Banned from Irrationalist Modoxism
The power of motivated reasoning
Yesterday, Happygoluckypersonage uploaded to his blog Irrationalist Modoxism a post titled “The Real Problem with Drafting Chareidim”, in which he wrote a number of concerning things, revealing some very depraved fantasies.
Chareidim are religious extremists by any standard. This includes college-educated, professional-job holding ones like myself. They really, REALLY believe that ideally, Shabbos violators and homosexuals should be dealt with appropriately according to the Torah, morality police should roam the street and fine people who are dressed immodestly, kefira universities should be closed, and all immoral secular entertainment should be shut down immediately. They desire a strict Torah theocracy. Do secularists want to give weapons and military training to tens of thousands of such people? They are already very uncomfortable with the numbers of right wing religious Zionists who are advancing through the ranks. What would they do with tens of thousands of armed chareidim who have values completely the opposite of theirs? There is no doubt that given the power, chareidim would eventually use those tools to carry out their beautiful Torah agenda, hopefully, more gently than the Maccabees did with the Hellenists.
… As much as the secularists complain about "religious coercion" with the current status quo, it will only get 1000 times better when the religious extremists control every institution of force in the country (if ח"ו Moshiach has not arrived by that time, ומלאה הארץ דעת השם). Of course, the secularists should have nothing to fear, as there is nothing as sweet as a Torah lifestyle. Especially as they start experiencing the many benefits Natan Slifkin has spoken of in his "Benefits of Religion" series.
There is one more aspect here, and that is Moshiach. Rationalists are fond of the Rambam, who says the Redemption will be by-and-large a natural process. However, for this to occur naturally, Moshiach would need to be coming to an already observant population. He is not coming to reign over a country of Mechallelei Shabbos and Boalei Niddos. With current demographic trends, it looks like we are indeed on track for a majority religious population in less than a century. May we merit to see the coming of Moshiach and the rebuilding of the Bais Hamikdash, speedily in our days, Amen.
(Emphasis mine.)
It would be such a shame if Israel, the only semi-normal country in the Middle East — a beacon of democracy in a sea of authoritarian darkness — turned into a miserable theocracy like Iran. I don’t think any semi-normal person, even HGLP, would want to live in such a country. (Also, there is nothing “sweet” about talking to a book three times a day. That’s not sweet. It’s absurd.)
In an attempt to “cool off” some of the post’s drunken fervor (much like when Amalek attempted to “cool off” the religious fervor of the Yidden after Yetzias Mitzrayim), I replied “It’s a shame that none of us will live to see the year 6000. It would be so funny to watch all the rationalizations.” To which he replied “Don't worry, they won't be half as creative as the rationalizations that men can turn into women, lol”. This would have been a devastatingly witty retort if I actually believed that. I liked his reply in partial agreement. Then, about an hour later, I replied to this saying “I’m not so sure about that. Motivated reasoning is *very* powerful, and should not be underestimated!” Within minutes, I was blocked by HGLP and banned from commenting on Irrationalist Modoxism.
This seems unjustified. My original comment was far more provocative than my second comment. So why was I banned only after the second comment? It’s possible that HGLP wanted to leave up my original comment because he thought that his retort made atheists look silly and foolish, because obviously all atheists must be subscribers to transgender fundamentalism, right? This is a way for him to reassure himself that he’s not totally crazy, or at least not more so than his opponents. It’s like saying: “I may be crazy, but so are you, in your own way!” Wow. Scathing.
Actually, his beliefs, which include, among other things
the belief that the entire universe began to exist on 3761 BCE
the belief that a person was swallowed by a whale, swam in its stomach acids for three days without any food, water, or oxygen, and was spat out unharmed
the belief in a literal talking donkey like the one from Shrek
the belief that you deserve to be stoned to death for flicking the light switch on Saturday
are far more extraordinary than the belief that people can literally change their sex. So he is really in no position to be making fun of anyone for their outlandish beliefs, not even the most extreme transgender activists.
Anyway, he had no witty retort for the second comment. So, in order for him to regain control of the situation, I had to be banned.
I think there’s another, more fundamental reason why my second comment triggered him so badly. Because it brought to his attention the fact that the his entire way of understanding the universe is being fueled by motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is very powerful indeed. If you haven’t already, you must see how Dr. William Lane Craig talks, with a straight face, about the resurrection of Jesus as if it’s a proven historical fact. Spoiler: with the same glib confidence as Kiruv people talking about the revelation at Mt. Sinai as if it’s a proven historical fact.
This is a very dangerous thing for a religious person to realize. I was living in a constant crisis of faith for nearly 10 years, which included some of the most desperate, wrenching, convulsive efforts to convince myself that my beliefs are rational. It was only after I realized that these efforts are being fueled entirely by motivated reasoning that it became actually possible, for the first time, for me to truly consider the possibility that I could be wrong. I became an atheist a only few months later.
This reminds me of a quote from Bertrand Russell, on Thomas Aquinas:
There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an enquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.