2018-04-09 RRG Notes

In prior eras, people believed in religion, rather than believing that they ought to believe in religion
Religion was seen as an accurate source of historical and scientific information
However, as other institutions have taken over from religious authority on science and history, ethics is what's left
But why should we trust religion to be any more correct about ethics than it is about science or history?
The idea that religion is a "separate magisterium" that cannot be proven or disproven is a big lie
For the majority of human history, religion was something people did try to prove - it was only when this proof was not forthcoming that people retreated to the notion of religion being a separate magisterium

Dennett suggests that much of what is called "religious belief" should be called "religious profession"
There is another form of explicit belief that's more like "cheering"
Many of the more ridiculous forms of (religious) expression of religious belief are more like cheering especially loudly for a particular sports team

Another form of improper belief is belief as group-identification
Beliefs used for the same purpose as religious clothing
Belief-as-attire may help explain how people can be passionate about improper beliefs
It's hard for someone to be passionate about things that they don't anticipate to be true
However, it is very easy for someone to be passionate about group identification
Therefore, the most passionate forms are often the beliefs that are used for group identification than for belief-in-belief or religious professing

The substance of a democracy is the specific mechanism that resolves policy conflicts - no need for government at all if all groups have identical policy preferences
It's meaningless to call for "democracy" without having a specific conflict resolution mechanism in mind
There are words and phrases that act as "applause lights"
- Convey no factual information
- Just tell people that they ought to cheer (or boo)
Most applause-light phrases can be detected by a simple reversal test - if reversing the phrase sounds abnormal, then the original phrase is probably an applause light
While there can be legitimate reasons to say applause-light-like sentences, if no meaningful specifics follow, then the sentence is probably serving as an applause-light
Eliezer could probably give an entire speech, speaking for hours, saying nothing but applause-light sentences, and not only would the audience not laugh, but his social status would probably improve
I've seen way too many "policy" discussions that were exactly this