My blogging on LessWrong

I just put up a long post at LessWrong that I hope will interest readers of this blog. Since I hope to be doing quite a bit of that over the next month, I figured it would be worth making a post that I’d periodically update to list all my major contributions to LessWrong. The list thus far:

Also, you may want to check the site periodically, including discussion, for things I write that don’t seem important enough to list here.

  • JohnH2

    Nice job calling everyone that is religious irrational idiots that occasionally have good ideas. It seems you may wish to apply Chesterton’s fence to your evaluation of religious people.

    • Chris Hallquist

      You’ll enjoy my soon-to-be released debate with Randal Rauser on whether belief in God is irrational.

      • JohnH2

        So are you of the opinion that that a complete description of physics will reduce everything to mechanical functions and exactness? That given a set of unstable atoms in a completely contained and enclosed box that one can determine a priori when precisely each individual atom will decay?

        • MNb

          That’s a nice combination of a strawman and a non-sequitur. It’s not what CH wrote and quenatum mechanics isn’t irrational. But if you think god has a hand in determining when precisely each individual atom will decay then you believe in a god playing dice. Reconvert to pastafarianism, I’d say.

          • JohnH2

            Not claiming it is irrational; it is very rational, it just isn’t deterministic.

            Also, I asked a question in what you responded to. I fail to see how my question is either a strawman or non-sequitur. My view on the subject of God playing dice is quite a bit more complicated then that, but to hold physicalism instead of non-reductive materialism one needs to assert, contrary the theory and evidence, that quantum mechanics is reducible to deterministic causes so that everything is precisely predictable and no inherent randomness is left.

            But an atheist like you of course only accepts science when it suits you.

        • Collin237

          I highly doubt there are many people who would seriously claim that science can explain everything. There’s always room for faith. All of the so-called “interpretations” of QM are faiths. But… they are secular faiths — they do not require a deity. And more importantly, they have nothing to do with everyday life.

          I would hope Hallq understands this distinction. I’m afraid that he does but will ruin the debate by pretending he doesn’t.

    • John Alexander Harman

      If you can interpret “In spite of being a conservative Catholic apologist, what Chesterton is saying here isn’t crazy,” into “everyone that is religious is an irrational idiot,” it seems extremely probable that you are yourself irrational, and quite possibly an idiot. “Everyone that is religious” “conservative Catholic apologists;” being the latter necessarily involves believing a large number of irrational propositions many of which few or no religious people who aren’t conservative Catholics would accept, such as papal infallibility, the enduring moral authority of bishops and cardinals who conspired to conceal and enable the rape of children, and the moral equivalence of hormonal contraception and murder.

      • JohnH2

        I highly doubt that Chesterton was at all aware of the rape of children and modern contraceptives were not really so much around in his day.

    • L.Long

      ALL religious are ‘delusionally idiotic’ when it comes to their BS dogma.
      But so long as they say ‘I believe X and I will not force it on others’ then I’m OK with that and they are friendly.
      I have YET to meet an xtian or muslin who was not a bigot about something and trying to force their bigotry on others. Other then a few who are as I mentioned above because they rejected most of the buyBull.
      I know that this is just me and my experience so there may be xtians that are not delusional idiots, just have not met any.

      • JohnH2

        If you are calling about 1/3 of the worlds population delusional idiots then you probably need to rethink what both those terms mean as well as question your own position. If you are not able to coherently explain what others believe and why they believe it, to their satisfaction and not yours, then you really aren’t in any sort of a position to call them idiots for believing such a thing as you neither know what it is they believe nor why they believe it.

        • L.Long

          I think you need to read the 1st line again. I said about their BS dogma, not other parts of their lives. And I plan on NOT making any change. DELUSIONAL means the WILLFUL suspension of intelligence to maintain an untruth (fairy tale). There is nothing more stupid than that!
          My delusion can be demonstrated as fact…gravity.
          So we go to the top of a tall building and he jumps off and starts praying, when the (insert dogma) person floats back up, then his delusion is something worth discussing.

          • JohnH2

            I just love your response L.Long, there is no way I could have said it nearly as good as, if I had, it would be called a caricature.

        • MNb

          According to psychologists not about 1/3, but almost 3/3 of the worlds population are delusional idiots. I know I have deluded myself a couple of times in my life – not seeing what everybody else saw.
          But a theist like you of course only accepts science when it suits you.

  • Pingback: yellow october()

  • Pingback: cat 4 brother()

  • Pingback: blue ofica()

  • Pingback: water ionizer comparisons()

  • Pingback: hay day spelen()