To answer the question posed in my last post, here are some situations where it makes sense to forgo the large benefits of things like religion, to care about far truth: You are stuck in your ways, like a smoking addict
I don't think self-deception is a habit or skill set I wish to cultivate. I suspect the skills for both deception and avoiding deception translate non-trivially (if not completely) between far truth and near truth. I would much rather have habits of avoiding self-deception in near truth cases, and I would prefer to apply those habits overzealously to far truth cases than risk weakening them in near truth cases.
It isn't ironic -- it's exactly what you'd expect if Far Beliefs function more as Fashion Statements than as Expectations. Too many unsophisticates are displaying an Atheist badge!
applying the basic tools of rationality to the God Hypothesis is easy, so I'm somewhat surprised it has remained fashionable as long as it has.
5. In many situations there are significant positive personal consequences to lacking religious conviction while maintaining the external appearance of being religious. It's better for your genes if you can seduce your parishioner's wives while using your pastor's pulpit to exhort their husbands to provide for who they believe are their children (at least until they catch you). Unobtrusively sneaking away from a holy war, or not putting up a religious fight if your co-religionists' armies are steamrolled by another team, are another example. Homo hypocritus is alive and kicking ass in the church as well.
Of course, for a signed-up and paid-for cryonicist like me, religion does not sound appealing, whatever benefits it may provide. To each his own.
I see there as being non-negligible negative consequences to far delusion which apply more in aggregate than to individuals. For example, religious people are less likely to be scientists. Even assuming most nonreligious people still don't become scientists (and thus are more likely to represent harm rather than benefit), if the proportion that do become scientists is higher for causal reasons and if the marginal value of scientists to society is high enough, it is better for more people to be nonreligious.
This case might be made with respect to other kinds of educated academics as well, but I think it is strongest with regards to STEM disciplines, which are the most useful. Another interesting question: do the religious people who become educated usually go into science, technology, engineering, and math at the same rates as the nonreligious, or do they prefer other less useful academic areas?
Homo hypocritus is not implausible. But intrinsically motivated low-cost altruism is a well-documented human phenomenon (with measurable individual differences partially linked to genetics). And it is possible that accepting contrarian far claims could show not commonly accepted but realistic ways to do relatively much good for low cost.
You know a really straightforward way to convince myself that I've made the world a better place, which avoids the cognitive costs of a prolonged campaign of deception, is hard for potential social competitors to discredit, and has a variety of other long-term benefits?
Actually go out and make the world a better place, then do the research afterward to be sure it worked.
We are unable to change the past. However, we may atone for it. Behave so the context of your life is rational and you may find that the "far truth" is closer then you ever imagined. Humanity has been removed so far from the machine that we fail to see the most obvious truths.
What makes you think religion does not support far thinking?
I don't understand. You say "look at how you act with regards to altruism. You aren't really altruistic. You just want to look good, as determined by evolution". In other words: revealed preferences. Fair enough.
Then you say "Evolution has made you want near things, not far ideals. Therefore, you should reject far truth in favor of the near happiness you really want." Why do you say people are making a mistake, rather than take their actions as evidence that they really want far truth?
Dremora and J Storrs, that level and scope of altruism is exactly the sort of thing where I say it seems far more likely that evolution would have given us an inclination to believe we had, so that we can look good to others, than that it would have actually given us.
4. Contrarian far claims with big ethical consequences are true.If the majority undervalues true hypothesis with huge ethical consequences, and if you can affect some of those consequences at relatively low personal cost, and if you are sufficiently altruistic, then accepting true contrarian far claims is good.
Putting aside the question of whether I'd be capable of actually changing my religious beliefs, the main reason I'm not interested in becoming more religious is that very few of the benefits you listed would improve my life.
It seems that religious folks tend to be happier, live longer, smoke less, exercise more, earn more, get and stay married more, commit less crime, use less illegal drugs, have more social connections, donate and volunteer more, and have more kids.
Of all of these things, I already have a level of conscientiousness and self-control that allows me to not smoke or use drugs, exercise regularly, work professionally, have a stable marriage, refrain from crime, and be a good parent. That leaves being happier, having more social connections, and donating and volunteering more. In short, I could make some new friends at a church -- but I already can become happier and make new friends by making more time to participate in any new community.
I don't think self-deception is a habit or skill set I wish to cultivate. I suspect the skills for both deception and avoiding deception translate non-trivially (if not completely) between far truth and near truth. I would much rather have habits of avoiding self-deception in near truth cases, and I would prefer to apply those habits overzealously to far truth cases than risk weakening them in near truth cases.
It isn't ironic -- it's exactly what you'd expect if Far Beliefs function more as Fashion Statements than as Expectations. Too many unsophisticates are displaying an Atheist badge!
applying the basic tools of rationality to the God Hypothesis is easy, so I'm somewhat surprised it has remained fashionable as long as it has.
5. In many situations there are significant positive personal consequences to lacking religious conviction while maintaining the external appearance of being religious. It's better for your genes if you can seduce your parishioner's wives while using your pastor's pulpit to exhort their husbands to provide for who they believe are their children (at least until they catch you). Unobtrusively sneaking away from a holy war, or not putting up a religious fight if your co-religionists' armies are steamrolled by another team, are another example. Homo hypocritus is alive and kicking ass in the church as well.
Of course, for a signed-up and paid-for cryonicist like me, religion does not sound appealing, whatever benefits it may provide. To each his own.
Luke, the important thing is to respect religion because it does many things we don't fully understand. Believing is besides the point people!!!
I see there as being non-negligible negative consequences to far delusion which apply more in aggregate than to individuals. For example, religious people are less likely to be scientists. Even assuming most nonreligious people still don't become scientists (and thus are more likely to represent harm rather than benefit), if the proportion that do become scientists is higher for causal reasons and if the marginal value of scientists to society is high enough, it is better for more people to be nonreligious.
This case might be made with respect to other kinds of educated academics as well, but I think it is strongest with regards to STEM disciplines, which are the most useful. Another interesting question: do the religious people who become educated usually go into science, technology, engineering, and math at the same rates as the nonreligious, or do they prefer other less useful academic areas?
Homo hypocritus is not implausible. But intrinsically motivated low-cost altruism is a well-documented human phenomenon (with measurable individual differences partially linked to genetics). And it is possible that accepting contrarian far claims could show not commonly accepted but realistic ways to do relatively much good for low cost.
You know a really straightforward way to convince myself that I've made the world a better place, which avoids the cognitive costs of a prolonged campaign of deception, is hard for potential social competitors to discredit, and has a variety of other long-term benefits?
Actually go out and make the world a better place, then do the research afterward to be sure it worked.
It's ironic that the contrarian view now seems to be pro-religion.
Robin has just downgraded his reader's status as thinkers from contrarian to mainstream.
"Go away, and sin no more."
Good advice.
We are unable to change the past. However, we may atone for it. Behave so the context of your life is rational and you may find that the "far truth" is closer then you ever imagined. Humanity has been removed so far from the machine that we fail to see the most obvious truths.
What makes you think religion does not support far thinking?
#1 applies to me, except I'm not particularly nice.
I don't understand. You say "look at how you act with regards to altruism. You aren't really altruistic. You just want to look good, as determined by evolution". In other words: revealed preferences. Fair enough.
Then you say "Evolution has made you want near things, not far ideals. Therefore, you should reject far truth in favor of the near happiness you really want." Why do you say people are making a mistake, rather than take their actions as evidence that they really want far truth?
Dremora and J Storrs, that level and scope of altruism is exactly the sort of thing where I say it seems far more likely that evolution would have given us an inclination to believe we had, so that we can look good to others, than that it would have actually given us.
JP situation perfectly illustrates how the OP commits the ecological fallacy.
4. You believe far truth is a public good, and advance it from a spirit of personal sacrifice for the general welfare.
4. Contrarian far claims with big ethical consequences are true.If the majority undervalues true hypothesis with huge ethical consequences, and if you can affect some of those consequences at relatively low personal cost, and if you are sufficiently altruistic, then accepting true contrarian far claims is good.
Putting aside the question of whether I'd be capable of actually changing my religious beliefs, the main reason I'm not interested in becoming more religious is that very few of the benefits you listed would improve my life.
It seems that religious folks tend to be happier, live longer, smoke less, exercise more, earn more, get and stay married more, commit less crime, use less illegal drugs, have more social connections, donate and volunteer more, and have more kids.
Of all of these things, I already have a level of conscientiousness and self-control that allows me to not smoke or use drugs, exercise regularly, work professionally, have a stable marriage, refrain from crime, and be a good parent. That leaves being happier, having more social connections, and donating and volunteering more. In short, I could make some new friends at a church -- but I already can become happier and make new friends by making more time to participate in any new community.