4 ms·

So we have an idea that is false. Demonstrably false we can agree. Also, anecdotes aside for a moment overwhelmingly higher religious beliefs correlate with low

So we have an idea that is false. Demonstrably false we can agree. Also, anecdotes aside for a moment overwhelmingly higher religious beliefs correlate with lower intelligence. So, back to the anecdote, why in the case of someone being intelligent by your judgement would they believe this story, with ample evidence easily accessible to refute it? - They've never considered it critically--ok that's possible - They've considered it critically and decided it's true--I'd argue they either haven't or they're not - They have developed a cognitive disconnect to protect themselves from loss of community, connection to their family, or fear of death I am nearly certain that the last item accounts for the great majority, which is why this is such a dangerous suggestion. There is a real risk of losing your agency as an individual for of the rest of your life. I have seen this happen to many many people. I have seen many many people (literally 100s) who joined a church around when they were in their 30s just drawn in by the "community" only to become deeply disillusioned now in their 60 and 70 and feel that they had lost or wasted their youth and full of regrets. These institutions have spent thousands of years refining techniques for manipulating people, and their preferred primary prey is children and 30-somethings who feel "lost" exactly as the OP describes. They literally produce videos and training materials stating such.

khamba 5y ago
Thank you for posting this. I was reconsidering writing a response to that, but you phrased it very well. An excellent eye opening article I have read about this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N2pENnTPB75sfc9kb/outside-the-laboratory https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N2pENnTPB75sfc9kb/outside-th... which discusses scientists believing in religion. The arguments also apply to any rational person who forms beliefs based on evidence which I would say is a necessary property to be intelligent. Hence it irks me when someone says "intelligent people believe in god too"
anon_d 5y ago
There are tons of things like this outside of religion. Almost every coherent group of people believes in some sort of nonsense for political reasons, and as a form of identity signaling. - Many people in this community believe that a female soul can be mis-allocated to a male body, for example. - Many people in this community believe that Trump was involved in a conspiracy with Putin to take over the USA. - Many people in this community believe that democracy is a form of government that gives the population more power than other forms of government. All of these beliefs are rather silly, but are accepted as dogma and critique is unwelcome. ---- I do agree, however, that the Christian church is predatory. It is matriarchal and is basically a system of domestication. However, the fact that they employ dogma is not the problem, all groups employ dogma.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  Seems like this is political flamebait, but I don't think I've ever seen the first point phrased in such a way that it refers to a soul. This makes me wonder, what part of that do you believe is nonsense? The existence of the soul?
  - anon_d 5y ago
    I have no interest in arguing against any of these points here. All I am claiming is that they are a form of dogma. These beliefs look very silly to everyone outside of this culture. They seem silly to everyone. To every other culture in the world, and to every culture of the past. And yet, critiquing them within this culture is dangerous.
    - hotpotamus 5y ago
      It seems to me quite plainly clear that people exist who are confused about their gender and my understanding is that people like this exist in all cultures. I actually learned many years ago that Native Americans had a concept of something of a "third gender" which suggested to me that it's a universal human variation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit What I had never considered was to mix in the idea of a soul - it's actually curious because I never thought that the soul (if you believe in such a thing) would be gendered and it adds a curious layer to the whole situation. But now reading a little more about native beliefs, it seems that the two-spirit term actually thinks about it more as two souls within one body. I find it all rather fascinating and hard to reduce down to silly dogma.
      - anon_d 5y ago
        The Thais have similar concept as well (third gender), but it isn't the same as the western Transgenderism construct. > I find it all rather fascinating and hard to reduce down to silly dogma. The phenomena itself isn't what I'm talking about. The specific belief that "Transgender women are women and they were born that way", and the enforcement of that belief, that is dogma. Similarly, the belief that "some people are homosexual and some people are not, they are born one way or the other". This isn't consistent with reality, and isn't what other cultures believe. However, this is considered foundational, unquestionable truth in our culture.
echelon 5y ago
To veer a little off track, I used to be a huge fan of Richard Dawkins back in college until I realized his approach just creates friction and polarization. The opposite of what he crusades for. The astrophysicists have a way better approach than the biologists. It's non-confrontational. But my point is that I don't think it's impossible for atheists and religious folks to be friends. Or even date and get married. Mutual respect and communication goes a long way.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > To veer a little off track, I used to be a huge fan of Richard Dawkins back in college until I realized his approach just creates friction and polarization. The opposite of what he crusades for. That's exactly what he crusades for; he’s not anti-friction or anti-polarization (on religion or any of his other pet issues), he's a zealous bigot. > The astrophysicists have a way better approach than the biologists. It's non-confrontational. There are plenty of non-confrontational biologists. Dawkins doesn't represent “biologists” he represents Dawkins.
- throw__away7391 5y ago
  Yeah I don't think on HN I'm actually talking to very many people who would for example, not believe that species evolved via natural selection, that there was global flood that killed everyone except one family, that the earth is 6000 years old, that all the inhabitants of the new world before 1492 were sent to hell by a Mesopotamian sky-god, or that gay men and disobedient children should be stoned to death. No, I think I'm preaching to the choir here, to borrow a phrase, and I don't engage in this kind of debate anyway because it isn't worth my time. Specifically I'm saying going to church for community is a terrible, dangerous idea. That even if you don't believe in what they're saying, that it is like going to a Neo-Nazi meetup for the pancakes. Even if they're like really, really good pancakes and you can't find pancakes anywhere else as good and these particular Nazis are not too serious about the whole Nazi thing, you may find yourself getting involved with more than you expected and find that leaving or even admitting you want to is more difficult that you expected. This is not innocuous; there are many, many religious groups out there deliberately and strategically targeting people like the OP, and train their members to do the same. This is the primary way that cults recruit people who aren't indoctrinated as children.

khamba 5y ago

Thank you for posting this. I was reconsidering writing a response to that, but you phrased it very well. An excellent eye opening article I have read about this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N2pENnTPB75sfc9kb/outside-the-laboratory https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N2pENnTPB75sfc9kb/outside-th... which discusses scientists believing in religion. The arguments also apply to any rational person who forms beliefs based on evidence which I would say is a necessary property to be intelligent. Hence it irks me when someone says "intelligent people believe in god too"

anon_d 5y ago

There are tons of things like this outside of religion. Almost every coherent group of people believes in some sort of nonsense for political reasons, and as a form of identity signaling. - Many people in this community believe that a female soul can be mis-allocated to a male body, for example. - Many people in this community believe that Trump was involved in a conspiracy with Putin to take over the USA. - Many people in this community believe that democracy is a form of government that gives the population more power than other forms of government. All of these beliefs are rather silly, but are accepted as dogma and critique is unwelcome. ---- I do agree, however, that the Christian church is predatory. It is matriarchal and is basically a system of domestication. However, the fact that they employ dogma is not the problem, all groups employ dogma.

hotpotamus 5y ago
Seems like this is political flamebait, but I don't think I've ever seen the first point phrased in such a way that it refers to a soul. This makes me wonder, what part of that do you believe is nonsense? The existence of the soul?
- anon_d 5y ago
  I have no interest in arguing against any of these points here. All I am claiming is that they are a form of dogma. These beliefs look very silly to everyone outside of this culture. They seem silly to everyone. To every other culture in the world, and to every culture of the past. And yet, critiquing them within this culture is dangerous.
  - hotpotamus 5y ago
    It seems to me quite plainly clear that people exist who are confused about their gender and my understanding is that people like this exist in all cultures. I actually learned many years ago that Native Americans had a concept of something of a "third gender" which suggested to me that it's a universal human variation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit What I had never considered was to mix in the idea of a soul - it's actually curious because I never thought that the soul (if you believe in such a thing) would be gendered and it adds a curious layer to the whole situation. But now reading a little more about native beliefs, it seems that the two-spirit term actually thinks about it more as two souls within one body. I find it all rather fascinating and hard to reduce down to silly dogma.
    - anon_d 5y ago
      The Thais have similar concept as well (third gender), but it isn't the same as the western Transgenderism construct. > I find it all rather fascinating and hard to reduce down to silly dogma. The phenomena itself isn't what I'm talking about. The specific belief that "Transgender women are women and they were born that way", and the enforcement of that belief, that is dogma. Similarly, the belief that "some people are homosexual and some people are not, they are born one way or the other". This isn't consistent with reality, and isn't what other cultures believe. However, this is considered foundational, unquestionable truth in our culture.

echelon 5y ago

To veer a little off track, I used to be a huge fan of Richard Dawkins back in college until I realized his approach just creates friction and polarization. The opposite of what he crusades for. The astrophysicists have a way better approach than the biologists. It's non-confrontational. But my point is that I don't think it's impossible for atheists and religious folks to be friends. Or even date and get married. Mutual respect and communication goes a long way.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> To veer a little off track, I used to be a huge fan of Richard Dawkins back in college until I realized his approach just creates friction and polarization. The opposite of what he crusades for. That's exactly what he crusades for; he’s not anti-friction or anti-polarization (on religion or any of his other pet issues), he's a zealous bigot. > The astrophysicists have a way better approach than the biologists. It's non-confrontational. There are plenty of non-confrontational biologists. Dawkins doesn't represent “biologists” he represents Dawkins.
throw__away7391 5y ago
Yeah I don't think on HN I'm actually talking to very many people who would for example, not believe that species evolved via natural selection, that there was global flood that killed everyone except one family, that the earth is 6000 years old, that all the inhabitants of the new world before 1492 were sent to hell by a Mesopotamian sky-god, or that gay men and disobedient children should be stoned to death. No, I think I'm preaching to the choir here, to borrow a phrase, and I don't engage in this kind of debate anyway because it isn't worth my time. Specifically I'm saying going to church for community is a terrible, dangerous idea. That even if you don't believe in what they're saying, that it is like going to a Neo-Nazi meetup for the pancakes. Even if they're like really, really good pancakes and you can't find pancakes anywhere else as good and these particular Nazis are not too serious about the whole Nazi thing, you may find yourself getting involved with more than you expected and find that leaving or even admitting you want to is more difficult that you expected. This is not innocuous; there are many, many religious groups out there deliberately and strategically targeting people like the OP, and train their members to do the same. This is the primary way that cults recruit people who aren't indoctrinated as children.