The belief that more rational beliefs are possible is not exactly debatable, is it? Certainly, the “woo” stuff you referenced is not the only alternative? That people have to believe in some “religion” and that common “religions” at the current point in history are at peak possible rationality… well, there’s no real reason to believe that, is there?

I'd rather the people in charge were patient, thoughtful and rational. But it is interesting to consider that a rational person may, under some circumstances, want irrational leadership.

Easy example at the moment, I think it is obvious from game theory that there are situations where a rational actor in the US would order a nuclear strike on Russia. Under such circumstances, I'd rather the person with the power to do so acted irrationally. Following this line of thought, it is reasonable to support extremely religious people with irrational ideals for high office - as long as what they actually do gets a good outcome. Eg, a strong belief in a higher power might sometimes drive the sort of people who are willing to decentralise executive authority amongst the masses.

Show me a person who is completely ‘rational’ across their entire belief system and maybe we’ll have a conversation - I haven’t seen it and I am surrounded by highly educated, highly rational people, most of whom would profess to be atheist or agnostic.

I believe it’s part of human nature. It’s exhausting being totally rational

Sure if s person is willing to completely ignore reality for pie in the sky…

There are at least three different claims here that I'd like to unpack:

1) "If you really have to pick a belief system to put your faith in, you can do much worse than traditional religion." Now, I'm a lifelong atheist, and atheism is one of the few things I never changed my mind on, but I came to the conclusion that this is probably true: at the very least, traditional religion is a stable belief system that won't destroy your life.

2) "A lot of people who aren't traditionally religious, actually follow some random bullshit creed that's much worse than religion." I agree with this, there is a genuine human need religion fulfills and many might want to "fill the void" with subpar alternatives.

3) "If you are an atheist, then you necessarily fall into case (2)." Which is blatantly false, as the existence of millions of perfectly well-adjusted and functioning atheists shows.

>at the very least, traditional religion is a stable belief system that won't destroy your life.

That might be true in liberal western democracies, but there are many parts of the world where your particular choice of religion may well destroy your life or straight up get you killed, if the people behind the next coup don't share your beliefs. Even in the west you might hinder your own success if you pick a non-majority system.

To be clear, I’m not asserting that (3) is the case. I’m just saying that as a practical matter it’s a small number and a lot of people that abandon traditional religion fall into your (2).

Believing religious woo doesn't preclude one from believing non-religious woo. If anything, believing religious woo seems correlated with believing non-religious woo: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/27/what-dri...

Evidence that such a correlation exists for “white evangelicals” in the US tells us nothing about whether it exists for religious people in general - including religious Americans from other racial/religious backgrounds, and non-Americans. Your observation might not be true for religion at all, only for a very specific type of it

The idea that religious people don't have bullshit creeds outside their religion is a false one.

Religious people in America act religious on Sunday and like ruthless, immoral "greed is good" capitalists on Monday, flexibly switching ideologies for their convenience.

You're describing someone with a ruthless flexible ideology. A truly religious person would apply the principles of their religion during the week too.

> As a former atheist

Mind if I ask what your path was? I called myself an agnostic starting at about age 12 (and was a doubter from age 5), but eventually worked my way around to concluding that something was going on.

Some of my musings on that subject:

- https://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/06/metanarratives_...

- https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse...

These are interesting reads, thank you. I was a professed atheist until my mid 20s, but I’m not sure I ever fully believed my lack of belief. Then when I had kids the feeling became kind of undeniable. Separately, I had I come to admire Christianity. Coming from a part of the world with generational conflict I think the teaching to live like a lamb turn the other cheek is profound. Secular morality diverges quite a bit on that point.

EDIT: There is a lot of stuff in the second one that applies to me. My wife’s faith is very strong. I’m not sure whether I adapted to her beliefs, or as someone raised in an extremely secular setting she made me comfortable allowing myself to believe things that I already felt.

So if your kid turned up one day and said they wanted to convert to Islam, what would be your reaction?

I agree that atheists are irrational and biased too. We can't assume politicians to behave as cold calculators, whether they're atheist or not.

However very religious people are dogmatic (almost by definition). As such, they are less likely to review certain positions based on facts.

Why do you think theology protects against woo?

It seems like atheism might be correlated with false beliefs around social studies, but probably anti-correlated around false beliefs like "trump still the election".

Theology is the original "woo" stuff, that "protects" us from the so called modern woo stuff like gay marriage.

It’s unlikely that taboos against homosexuality arise from “theology,” given that they exist across societies with starkly different religious traditions. I suspect it has more to do with the importance of biological reproduction in subsistence agriculture societies. My dad grew up in a village in Bangladesh and observed that if you didn’t have kids you died, not even when you’re old and can’t work, but even earlier because you need them for labor. When he was a kid, 1 out of 4 children died by age 5, so there wasn’t exactly a surplus to go around.

You repeatedly pass off very peculiar opinions as "obvious facts" with some quasi anecdata from Bangladesh. I understand the advantage of talking about Bangladesh as there are very few Bangladeshis here to contradict you - but you can use this trick only so many times. However, I will credit you with using the words "I suspect" here.

You are welcome to pretend being progressive is believing in "woo stuff" like civil rights, womens suffrage, gay marriage, race blind immigration etc. The fact of the matter is that - you would not be in this country without the "woo stuff" you are ridiculing.

The conservative culture you have adopted doesn't welcome race blind immigration.

Referring to an earlier discussion when you verbally attacked a legal immigrant for documenting his citizenship process

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31348466

>>> As an ethnic Bangladeshi my kids and I have a right of return. I can obtain Bangladeshi citizenship any time I want.

>> Why are you treating America as some kind of science experiment?

> I try not to! My family was invited here by Americans on certain terms, and nobody has ever really complained. But I think they have every right to complain if they wanted.

Just to be clear- your family was not invited here by a majority of Americans. Just a corporation or university on restrictive terms and got approved by the US government, thanks to MLKs efforts.

A majority of Americans would not welcome you here. Half the country- liberals would not welcome you here, because you would block all progressive laws except Loving vs Virginia, and perhaps race blind immigration, though you take strongly offence when legal immigrants open their mouth, as in the referenced thread. So perhaps, you would also roll back the various 1960s civil rights acts. Half of the conservatives would not want you here because of your skin color, or as you call it - "culture".

> You repeatedly pass off very peculiar opinions as "obvious facts" with some quasi anecdata from Bangladesh.

Apart from my views on guns and legal originalism, I have quite conventional opinions for a desi raised on the east coast of the US in the 1990s.

> I understand the advantage of talking about Bangladesh as there are very few Bangladeshis here to contradict you - but you can use this trick only so many times.

I’m sure there are lots of Indians and Pakistanis on HN. I don’t think we’re so different that they wouldn’t be able to contradict me. But even progressive desis have aunts and uncles. And I don’t know about yours but mine aren’t exactly sitting around discussing Judith Butler.

> You are welcome to pretend being progressive is believing in "woo stuff" like civil rights, womens suffrage, gay marriage, race blind immigration etc.

By “woo stuff” I was referring to saging houses and healing crystals and Druid weddings. (My wife’s from Oregon.)

But as to the issues you mention, the vast majority of Americans support those things. Progressives are the small subset of those people who support those things for distinct ideological and millenarian reasons.

> The fact of the matter is that - you would not be in this country without the "woo stuff" you are ridiculing.

You can’t gaslight me, lol. I grew up in a 95% white Virginia town that voted for Bush, Dole, and then Bush again. The precinct where I live went for Trump over Clinton 58-34 (the same year we moved there). A good chunk of my wife’s family is rural white Trump voters.

There is a wellspring of acceptance for immigrants in this country that’s far broader and deeper than progressivism. Its rooted not in critical race theory, but Christianity, Constitutionalism, and the immigrant history of people who are already here.

Indeed, if minorities and immigrants were as reliant on progressives to be our champions as progressives think, we would be screwed. There’s not that many of them and they have no guns!

> The conservative culture you have adopted doesn't welcome race blind immigration.

The conservative culture my entire family comes from believes in that way less than anywhere in South Georgia or Iowa that I’ve been.

> Just a corporation or university on restrictive terms and got approved by the US government, thanks to MLKs efforts.

I’ve never met a desi (who wasn’t put on TV by white people, anyway) who thinks MLK has anything to do with immigrants. It’s a completely different issue. Much of my family moved to Australia or Canada, which never had a US style civil rights movement. But those countries are also very welcoming of immigrants.

I’m not really making a political point. But as a longtime democrat I lived through all the “the Supreme Court stole the election” and “Diebold machines” and “Putin altered vote tallies for Trump” stuff including among highly educated atheists and agnostics. Most people are largely ignorant about stuff they don’t study specifically.