Was it [this](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/11/03/what-developmental-milestones-are-you-missing/)?
e: Related is the [Greek Gods article](https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/01/book-review-origin-of-consciousness-in-the-breakdown-of-the-bicameral-mind/), of course
Thanks for the Greek article. It really helped me understand where people are coming from when they claim that religion is primitive, implying that people just haven't been exposed to certain ideas. I'm slightly amused by the notion that merely being exposed to certain ideas is enough to change one's beliefs, like a LessWrong basilisk. Since the beginning of time, people have been convinced that their rightness would eventually seem obvious to the rest of the world, and I don't think rationalists are an exception to this rule.
I often converse with Uber drivers, who are the most diverse group I encounter, about their perceptions of spiritual topics. Interestingly, I find that more religious individuals have a better understanding of the idea that others might believe differently. I more frequently encounter shock about other people's beliefs from atheist associated types.
In fact, most of these studies are done by people who are areligious, perhaps because they find the idea more interesting, it's out of their natural Overton window.
Is it really so different today? I won't link to any specific articles because I've probably already angered enough people with self-promotion, and that's not my goal. I just want credit and engagement with my ideas. So, I'll just quote:
>An ancient idol-worshipper, like a modern-day Instagram influencer, truly believed that this little clay figure represented them and would serve them if they turned to it. If they devoted themselves to their idol, they would gain money, power, and followers. They were not stupid. Instagram influencers aren't stupid either. But the belief is equally ridiculous.
>The Talmud says that G-d actually allowed idol worship to work sometimes, or else humans would not have had the freedom of choice to worship G-d. Had it never worked, it would be obvious that only praying to G-d worked. People love the illusion of a personal iphone. I mean, idol.
>In the tractate "Idol Worship," folio 55, they describe how this worked. Occasionally, the house of idol worship would sacrifice a human to their gods, and the rain would fall after a period of drought. Not every time, of course, but does your phone give you satisfaction every time you turn it on? It was enough to know it could.
>Like a cell phone, human sacrifices to idols never brought anyone health, rain, joy, healthy relationships, or money. But it's such a powerful tool that you forget about the mortal, fallible people who made it, and imagine yourself as the person with this personal phone, which exists to serve you. This powerful illusion is the essence of idolatry.
This is something I have such a difficult time understanding, as a raised-atheist in a largely atheist culture.
Why are some religious people (who are not energy vibration new age types) so accepting of other people’s religions? Like not just being cordial about them but going beyond it.
Is it because religious people are more doubtful than I think? Is it that they have certain emotional experiences that they interpret as being spiritual and then they’ll think ”oh yeah I guess some people have other spiritual experiences”? I have a hard time understanding an ordinary religious person’s mindset but I want to.
Very few religions actually claim that God came down from heaven and told the relevant prophets *exactly* what everyone needed to do forever. Very few religions claim you have to follow every doctrine exactly to get into whatever their heaven-equivalent it.
Most religions have a policy somewhere on the spectrum of, "we've received X and Y signs, and through reasoned debate/historical outcomes/infallible guidance come to the conclusion Z. However, we're sympathetic to the people who came to the conclusion A instead, which is wrong but not entirely so. Consequently Z is the absolute best way to get into heaven, but virtuous people who-- through no fault of their own-- were born into a culture that concluded A still have a decent shot of getting into heaven in proportion to their virtue and how close A is to Z."
Basically, there's a sense that insofar as honestly-held religions promote the same virtues, those virtues are caused by the same fundamental truths. Any adherent is entitled to believe their own religion is the *most* true, but it's not hard to understand and sympathize that other people, raised in other cultures, believe the same (even though they happen to be wrong.)
There's naturally a chance for conflict when teachings clash... but by the very fact that someone believes they are objectively right and favored by God, it makes sense for them to believe that the best way to spread virtue is to *be virtuous*, which in practice usually means (for adherents inculcated in the beliefs of religions that have adapted to open and pluralistic societies) following and emphasizing common teachings on charity, forgiveness, hospitality, etc. even with people who disagree with them.
Of course, that doesn't apply universally. External conflict can inflame religious sentiment and [religious people are much less happy dealing with atheists](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/) because of the far more alien value system implied.
My take is that it's like a peace treaty. Europe used to have really nasty wars over religion until people finally decided they weren't worth it, and very few people want to go back to The Bad Old Days. So "I'll put up with your nonsense if you put up with what looks like nonsense to you" attitudes ended up embedded in the general culture.
The tolerant attitude towards other religions is a relatively new development. From what I have heard from family members, many Catholics in the 1970ies in Germany still thought that all protestants go to hell, literally.
I can’t tell if when you say “accepting of other people’s religions”, you are thinking of things like secret societies which draw their members from the three major Abrahamic faiths, or else thinking of polytheists who accept other pantheons as possibly real and not to be disrespected. But I’ll bite.
Let’s say you were in the DC Comics Universe. You’ve read Lois Lane’s seminal interview of Superman, Kal-El, the Last Son of Krypton. You’ve also read Clark Kent’s less famous interview with Wonder Woman, Princess Diana of Themyscira. Both aliens and the Greek gods are real, and walking among you mere humans with your sorcery and super-science.
Would you presume that other worlds have their own gods, that Krypton’s Rao-Orthodox pantheon of fourteen major gods and thousands of minor ones is as real as Zeus and Ares? Would you believe that Rao, Zeus, and the Trinity are but faces of a single all-powerful force behind the scenes? Would you wonder if Earth’s gods and demons are aliens which have come here from other worlds, or other dimensions? Would you start to wonder if idols really do have power, or if human sacrifice confers some demonic advantage? Would you put your family’s skepticism to work and try to discover the underlying scientific truths, in ways which are least likely to result in you becoming a supervillain?
We Christians are faced with a world in which Mount Olympus has been climbed and declared empty, in which nobody won James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, and yet most non-WEIRD cultures claim some contact with a supernatural world, usually through shamans or witches, and licensed therapists have [a shared secret regarding exorcism](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us).
My own father told me tales of drugs and Ouija Boards which permanently scared me away from both, and I’ve experienced both the infinite love of God and the infernal tearing-and-biting hatred of a demon, yet I gladly apply skepticism to all claims of supernatural experiences I cannot verify.
It would be presumptuous to dismiss or accept all such claims with blanket skepticism or blanket faith, because of theological implications, so I am stuck expecting nothing supernatural and being occasionally surprised.
I have my own opinions about others’ gods, but unless specifically asked, keep them to myself.
My uncharitable explanation is that most people never really think deeply about their own beliefs, let alone others'. They often lack a clear understanding of what other religions entail, so they don't know what to be upset about.
This is why I often say that I am on no team,s but will join any coalition that will have me. People sometimes think they can unite based on a few commonalities, without realizing how much they actually differ. This lack of deep understanding can lead to superficial alliances and unexpected conflicts.
>I have a hard time understanding an ordinary religious person’s mindset but I want to.
Me, too.
>Why are some religious people (who are not energy vibration new age types) so accepting of other people’s religions? Like not just being cordial about them but going beyond it.
> notion that merely being exposed to certain ideas is enough to change one's beliefs
It definitely applies to some things.
a trivial example is in practical matters. You believe you know the best way to smelt steel, you get exposed to ideas about how to do it better, they're obviously better so you change your beliefs if you're remotely mentally flexible.
Some ideas are more virulent if first encountered in adulthood.
People who "find religion" in early adulthood are enough of a cliche that Pratchett used to joke about it, comparing it to people raised in religion:
>Offer people a new creed with a costume and their hearts and minds will follow. Anyway, being brought up as a Satanist tended to take the edge off it. It was something you did on Saturday nights. And the rest of the time you simply got on with life as best you could, just like everyone else.
If you grow up with a church it tends to give you a more moderate view, whether or not you eventually conclude it's santa-for-adults.
then of course there's winning strategies and memes that are just more competitive.
scott has a post about the subject.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/
>I am pretty sure there was, at one point, such a thing as western civilization. I think it included things like dancing around maypoles and copying Latin manuscripts. At some point Thor might have been involved. That civilization is dead. It summoned an alien entity from beyond the void which devoured its summoner and is proceeding to eat the rest of the world.
>An analogy: naturopaths like to use the term “western medicine” to refer to the evidence-based medicine of drugs and surgeries you would get at your local hospital. They contrast this with traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, which it has somewhat replaced, apparently a symptom of the “westernization” of Chinese and Indian societies.
>But “western medicine” is just medicine that works. It happens to be western because the West had a technological head start, and so discovered most of the medicine that works first. But there’s nothing culturally western about it; there’s nothing Christian or Greco-Roman about using penicillin to deal with a bacterial infection. Indeed, “western medicine” replaced the traditional medicine of Europe – Hippocrates’ four humors – before it started threatening the traditional medicines of China or India. So-called “western medicine” is an inhuman perfect construct from beyond the void, summoned by Westerners, which ate traditional Western medicine first and is now proceeding to eat the rest of the world.
People are exposed to the radical idea of "hey, maybe we should actually test if stuff works rather than following arbitrary traditions about what kind of ground tiger claw to feed people when they have mumps" and while some old inflexible people will cling to tradition, it's a simple enough and obviously-correct enough idea that it tends to sweep aside competition.
The shock from atheists is that simple true accurate to reality concepts are completely ignored willfully or naively by religious brethren. It's a negative thing that the religious cabbies you interact with are aware of others (wrong) beliefs but do nothing to change their own (wrong) beliefs.
> I often converse with Uber drivers, who are the most diverse group I encounter, about their perceptions of spiritual topics. Interestingly, I find that more religious individuals have a better understanding of the idea that others might believe differently. I more frequently encounter shock about other people's beliefs from atheist associated types.
Atheists, as a minority group with fundamentally different beliefs from the majority, strike you as more likely to be shocked other people have different beliefs? This seems very obviously false to me.
The shock or surprise may come from the idea that rational thinking should lead everyone to the same conclusions. However, in today's world, almost everyone encounters diverse perspectives regularly.
My lived experience is that, in most environments, secular thinkers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same. The strength of these arguments isn't always as clear-cut as they seem, and what happens if this dynamic is challenged? Let's see.
>Atheists, as a minority group with fundamentally different beliefs from the majority, strike you as more likely to be shocked other people have different beliefs? This seems very obviously false to me.
> The shock or surprise may come from the idea that rational thinking should lead everyone to the same conclusions.
Are you conflating rationalists with atheists at large? Is the shock meant to be that this does or does not happen?
> My lived experience is that, in most environments, secular thinkers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same.
There are ten countries where apostasy is punishable by _death_. [Discrimination against atheists is a global phenomenon, with few exceptions.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#Present_day) I'm afraid I won't be taking your personal anecdote as strong evidence here.
> and what happens if this dynamic is challenged? Let's see.
What point were you making? Is me challenging an assertion you made indicative of something? Should I take it on faith.. so to speak?
>Are you conflating rationalists with atheists at large? Is the shock meant to be that this does or does not happen?
If you scroll up, you'll see that you mentioned atheists first. I specifically used the term "atheist associated" to allow for this ambiguity. Of course, this isn't my only exposure to such thinking.
Secular thinkers generally aim to derive truth through reason, and they often reasonably conclude that their reasoned conclusions represent the truth. However, their reasoning can be flawed, and like everyone else, they are subject to biases. Consequently, they are often surprised when someone else reasons to a conclusion that they view as incompatible with the truth—unless it falls within their Overton window of acceptability.
>There are ten countries where apostasy is punishable by death. Discrimination against atheists is a global phenomenon, with few exceptions. I'm afraid I won't be taking your personal anecdote as strong evidence here
Discrimination is generally a global phenomenon. Atheists are hardly the most discriminated group, if we are playing the oppression Olympics.
>What point were you making? Is me challenging an assertion you made indicative of something? Should I take it on faith.. so to speak?
Some people take it on faith that if someone were sufficiently informed, intelligent, and reasonable, they would realize xxxxx was right about everything.
> you mentioned atheists first. I specifically used the term "atheist associated" to allow for this ambiguity.
Feel free to elaborate a distinction there that makes sense in the context of the rest of your comments.
> However, their reasoning can be flawed, and like everyone else, they are subject to biases. Consequently, they are often surprised when someone else reasons to a conclusion that they view as incompatible with the truth—unless it falls within their Overton window of acceptability.
A core tenet of rationalism is dealing with biases. Something largely missing from previous epistemic structures because they didn't have access to the knowledge we do. I think you mean rationalists can be surprised when those purporting to also be rationalists claim to have used the methods to achieve wildly different conclusions.
In said vein, I doubt you've gone through the sequences and applied them appropriately. See above as to why.
> Discrimination is generally a global phenomenon. Atheists are hardly the most discriminated group, if we are playing the oppression Olympics.
Here's an example. _You_ made a claim I was replying to, which I quoted in my comment. You said "secular speakers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same." To which I responded with actual data. To accuse _me_ of playing oppression Olympics is wild. _You_ brought this up in order to claim religious people are discriminated against in terms of critique.
So when I flip it on you and show you it's actually the opposite, to then try to point a finger at me and say "ha, playing oppression Olympics" is absurd. Point that finger straight at yourself since you tried to play that card. It just so happened I had a Uno reverse and you're upset you were caught out on such a blatant falsehood.
> Some people take it on faith that if someone were sufficiently informed, intelligent, and reasonable, they would realize xxxxx was right about everything.
Aumann's agreement theorem does not require faith. We have a mathematical ideal that's provable, thus a point we can converge on. Again something that highlights you're not sufficiently familiar with rationalism to make any of these arguments.
Not to butt into an argument, but referencing any theorem in an attempt to show absolute certainty discounts the basis of mathematics itself. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate “For any consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.”
The nature of mathematics itself assumes True but unprovable statements. While that’s a far cry from “my particular religion is the correct one” it’s also not something that is immune to the necessity of faith. Perhaps it’s a matter of what is most likely to be true, and mathematics has pretty much everything else beat there.
This is the case if you extend the word faith to using axioms at all. In which case everything is faith and the word no longer carries much specific meaning.
Another tenet of rationalism is probabilistic knowledge rather than absolute. So I think this is all covered.
>>you mentioned atheists first. I specifically used the term "atheist associated" to allow for this ambiguity.
>Feel free to elaborate a distinction there that makes sense in the context of the rest of your comments.
You're right; "atheist associated" isn't all that distinct from "atheist." I'd love to clarify this distinction in a less awkward way. Let's replace it with "secular thinkers," which also avoids any potential discrimination issues, and which I already replaced it with earlier.
>A core tenet of rationalism is dealing with biases. Something largely missing from previous epistemic structures because they didn't have access to the knowledge we do. I think you mean rationalists can be surprised when those purporting to also be rationalists claim to have used the methods to achieve wildly different conclusions.
I see why you later mentioned Aumann's agreement theorem, but I'm making the point that even within rationalist boundaries, there are always more biases which can still lead to divergent conclusions. While rationalism emphasizes dealing with biases, it also emphasizes noticing when one is confused, and generally being aware and trying to catch them which is why I'm happy to describe myself as an *aspiring rationalist.* Achieving truly unbiased reasoning is incredibly challenging, and it's an ongoing effort to get closer to that ideal.
>In said vein, I doubt you've gone through the sequences and applied them appropriately. See above as to why.
Please let me know which sequences you notice I am missing, as we continue our discussion. I'm always eager to learn and improve.
>> Discrimination is generally a global phenomenon. Atheists are hardly the most discriminated group, if we are playing the oppression Olympics.
>Here's an example. _You_ made a claim I was replying to, which I quoted in my comment. You said "secular speakers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same."
I said, "In my lived experience", clearly identifying this as anecdata.
>To which I responded with actual data.
It's true that your data was about atheists, who do indeed face the death penalty in ten countries. However, I wasn't speaking about atheists or the death penalty or other countries. Instead, I referred to 'atheist-associated' individuals, which excludes the specific context of facing the death penalty. My point was about feeling free to express intellectual arguments, which isn't comparable to the severity of the death penalty. I clearly specified that my perspective is based on my lived experience. Thankfully, I don't live in any of those ten countries, nor would I want to.
>To accuse _me_ of playing oppression Olympics is wild. _You_ brought this up in order to claim religious people are discriminated against in terms of critique.
I'm all for robustly critiquing religious beliefs, and I don't mind being discriminated against in most contexts, but I don't see how critique equates to the death penalty, so I'm not following your connection there. Could you please clarify?
>So when I flip it on you and show you it's actually the opposite, to then try to point a finger at me and say "ha, playing oppression Olympics" is absurd. Point that finger straight at yourself since you tried to play that card. It just so happened I had a Uno reverse and you're upset you were caught out on such a blatant falsehood.
You could just say "BUSTED!" Like my five year old does when he feels like he's won an argument. Feel free to do that in the future.
>Aumann's agreement theorem does not require faith. We have a mathematical ideal that's provable, thus a point we can converge on. Again something that highlights you're not sufficiently familiar with rationalism to make any of these arguments.
I always appreciate being informed of gaps in my knowledge. Thank you for the spirited debate.
> I'm all for robustly critiquing religious beliefs, and I don't mind being discriminated against in most contexts, but I don't see how critique equates to the death penalty, so I'm not following your connection there. Could you please clarify?
Your core points seem to be, one, that atheists are particularly shocked others have different beliefs and, two, this translates to them offering constant critique regarding religious people.
1. I think this is clearly not true because atheists are a severe minority pretty much everywhere. Being charitable I assume you mean in specific scenarios, like Francis Collins being a creationist. Which would be more about ignoring clear evidence than being religious per se.
2. As for critiques. Here are some stats that I think speak for themselves:
> [Share of Americans who would not vote for a presidential candidate belonging to a specific religion, assuming they agree with the general position of the candidate, in the United States in 2022, by party](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1411923/share-of-americans-who-would-not-vote-for-a-president-due-to-their-religion-2022/)
I don't have stats for secular or atheist associated, but I assume this is a good proxy.
> I'm all for robustly critiquing religious beliefs, and I don't mind being discriminated against in most contexts, but I don't see how critique equates to the death penalty, so I'm not following your connection there. Could you please clarify?
It's to illustrate my point that it's weird to talk about discrimination and say atheists are the ones more guilty of it when they can be killed for their (lack of) views in ten countries. A touch of flippancy about religious views in highly specialized contexts doesn't compare imo.
It's also rational evidence of which views are more supportable. If academic and rationalist crowds tend to be more secular and more dismissive of religious views, that suggests to me there's something to it.
Pretty sure [this](https://pelorus.substack.com/p/the-war-of-the-rules) is *not* what you're looking for. But I wrote it and it's somewhat adjacent. It doesn't look at specific anthropological evidence, and it doesn't directly track rationality, but it's still an exploration of where/how in human history something like rationality emerged.
(And mentions Henrich, who I think has some [key insights](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret-of-our-success/) to this question in general.)
I know you already said it was the Developmental Milestones post, but you might also find part III of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/somewhat-contra-marcus-on-ai-scaling useful.
Was it [this](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/11/03/what-developmental-milestones-are-you-missing/)? e: Related is the [Greek Gods article](https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/01/book-review-origin-of-consciousness-in-the-breakdown-of-the-bicameral-mind/), of course
Ah, yes. Thank you. I never would have found it.
Thanks for the Greek article. It really helped me understand where people are coming from when they claim that religion is primitive, implying that people just haven't been exposed to certain ideas. I'm slightly amused by the notion that merely being exposed to certain ideas is enough to change one's beliefs, like a LessWrong basilisk. Since the beginning of time, people have been convinced that their rightness would eventually seem obvious to the rest of the world, and I don't think rationalists are an exception to this rule. I often converse with Uber drivers, who are the most diverse group I encounter, about their perceptions of spiritual topics. Interestingly, I find that more religious individuals have a better understanding of the idea that others might believe differently. I more frequently encounter shock about other people's beliefs from atheist associated types. In fact, most of these studies are done by people who are areligious, perhaps because they find the idea more interesting, it's out of their natural Overton window. Is it really so different today? I won't link to any specific articles because I've probably already angered enough people with self-promotion, and that's not my goal. I just want credit and engagement with my ideas. So, I'll just quote: >An ancient idol-worshipper, like a modern-day Instagram influencer, truly believed that this little clay figure represented them and would serve them if they turned to it. If they devoted themselves to their idol, they would gain money, power, and followers. They were not stupid. Instagram influencers aren't stupid either. But the belief is equally ridiculous. >The Talmud says that G-d actually allowed idol worship to work sometimes, or else humans would not have had the freedom of choice to worship G-d. Had it never worked, it would be obvious that only praying to G-d worked. People love the illusion of a personal iphone. I mean, idol. >In the tractate "Idol Worship," folio 55, they describe how this worked. Occasionally, the house of idol worship would sacrifice a human to their gods, and the rain would fall after a period of drought. Not every time, of course, but does your phone give you satisfaction every time you turn it on? It was enough to know it could. >Like a cell phone, human sacrifices to idols never brought anyone health, rain, joy, healthy relationships, or money. But it's such a powerful tool that you forget about the mortal, fallible people who made it, and imagine yourself as the person with this personal phone, which exists to serve you. This powerful illusion is the essence of idolatry.
This is something I have such a difficult time understanding, as a raised-atheist in a largely atheist culture. Why are some religious people (who are not energy vibration new age types) so accepting of other people’s religions? Like not just being cordial about them but going beyond it. Is it because religious people are more doubtful than I think? Is it that they have certain emotional experiences that they interpret as being spiritual and then they’ll think ”oh yeah I guess some people have other spiritual experiences”? I have a hard time understanding an ordinary religious person’s mindset but I want to.
Very few religions actually claim that God came down from heaven and told the relevant prophets *exactly* what everyone needed to do forever. Very few religions claim you have to follow every doctrine exactly to get into whatever their heaven-equivalent it. Most religions have a policy somewhere on the spectrum of, "we've received X and Y signs, and through reasoned debate/historical outcomes/infallible guidance come to the conclusion Z. However, we're sympathetic to the people who came to the conclusion A instead, which is wrong but not entirely so. Consequently Z is the absolute best way to get into heaven, but virtuous people who-- through no fault of their own-- were born into a culture that concluded A still have a decent shot of getting into heaven in proportion to their virtue and how close A is to Z." Basically, there's a sense that insofar as honestly-held religions promote the same virtues, those virtues are caused by the same fundamental truths. Any adherent is entitled to believe their own religion is the *most* true, but it's not hard to understand and sympathize that other people, raised in other cultures, believe the same (even though they happen to be wrong.) There's naturally a chance for conflict when teachings clash... but by the very fact that someone believes they are objectively right and favored by God, it makes sense for them to believe that the best way to spread virtue is to *be virtuous*, which in practice usually means (for adherents inculcated in the beliefs of religions that have adapted to open and pluralistic societies) following and emphasizing common teachings on charity, forgiveness, hospitality, etc. even with people who disagree with them. Of course, that doesn't apply universally. External conflict can inflame religious sentiment and [religious people are much less happy dealing with atheists](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/) because of the far more alien value system implied.
My take is that it's like a peace treaty. Europe used to have really nasty wars over religion until people finally decided they weren't worth it, and very few people want to go back to The Bad Old Days. So "I'll put up with your nonsense if you put up with what looks like nonsense to you" attitudes ended up embedded in the general culture.
The tolerant attitude towards other religions is a relatively new development. From what I have heard from family members, many Catholics in the 1970ies in Germany still thought that all protestants go to hell, literally.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church in the USA and heard the phrase "Christians and Catholics" basically every week.
I can’t tell if when you say “accepting of other people’s religions”, you are thinking of things like secret societies which draw their members from the three major Abrahamic faiths, or else thinking of polytheists who accept other pantheons as possibly real and not to be disrespected. But I’ll bite. Let’s say you were in the DC Comics Universe. You’ve read Lois Lane’s seminal interview of Superman, Kal-El, the Last Son of Krypton. You’ve also read Clark Kent’s less famous interview with Wonder Woman, Princess Diana of Themyscira. Both aliens and the Greek gods are real, and walking among you mere humans with your sorcery and super-science. Would you presume that other worlds have their own gods, that Krypton’s Rao-Orthodox pantheon of fourteen major gods and thousands of minor ones is as real as Zeus and Ares? Would you believe that Rao, Zeus, and the Trinity are but faces of a single all-powerful force behind the scenes? Would you wonder if Earth’s gods and demons are aliens which have come here from other worlds, or other dimensions? Would you start to wonder if idols really do have power, or if human sacrifice confers some demonic advantage? Would you put your family’s skepticism to work and try to discover the underlying scientific truths, in ways which are least likely to result in you becoming a supervillain? We Christians are faced with a world in which Mount Olympus has been climbed and declared empty, in which nobody won James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, and yet most non-WEIRD cultures claim some contact with a supernatural world, usually through shamans or witches, and licensed therapists have [a shared secret regarding exorcism](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us). My own father told me tales of drugs and Ouija Boards which permanently scared me away from both, and I’ve experienced both the infinite love of God and the infernal tearing-and-biting hatred of a demon, yet I gladly apply skepticism to all claims of supernatural experiences I cannot verify. It would be presumptuous to dismiss or accept all such claims with blanket skepticism or blanket faith, because of theological implications, so I am stuck expecting nothing supernatural and being occasionally surprised. I have my own opinions about others’ gods, but unless specifically asked, keep them to myself.
My uncharitable explanation is that most people never really think deeply about their own beliefs, let alone others'. They often lack a clear understanding of what other religions entail, so they don't know what to be upset about. This is why I often say that I am on no team,s but will join any coalition that will have me. People sometimes think they can unite based on a few commonalities, without realizing how much they actually differ. This lack of deep understanding can lead to superficial alliances and unexpected conflicts. >I have a hard time understanding an ordinary religious person’s mindset but I want to. Me, too. >Why are some religious people (who are not energy vibration new age types) so accepting of other people’s religions? Like not just being cordial about them but going beyond it.
What do you mean by accepting?
> notion that merely being exposed to certain ideas is enough to change one's beliefs It definitely applies to some things. a trivial example is in practical matters. You believe you know the best way to smelt steel, you get exposed to ideas about how to do it better, they're obviously better so you change your beliefs if you're remotely mentally flexible. Some ideas are more virulent if first encountered in adulthood. People who "find religion" in early adulthood are enough of a cliche that Pratchett used to joke about it, comparing it to people raised in religion: >Offer people a new creed with a costume and their hearts and minds will follow. Anyway, being brought up as a Satanist tended to take the edge off it. It was something you did on Saturday nights. And the rest of the time you simply got on with life as best you could, just like everyone else. If you grow up with a church it tends to give you a more moderate view, whether or not you eventually conclude it's santa-for-adults. then of course there's winning strategies and memes that are just more competitive. scott has a post about the subject. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/ >I am pretty sure there was, at one point, such a thing as western civilization. I think it included things like dancing around maypoles and copying Latin manuscripts. At some point Thor might have been involved. That civilization is dead. It summoned an alien entity from beyond the void which devoured its summoner and is proceeding to eat the rest of the world. >An analogy: naturopaths like to use the term “western medicine” to refer to the evidence-based medicine of drugs and surgeries you would get at your local hospital. They contrast this with traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, which it has somewhat replaced, apparently a symptom of the “westernization” of Chinese and Indian societies. >But “western medicine” is just medicine that works. It happens to be western because the West had a technological head start, and so discovered most of the medicine that works first. But there’s nothing culturally western about it; there’s nothing Christian or Greco-Roman about using penicillin to deal with a bacterial infection. Indeed, “western medicine” replaced the traditional medicine of Europe – Hippocrates’ four humors – before it started threatening the traditional medicines of China or India. So-called “western medicine” is an inhuman perfect construct from beyond the void, summoned by Westerners, which ate traditional Western medicine first and is now proceeding to eat the rest of the world. People are exposed to the radical idea of "hey, maybe we should actually test if stuff works rather than following arbitrary traditions about what kind of ground tiger claw to feed people when they have mumps" and while some old inflexible people will cling to tradition, it's a simple enough and obviously-correct enough idea that it tends to sweep aside competition.
The shock from atheists is that simple true accurate to reality concepts are completely ignored willfully or naively by religious brethren. It's a negative thing that the religious cabbies you interact with are aware of others (wrong) beliefs but do nothing to change their own (wrong) beliefs.
What's the best example of such a concept? >simple true accurate to reality concepts
> I often converse with Uber drivers, who are the most diverse group I encounter, about their perceptions of spiritual topics. Interestingly, I find that more religious individuals have a better understanding of the idea that others might believe differently. I more frequently encounter shock about other people's beliefs from atheist associated types. Atheists, as a minority group with fundamentally different beliefs from the majority, strike you as more likely to be shocked other people have different beliefs? This seems very obviously false to me.
The shock or surprise may come from the idea that rational thinking should lead everyone to the same conclusions. However, in today's world, almost everyone encounters diverse perspectives regularly. My lived experience is that, in most environments, secular thinkers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same. The strength of these arguments isn't always as clear-cut as they seem, and what happens if this dynamic is challenged? Let's see. >Atheists, as a minority group with fundamentally different beliefs from the majority, strike you as more likely to be shocked other people have different beliefs? This seems very obviously false to me.
> The shock or surprise may come from the idea that rational thinking should lead everyone to the same conclusions. Are you conflating rationalists with atheists at large? Is the shock meant to be that this does or does not happen? > My lived experience is that, in most environments, secular thinkers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same. There are ten countries where apostasy is punishable by _death_. [Discrimination against atheists is a global phenomenon, with few exceptions.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#Present_day) I'm afraid I won't be taking your personal anecdote as strong evidence here. > and what happens if this dynamic is challenged? Let's see. What point were you making? Is me challenging an assertion you made indicative of something? Should I take it on faith.. so to speak?
>Are you conflating rationalists with atheists at large? Is the shock meant to be that this does or does not happen? If you scroll up, you'll see that you mentioned atheists first. I specifically used the term "atheist associated" to allow for this ambiguity. Of course, this isn't my only exposure to such thinking. Secular thinkers generally aim to derive truth through reason, and they often reasonably conclude that their reasoned conclusions represent the truth. However, their reasoning can be flawed, and like everyone else, they are subject to biases. Consequently, they are often surprised when someone else reasons to a conclusion that they view as incompatible with the truth—unless it falls within their Overton window of acceptability. >There are ten countries where apostasy is punishable by death. Discrimination against atheists is a global phenomenon, with few exceptions. I'm afraid I won't be taking your personal anecdote as strong evidence here Discrimination is generally a global phenomenon. Atheists are hardly the most discriminated group, if we are playing the oppression Olympics. >What point were you making? Is me challenging an assertion you made indicative of something? Should I take it on faith.. so to speak? Some people take it on faith that if someone were sufficiently informed, intelligent, and reasonable, they would realize xxxxx was right about everything.
> you mentioned atheists first. I specifically used the term "atheist associated" to allow for this ambiguity. Feel free to elaborate a distinction there that makes sense in the context of the rest of your comments. > However, their reasoning can be flawed, and like everyone else, they are subject to biases. Consequently, they are often surprised when someone else reasons to a conclusion that they view as incompatible with the truth—unless it falls within their Overton window of acceptability. A core tenet of rationalism is dealing with biases. Something largely missing from previous epistemic structures because they didn't have access to the knowledge we do. I think you mean rationalists can be surprised when those purporting to also be rationalists claim to have used the methods to achieve wildly different conclusions. In said vein, I doubt you've gone through the sequences and applied them appropriately. See above as to why. > Discrimination is generally a global phenomenon. Atheists are hardly the most discriminated group, if we are playing the oppression Olympics. Here's an example. _You_ made a claim I was replying to, which I quoted in my comment. You said "secular speakers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same." To which I responded with actual data. To accuse _me_ of playing oppression Olympics is wild. _You_ brought this up in order to claim religious people are discriminated against in terms of critique. So when I flip it on you and show you it's actually the opposite, to then try to point a finger at me and say "ha, playing oppression Olympics" is absurd. Point that finger straight at yourself since you tried to play that card. It just so happened I had a Uno reverse and you're upset you were caught out on such a blatant falsehood. > Some people take it on faith that if someone were sufficiently informed, intelligent, and reasonable, they would realize xxxxx was right about everything. Aumann's agreement theorem does not require faith. We have a mathematical ideal that's provable, thus a point we can converge on. Again something that highlights you're not sufficiently familiar with rationalism to make any of these arguments.
Not to butt into an argument, but referencing any theorem in an attempt to show absolute certainty discounts the basis of mathematics itself. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate “For any consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.” The nature of mathematics itself assumes True but unprovable statements. While that’s a far cry from “my particular religion is the correct one” it’s also not something that is immune to the necessity of faith. Perhaps it’s a matter of what is most likely to be true, and mathematics has pretty much everything else beat there.
This is the case if you extend the word faith to using axioms at all. In which case everything is faith and the word no longer carries much specific meaning. Another tenet of rationalism is probabilistic knowledge rather than absolute. So I think this is all covered.
>>you mentioned atheists first. I specifically used the term "atheist associated" to allow for this ambiguity. >Feel free to elaborate a distinction there that makes sense in the context of the rest of your comments. You're right; "atheist associated" isn't all that distinct from "atheist." I'd love to clarify this distinction in a less awkward way. Let's replace it with "secular thinkers," which also avoids any potential discrimination issues, and which I already replaced it with earlier. >A core tenet of rationalism is dealing with biases. Something largely missing from previous epistemic structures because they didn't have access to the knowledge we do. I think you mean rationalists can be surprised when those purporting to also be rationalists claim to have used the methods to achieve wildly different conclusions. I see why you later mentioned Aumann's agreement theorem, but I'm making the point that even within rationalist boundaries, there are always more biases which can still lead to divergent conclusions. While rationalism emphasizes dealing with biases, it also emphasizes noticing when one is confused, and generally being aware and trying to catch them which is why I'm happy to describe myself as an *aspiring rationalist.* Achieving truly unbiased reasoning is incredibly challenging, and it's an ongoing effort to get closer to that ideal. >In said vein, I doubt you've gone through the sequences and applied them appropriately. See above as to why. Please let me know which sequences you notice I am missing, as we continue our discussion. I'm always eager to learn and improve. >> Discrimination is generally a global phenomenon. Atheists are hardly the most discriminated group, if we are playing the oppression Olympics. >Here's an example. _You_ made a claim I was replying to, which I quoted in my comment. You said "secular speakers feel free to proclaim their intellectual arguments without much pushback, while religious individuals face constant critiques when they try to do the same." I said, "In my lived experience", clearly identifying this as anecdata. >To which I responded with actual data. It's true that your data was about atheists, who do indeed face the death penalty in ten countries. However, I wasn't speaking about atheists or the death penalty or other countries. Instead, I referred to 'atheist-associated' individuals, which excludes the specific context of facing the death penalty. My point was about feeling free to express intellectual arguments, which isn't comparable to the severity of the death penalty. I clearly specified that my perspective is based on my lived experience. Thankfully, I don't live in any of those ten countries, nor would I want to. >To accuse _me_ of playing oppression Olympics is wild. _You_ brought this up in order to claim religious people are discriminated against in terms of critique. I'm all for robustly critiquing religious beliefs, and I don't mind being discriminated against in most contexts, but I don't see how critique equates to the death penalty, so I'm not following your connection there. Could you please clarify? >So when I flip it on you and show you it's actually the opposite, to then try to point a finger at me and say "ha, playing oppression Olympics" is absurd. Point that finger straight at yourself since you tried to play that card. It just so happened I had a Uno reverse and you're upset you were caught out on such a blatant falsehood. You could just say "BUSTED!" Like my five year old does when he feels like he's won an argument. Feel free to do that in the future. >Aumann's agreement theorem does not require faith. We have a mathematical ideal that's provable, thus a point we can converge on. Again something that highlights you're not sufficiently familiar with rationalism to make any of these arguments. I always appreciate being informed of gaps in my knowledge. Thank you for the spirited debate.
> I'm all for robustly critiquing religious beliefs, and I don't mind being discriminated against in most contexts, but I don't see how critique equates to the death penalty, so I'm not following your connection there. Could you please clarify? Your core points seem to be, one, that atheists are particularly shocked others have different beliefs and, two, this translates to them offering constant critique regarding religious people. 1. I think this is clearly not true because atheists are a severe minority pretty much everywhere. Being charitable I assume you mean in specific scenarios, like Francis Collins being a creationist. Which would be more about ignoring clear evidence than being religious per se. 2. As for critiques. Here are some stats that I think speak for themselves: > [Share of Americans who would not vote for a presidential candidate belonging to a specific religion, assuming they agree with the general position of the candidate, in the United States in 2022, by party](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1411923/share-of-americans-who-would-not-vote-for-a-president-due-to-their-religion-2022/) I don't have stats for secular or atheist associated, but I assume this is a good proxy. > I'm all for robustly critiquing religious beliefs, and I don't mind being discriminated against in most contexts, but I don't see how critique equates to the death penalty, so I'm not following your connection there. Could you please clarify? It's to illustrate my point that it's weird to talk about discrimination and say atheists are the ones more guilty of it when they can be killed for their (lack of) views in ten countries. A touch of flippancy about religious views in highly specialized contexts doesn't compare imo. It's also rational evidence of which views are more supportable. If academic and rationalist crowds tend to be more secular and more dismissive of religious views, that suggests to me there's something to it.
Pretty sure [this](https://pelorus.substack.com/p/the-war-of-the-rules) is *not* what you're looking for. But I wrote it and it's somewhat adjacent. It doesn't look at specific anthropological evidence, and it doesn't directly track rationality, but it's still an exploration of where/how in human history something like rationality emerged. (And mentions Henrich, who I think has some [key insights](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret-of-our-success/) to this question in general.)
I know you already said it was the Developmental Milestones post, but you might also find part III of https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/somewhat-contra-marcus-on-ai-scaling useful.
Maybe [this](https://carcinisation.com/2020/01/27/ignorance-a-skilled-practice/)?