One of the most popular criticisms of religion is that it is faith-based, but almost always overlooked is that all metaphysical frameworks are faith-based, including yours which caused you to believe that you possess knowledge, when what you actually have is belief.
Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes. Almost nothing can break a metaphysical framework once it takes root in the mind, in my experience anyways (a little irony on my behalf to make things kinda even, and foster inter-religious harmony) :)
> The vast majority of my belief system is or can trivially be peer-reviewed and reproduced.
Not possible for you to know (more Faith...watch out for misdirection though).
> but it's far less egregious than "sky-daddy says I should love, honor, and obey him - and most crucially give him MONEY as the almighty is somehow perpetually short on cash - so I can be saved".
I will resist the urge to make up something about Your Kind and represent it as True.
> Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say?
You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to. Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
> You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager.
Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not.
You on the other hand, did make an assertion (several, actually).
Have you some more Normative Memetic Rhetoric (framed as Good Faith Critical Thinking) for me?
And also: I did make an assertion, and asked some pointed questions, but you (shrewdly?) decided to give those a pass, instead opting for much more convenient simulated events.
A question: did you do this with conscious knowledge and intent?
> "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to.
Interestingly, this is basically the opposite of the kind of thinking I recommend. This is substantially ironic.
> Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Can you (in fact, and physically, as opposed to simply claiming that you have the ability) please translate the figure of speech "can be dismissed" into an explicit epistemic status?
EDIT: thought I'd pat myself on the back for my earlier prescience: "Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes."
Gosh, how could I have possibly done that? Am I a wizard??
You're parsing semantics rather than engaging with the core point. When I say something "can be dismissed," I mean that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with those making supernatural claims, not with those rejecting them. You seem to be suggesting there's some deep irony or inconsistency in my position, but pointing out logical flaws in religious reasoning isn't the same as making unsupported assertions about the supernatural. And yes, I consciously chose to focus on the most relevant parts of your argument rather than chase every tangential point.
> You're parsing semantics rather than engaging with the core point.
a) You are engaging in rhetoric.
b) "parsing semantics" is not the win you think it is - we are in the age of AI, man. People now know what the term means.
> When I say something "can be dismissed," I mean that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The question is: what is the epistemic status?
Are you afraid to admit it out loud, or does the question not even make sense?
> The burden of proof lies with those making supernatural claims, not with those rejecting them.
False.
"A" claim lies with anyone who makes an assertion of fact. That is you, and it is not me.
> You seem to be suggesting there's some deep irony or inconsistency in my position
There is, though I wouldn't call it "deep" (that's "you" engaging in rhetorical framing"). And I explicitly told you the problem: you are experiencing (psychologically) "Faith" (belief without adequate substantiating evidence).
Look, you're welcome to believe whatever you like, but please don't act as if you are working with some superior to others logic. You are using heuristics, and perhaps some "consensus" "reality".
> but pointing out logical flaws in religious reasoning isn't the same as making unsupported assertions about the supernatural.
I am pointing out the errors in yours. But if you are admitting the religious aspect to it, we've made some progress.
FWIW: in case you're wondering whether I think religious people are also silly in their reasoning: yes I do.
> And yes, I consciously chose to focus on the most relevant parts of your argument rather than chase every tangential point.
But then you would be treating the subjective realm as objective, which is kinda the same thing that I am originally complaining about.
I am genuinely curious: do you think I am dumb, or confused? "Pedantic" I can understand (thought that experience is also technically incorrect).
Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations. Yes, we all operate on some basic assumptions about reality, consciousness, and the reliability of our senses. But there's a meaningful difference between accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality") and accepting specific supernatural claims that contradict observable evidence.
When I say "can be dismissed," I mean exactly that - claims that contradict known physics, make untestable assertions, or rely on circular logic can be provisionally rejected until evidence is presented. That's not faith - it's methodological naturalism.
You're right that I'm working with consensus reality and scientific heuristics. But these approaches have demonstrated predictive power and practical utility. They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel. Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.
No, I don't think you're dumb or confused. You're making a sophisticated point about epistemological humility. But I worry this kind of radical skepticism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to a philosophical paralysis where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.
> Look, I understand what you're getting at regarding epistemological foundations.
> accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality")
The irony.
You People fascinate me to no end.
> can be provisionally rejected
I'd enjoy seeing you store "can be provisionally rejected" in a variable, perform some logic upon it, and then produce an output - what would the variable type of the output be?
> and scientific heuristics
I said heuristics, not scientific heuristics. Science (the scriptures) has methods and standards, and you are violating them, thus failing to meet the categorical requirements.
> They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel.
Right smack dab in the middle of the Normal Distribution. Thus, not shocking.
> Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.
"haven't...that can be explained"
> No, I don't think you're dumb or confused.
Then why do you talk to me the way you do?
> taken to its logical conclusion
Did you use logic to arrive at this "its(!) logical conclusion"?
> where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.
I have bad news: you're already in this spot, but you cannot realize it because you are in the spot.
> The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.
I would argue that, as far as "intellectual online spaces" go (e.g. LessWrong, less memey subreddits), HN has one of the best sets of rules that are the most consistently enforced.
But you probably have something specific that you mean by The Problem that I'm not anticipating. Could you elaborate?
That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic.
And if one should point this out, guess which one is used in response? :)
(To be fair to HN: this is true of all such communities to differing degrees, but at least LessWrong as a platform at least aspires to take such things seriously*.)
Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks?
If it's the latter, I absolutely agree with you - tons of posters have double-standards and switch from logic mode to rhetoric (or even emotion) mode when there's something they don't agree with (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies).
But, at least aspirationally, the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil, while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic and what's not (although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines).
> Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks?
Both.
> (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies).
Is it not absolutely amazing! And I bet he's otherwise fairly smart (I am speculating though, perhaps I will go through his history to get a better read).
That ~no one finds this sort of thing interesting, is interesting. That ~everyone has a strong aversion to studying this phenomenon deeply is even more interesting, and it makes me wonder where that aversion comes from (mainly cultural evolution and conditioning is my guess).
> But, at least aspirationally
There's talking the talk, and then there is walking it. All ideologues have problems with the latter, and are rarely enthusiastic about discussing it, to put it nicely.
> the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil
I'm suspicious, considering how rhetorically weaponized they are. But then, maybe it's just luck or random error.
> while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic
My very point!! :)
I'd have put "logic" in quotes though.
> although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines
The enforcers of the guidelines also regularly ignore them, though not "just" and "completely", which I suspect is a big part of why no one notices.
But my strong suspicion is that to do so you will end up with a philosophical argument that amounts to "we can know nothing" and ends up with solipsism.
Which is largely why I disdain philosophy.
Instead, here is a simple set of statements to counter your position that all belief systems are equivalent:
* There is such a thing as objective reality, independent of belief.
* It is possible to probe and determine the nature of reality by experiment.
* By doing this, we can obtain objectively verifiable, reproducible results, ands they are consistent for all, regardless of belief.
* No such test is possible for any kind of supernatural belief. Gods, afterlife, any of it.
* Therefore there is no way to demonstrate these.
Belief in that which cannot be tested and demonstrated is faith based.
Lack of such belief is not a belief, although it is typically asserted to be so by faith-holders.
It is is equivalent to saying that "off" is a TV station. "I watch channel X, you watch channel Y. We are the same!"
No: I turned off my TV. It has no aerial. I do not watch any station or channel.
This is not the same.
Person A: "I have hair, you don't. We both have hairstyles. You chose that hairstyle."
Person B: "I am bald."
Atheism is not a faith. Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief. It is not equivalent. It is not a metaphysical framework, if I understand what you meant.
I have encountered many evangelists who maintain that all atheists are lying and everyone believes in their god. This is a simple failure of imagination. It is not a stronger argument.
"Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it." -- Philip K Dick.
I stopped believing at age 11 and have never since seen any evidence to make me reconsider.
All gods are lies. All religions are simple superstition with no basis in reality or truth.
I welcome any objectively verifiable, reproducible evidence to the contrary.
If this was true, you would be able to DEMONSTRATE that you can actually consider criticism of your claims, and take questions seriously, and answer them.
I believe that you quite literally cannot do that.
For starters, there is your base cognitive capability. But there is also now the "losing face" element in play.
Pushing back against one's cultural conditioning and the intuitions and customs that come along with it is not easy.
I am not interested in whatever weird little sky-fairy-botherer game you are trying to play.
If your gods were real, you could prove their existence. You can't, same as all other sky-fairy-botherers. Therefore, there being no evidence whatsoever for them, they don't exist. The end.
Now please go away and stop being annoying. The grownups have technology to talk about.
