated to be wrong—before that motivation is gone, they are likely to be harmed by the atheists’ expressions of humility.)
Under the usual convention that “reply to” means “disagree with”, it certainly does. :D
Although the “some of them are considered very cool even outside of atheist circles” part was inspired by you mentioning Asimov. (Only the remaining 99% aren’t.)
My original question was basically asking for evidence for your hypothesis (religion is mostly a social motivated-reasoning thing, and the best way to fix it is to demonstrate (over)confidence and social acceptance) or alternative hypothesis. It sounds plausible, but I don’t think anyone has actually tried to check with any degree of rigor.
I can tell you what triggered me becoming an atheist.
I was reading a lot of Isaac Asimov books, including the non-fiction ones. I gained respect for him. After learning he was an atheist, it started being a possibility I considered. From there, I was able to figure out which possibility was right on my own.
This seems to be a trend. I never seriously worried about animals until joining felicifia.org where a lot of people do. I never seriously considered that wild animals’ lives aren’t worth living until I found out some of the people on there do. I think it’s a lot harder to seriously consider an idea if nobody you respect holds it. Just knowing that a good portion of the population is atheist isn’t enough. Once you know one person, it doesn’t matter how many people hold the opposite opinion. You are now capable of considering it.
I didn’t think unfriendly AI was a serious risk until I came here, but that might have been more about the arguments. I figured that an AI could just be programmed to do what you tell it to and nothing more (and from there can be given Asimov-style laws). It wasn’t until I learned more about the nature of intelligence that I realized that that is not likely going to be easy. Intelligence is inherently goal-based, and it will maximize whatever utility function you give it.
Theism isn’t about god. It has also social and therefore strong emotional consequences. If I stop being a theist, does it mean I will lose my friends, my family will become more cold to me, and I will lose an access to world’s most wide social networks?
In such case the new required information isn’t a disproved miracle or an essay on Occam’s razor. That has zero impact on the social consequences. It’s more important to get an evidence that there is a lot of atheists, they can be happy, and some of them are considered very cool even outside of atheist circles. (And after having this evidence, somehow, the essays about Occam’s razor become more convincing.)
Or let’s look at it from the opposite side: Even the most stupid demostrations of faith send the message that it is socially accepted to be religious; that after joining a religion you will never be alone. Religion is so widespread not because the priests are extra cool or extra intelligent. It’s because they are extra visible and extra audacious: they have no problem declaring that everyone who disagrees with them is stupid and evil and will go to hell (or some more polite version of this, which still gets the message across) -- and our brains perceive that as a demonstration of social power, and it triggers our instinct to join the winning side.
Complaining about Dawkins that he is too audacious, too impolite, and seems too certain—that is complaining that he is using the winning strategy. Certainly he would be more palatable to his opponents if he chose a losing strategy instead, like most atheists are socially conditioned to do. He should be extra humble and mumble in a silent voice “we can never know for sure...” until some cocksure priest goes around and says “shut up you idiot, I am sure, my followers are sure, and you will burn in hell” and then all believers will clap their hands about this demonstration of power. Well, Dawkins is smart enough to refuse to play this game, probably because he understands the rules.
(There is a different topic about whether this approach is optimal for epistemic rationality. Probably it isn’t. But it simply means that in the middle of a battle it is not the best moment to read your textbooks; you do that in the safety of your home. Religious people are motivated to be wrong—before that motivation is gone, they are likely to be harmed by the atheists’ expressions of humility.)
That looks like more of a reply to the parent comment than to mine.
Under the usual convention that “reply to” means “disagree with”, it certainly does. :D
Although the “some of them are considered very cool even outside of atheist circles” part was inspired by you mentioning Asimov. (Only the remaining 99% aren’t.)
My original question was basically asking for evidence for your hypothesis (religion is mostly a social motivated-reasoning thing, and the best way to fix it is to demonstrate (over)confidence and social acceptance) or alternative hypothesis. It sounds plausible, but I don’t think anyone has actually tried to check with any degree of rigor.