Comments on: Explaining Atheism http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Gene Callahan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1554 Gene Callahan Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:52:04 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1554 "Hm. I'm not sure what's more striking about that parable: Its almost complete irrelevance to anything I wrote here," The writer of the parable was well able to predict that the man in the desert would be quite certain he wasn't the man in the desert! "or how indiscriminately it could be applied to UFOs, unicorns, healing crystals, or anything else you care to name." Yes, Julian, literally billions of people, including most of the greatest minds in history, have reported encountering unicorns. The examples are exactly the same. You haven't missed out on anything, and you can sleep tight. “Hm. I’m not sure what’s more striking about that parable: Its almost complete irrelevance to anything I wrote here,”

The writer of the parable was well able to predict that the man in the desert would be quite certain he wasn’t the man in the desert!

“or how indiscriminately it could be applied to UFOs, unicorns, healing crystals, or anything else you care to name.”

Yes, Julian, literally billions of people, including most of the greatest minds in history, have reported encountering unicorns. The examples are exactly the same. You haven’t missed out on anything, and you can sleep tight.

]]> By: Gene Callahan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1553 Gene Callahan Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:48:15 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1553 "I think a comparable analogy is with Bryan Caplan's studies on the beliefs of economists. Even when controlling for income and other confounding variables, the belief gap between economists and the public is robust." By this mode of evaluating beliefs: 1) In the 1930s, American economists were far more interventionist than was the American public. The stupid public did not realize interventionism is correct. 2) In the 1990s, American economists were far less interventionist than the American public. The stupid public does not realize non-interventionism is correct. 3) American historians are far more Marxist than the general public. Stupid public does not realize that laissez-faire, state corporatism, and communism are all correct! Obviously, the mode of arguing employed in this thread is complete rubbish. “I think a comparable analogy is with Bryan Caplan’s studies on the beliefs of economists. Even when controlling for income and other confounding variables, the belief gap between economists and the public is robust.”

By this mode of evaluating beliefs:
1) In the 1930s, American economists were far more interventionist than was the American public. The stupid public did not realize interventionism is correct.
2) In the 1990s, American economists were far less interventionist than the American public. The stupid public does not realize non-interventionism is correct.
3) American historians are far more Marxist than the general public. Stupid public does not realize that laissez-faire, state corporatism, and communism are all correct!

Obviously, the mode of arguing employed in this thread is complete rubbish.

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1552 Julian Sanchez Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:19:06 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1552 Hm. I'm not sure what's more striking about that parable: Its almost complete irrelevance to anything I wrote here, or how indiscriminately it could be applied to UFOs, unicorns, healing crystals, or anything else you care to name. Hm. I’m not sure what’s more striking about that parable: Its almost complete irrelevance to anything I wrote here, or how indiscriminately it could be applied to UFOs, unicorns, healing crystals, or anything else you care to name.

]]> By: Gene Callahan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1551 Gene Callahan Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:21:37 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1551 A man lives in a searing desert. The only water he has ever seen in his life bubbles out of small springs in the cliffs. One day, a trade route is established through his land, and he begins to meet many strangers. One thing he hears about from them is swimming. He has never conceived of such a notion. Secretly, he is jealous that all of these people have experienced something he's missed out on. But he won't admit that, even to himself. Instead, he proclaims that what these people are saying is irrational superstition, and that there supposed experiences of swimming are just self-delusion. He begins to ask these people, with a sense of smug superiority, just how one goes about this "swimming." One traveler describes breaststroke to him, another backstroke, another the crawl, another butterfly, and so on. At this point, he exclaims "Aha! This proves these people are talking nonsense. Although they claim 'swimming' exists, they can't even agree about how its done!" He takes the fact that there are many ways to swim as proof that there is no way to swim! A man lives in a searing desert. The only water he has ever seen in his life bubbles out of small springs in the cliffs.

One day, a trade route is established through his land, and he begins to meet many strangers. One thing he hears about from them is swimming. He has never conceived of such a notion. Secretly, he is jealous that all of these people have experienced something he’s missed out on. But he won’t admit that, even to himself. Instead, he proclaims that what these people are saying is irrational superstition, and that there supposed experiences of swimming are just self-delusion.

He begins to ask these people, with a sense of smug superiority, just how one goes about this “swimming.” One traveler describes breaststroke to him, another backstroke, another the crawl, another butterfly, and so on. At this point, he exclaims “Aha! This proves these people are talking nonsense. Although they claim ‘swimming’ exists, they can’t even agree about how its done!” He takes the fact that there are many ways to swim as proof that there is no way to swim!

]]> By: arthur http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1550 arthur Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:28:51 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1550 The philosphy faculty has an enormous selection bias towards non-believers. Most believers with the appropriate aptitude and interests would choose to pursue either ministry or academic theology rather than academic philosophy. The philosphy faculty has an enormous selection bias towards non-believers. Most believers with the appropriate aptitude and interests would choose to pursue either ministry or academic theology rather than academic philosophy.

]]> By: John Tabin http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1549 John Tabin Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:16:00 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1549 Embracing left-liberalism is also "just what highly intelligent, educated people typically do" in that very same mileu. That doesn't have anything to do with it being "the correct tendancy." Based on what I know about professors of political science, law, and even the humanities, I see no reason to believe that philosophers are more likely than anyone else to have the right answers to the questions they are supposed to be experts on. Embracing left-liberalism is also “just what highly intelligent, educated people typically do” in that very same mileu. That doesn’t have anything to do with it being “the correct tendancy.” Based on what I know about professors of political science, law, and even the humanities, I see no reason to believe that philosophers are more likely than anyone else to have the right answers to the questions they are supposed to be experts on.

]]> By: Gene Callahan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1548 Gene Callahan Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:40:18 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1548 "I'm inclined to favor the rather prosaic explanation that rejecting religion is just what highly intelligent, educated people typically do in a milieu where they're expected to think hard about such questions and come up with defensible rather than merely personally pleasing answers, and that the tendency to reject will covary directly with these factors because it's the correct tendency." Sure, Julian. That's just why Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, and Hegel rejected the idea of God. They were great thinkers who seriously contemplated this issue, and of course, they... what?! You're telling me that they <em>didn't</em> reject the idea of God? WTF? “I’m inclined to favor the rather prosaic explanation that rejecting religion is just what highly intelligent, educated people typically do in a milieu where they’re expected to think hard about such questions and come up with defensible rather than merely personally pleasing answers, and that the tendency to reject will covary directly with these factors because it’s the correct tendency.”

Sure, Julian. That’s just why Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, and Hegel rejected the idea of God. They were great thinkers who seriously contemplated this issue, and of course, they… what?! You’re telling me that they didn’t reject the idea of God? WTF?

]]> By: Javier http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1547 Javier Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:49:11 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1547 Let's think back to Hume's dialogues on religion. Even if we accept some argument for a deity (and we shouldn't), it is a ridiculously huge leap of faith to assume any particular religious doctrine. Professors probably bear the cost for their beliefs more than other people (I realize many people will disagree with this, but the crucial emphasis is on "more than other people"), and so I think the parsimonious explanation is that most professors realize that there is no credible argument for a belief in any particular religious dogma and, I think, any deity. I think a comparable analogy is with Bryan Caplan's studies on the beliefs of economists. Even when controlling for income and other confounding variables, the belief gap between economists and the public is robust. The same is probably true for religion. Let’s think back to Hume’s dialogues on religion. Even if we accept some argument for a deity (and we shouldn’t), it is a ridiculously huge leap of faith to assume any particular religious doctrine. Professors probably bear the cost for their beliefs more than other people (I realize many people will disagree with this, but the crucial emphasis is on “more than other people”), and so I think the parsimonious explanation is that most professors realize that there is no credible argument for a belief in any particular religious dogma and, I think, any deity.

I think a comparable analogy is with Bryan Caplan’s studies on the beliefs of economists. Even when controlling for income and other confounding variables, the belief gap between economists and the public is robust. The same is probably true for religion.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/01/19/explaining-atheism/comment-page-1/#comment-1546 Robin Hanson Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:26:35 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1549#comment-1546 Is it clear that God is a simpler answer than other answers? Can't God be very complex and mysterious and require lots to fathom? Is it clear that God is a simpler answer than other answers? Can’t God be very complex and mysterious and require lots to fathom?

]]>