Why I'm Staying Out Of The Substack Religion Debate

Read the original at Astral Codex Ten ↗
Cite

Alexander, S. (2026, August 19). Why I'm Staying Out Of The Substack Religion Debate. Astral Codex Ten. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-im-staying-out-of-the-substack

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Astral Codex Ten · collected 2026-08-19 · by Scott Alexander commentary

Quick Summary

The author, who participated in online atheism debates in the early 2000s, expresses disinterest in current debates on the existence of God among Substack writers. The author notes that these arguments, such as the Fine-Tuning Argument and the Argument From Miracles, feel like unnecessary complications to their pre-existing lack of belief in God. They compare debating the involvement of aliens in historical events, like Napoleon's rise, to discussing the probability of divine intervention, suggesting that common sense prevents entertaining such speculative hypotheses. The author acknowledges the potential risks of dismissing religious arguments, but suggests that their atheism is rooted in intuitive assumptions rather than detailed reasoning.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-08-24, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

Scott Alexander, author of Astral Codex Ten, is writing about the current online debate on the existence of God, which has resurfaced on Substack with various authors weighing in. This isn't the first time Alexander was involved in such a discussion; he participated in the early 2000s online atheist debate and found it engaging at the time. However, now he feels disconnected from the topic and doesn't find the current arguments as interesting or relevant to his own agnostic worldview. He uses an analogy involving Napoleon's rise to power to illustrate why discussing divine intervention might not be necessary: according to Bayesian reasoning, if there are many reasons to believe that aliens helped Napoleon, it wouldn't be surprising if people still debate about it despite the lack of concrete evidence. Alexander concludes that his lack of belief in God is more fundamental than his understanding of specific theological arguments and therefore doesn't feel compelled to engage with them.

Written for “Substack Controversy Erupts” on 2026-10-16, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Substack Controversy Erupts
Technology · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
142
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
10%
14 of 142 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Publisher signals
not measured
these signals count newsroom corrections; Commentary has none to count
Outlets on this story
1
Technology
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-08-24 · source text last changed 2026-08-24 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Astral Codex Ten · 53 article(s) · 3 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Scott Alexander
46 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI have long mentioned the possibility that their products could be existentially dangerous, but this has recently crescendoed into even more dire warnings, including suggestions that we have to pace the frontier, ie coordinate to slow AI progress.
2026-10-15 · assertive framing · AI Safety Is Not A Corporate Plot
🔮 [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done.
2026-10-10 · assertive framing · Your Book Review: We Present Television
🔮 When I objected that maybe we should wait for you to accept before figuring out details, they all said great, that’s absolutely right, they would contact you right away.
2026-10-06 · assertive framing · An Open Letter To Steven Pinker On AI
🔮 I’m pretty busy and will try to make up for it after that changes.
2026-10-05 · assertive framing · Open Thread 454
🔮 My wife and I could make healthy embryos, but none of the transfers were sticking.
2026-10-02 · assertive framing · Our AI Midwife
🔮 The challenger in that race, Jamie Joyce, contacted me and asked me to change my mind (both candidates will be facing off again in the general election).
2026-09-28 · assertive framing · Open Thread 453
🔮 [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done.
2026-09-25 · assertive framing · Your Book Review: Lee Kuan Yew's Memoirs
🔮 In the public debates after the release of AI 2027, some people accused us of misleading readers by positing “neuralese recurrence”, a hypothetical technology that would allow AIs to think dangerous thoughts without getting detected.
2026-09-24 · assertive framing · The Specter Of Neuralese
🔮 If you trained an AI to give the 19th-century names for birds (eg identify the American Pipit by its 19th-century name “Brown Titlark”), then the AI would behave like a 19th-century person in general (for example, assert that a woman’s proper place is in the home).
2026-09-23 · assertive framing · Mysteries Of AI Generalization
🔮 1: Josh Morrison, who wrote the guest post about how AI Superforecasting Will Transform The FDA, will be doing a panel on the subject with former FDA employee Adam Kroetsch in SF on October 1.
2026-09-21 · assertive framing · Open Thread 452
Also by Scott Alexander
AI Safety Is Not A Corporate Plot
2026-10-15 · Astral Codex Ten
Open Thread 455
2026-10-13 · Astral Codex Ten
Your Book Review: We Present Television
2026-10-10 · Astral Codex Ten
An Open Letter To Steven Pinker On AI
2026-10-06 · Astral Codex Ten
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 46 articles by Scott Alexander →

Topics

Bayesian Corsican France

Subjects

Napoleon PERSON · 6× Bayesian NORP · 2× Benjamin Tettu PERSON · 1× Bentham PERSON · 1× Ethan PERSON · 1× Ethan Muse PERSON · 1× I. Matthew Adelstein PERSON · 1× JP Andrew PERSON · 1× Richard Chappell PERSON · 1× Sangwon Lee PERSON · 1×

Narrative

But as we learn more and more, we find that more and more of the computation must be part of the “preliminary processing” and the “post-processing” stages, such that it’s very hard to figure out what the soul is adding, and no longer obvious why this should be preferred to more-obviously-false “receiver” theories like that the liver doesn’t truly metabolize toxins, but only teleports them to some ethereal liver behind the veil that does the true metabolism.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-08-19
🔮 There are many reasons to believe in such assistance: Napoleon’s rise from Corsican nobody to Emperor and would-be world conqueror was a bizarre deviation from the usual pattern of history.
2026-08-24 · Astral Codex Ten
Why I'm Staying Out Of The Substack Religion Debate · assertive framing

Claims (142 extracted, 14 hedged)

I. Matthew Adelstein (aka Bentham’s Bulldog) and Richard Chappell debate the existence of God. asserted
Adelstein → debate → God
So do JP Andrew, Benjamin Tettu, Sangwon Lee, Ethan Muse, other Ethan, and “Atheistic Journals”, all within this month! asserted
all → do → month
I thought the omnipresence of the early ‘00s online atheism debate was a time-bound historical phenomenon. asserted
omnipresence → think → debate
But now that the blogosphere has reincarnated as Substack, it’s back, nearly as strong as ever. asserted
it → reincarnate → Substack
I enjoyed participated in the early 00's version, but the current incarnation leaves me cold. asserted
incarnation → participate → me
I can’t get as interested as I once did in the details of the Fine-Tuning Argument, the Argument From Miracles, et cetera. asserted
I → get → Miracles
It’s not just that I’ve already served my time in the theology mines. asserted
I → ’ → mines
My lack of belief in God intuitively feels like it precedes all of these things. asserted
it → feel → things
Consider by analogy a society where people regularly debated whether aliens assisted the rise of Napoleon. asserted
aliens → consider → Napoleon
There are many reasons to believe in such assistance: Napoleon’s rise from Corsican nobody to Emperor and would-be world conqueror was a bizarre deviation from the usual pattern of history. asserted
rise → be → history
He won battles outnumbered 4-to-1, when everyone knows victory usually goes to the larger army. asserted
victory → win → army
He became monarch of France immediately after it had declared eternal enmity against the concept of monarchy and resolved to murder anyone who didn’t hate monarchy enough. asserted
who → become → monarchy
True, nobody saw aliens, but a sufficiently advanced civilization could conduct its interventions in secret. uncertain
civilization → see → secret
True, our prior for alien intervention is generally low, but maybe this is unjustified: we have no idea how many historical events the aliens have intervened in; Alexander the Great was pretty strange too. asserted
Great → have → events
True, Napoleon finally lost, but this is not decisive; maybe the aliens only wanted him to blaze brightly for a few years before his eventual defeat, or maybe stronger aliens were backing the Duke of Wellington. asserted
aliens → lose → Wellington
In a world where this hypothesis somehow entered the space of serious debate, it would be hard to dislodge. asserted
it → enter → debate
Our own historical community is protected from it not because they can precisely add up the Bayesian evidence for and against each of these considerations and conclude its falsehood, but because common sense precludes entertaining it in the first place. asserted
sense → protect → place
This isn’t to say that Reason doesn’t work - if someone could precisely add up the Bayesian evidence for and against these considerations, they would get the right answer - but as a historical matter, this type of delicate reasoning wasn’t how our society resolved this question. uncertain
society → say → question
My atheism is more deeply rooted in whatever prevented us from considering this question in the first place than in the type of delicate reasoning that could get us out of it. uncertain
that → root → it
I admit this is dangerous. asserted
this → admit → ?
It risks degenerating into insult-slinging - “your religion is just as stupid as believing aliens caused Napoleon!”. asserted
aliens → risk → Napoleon
Even if it avoids that failure mode, it would at best come out as the absurdity heuristic, a dangerous fallacy where someone concludes that they can dismiss a matter without careful consideration because it feels absurd to them. asserted
it → avoid → them
This would have dismissed nuclear weapons in 1900, heavier-than-air flight in 1850, and atheism throughout most of history (surely it’s absurd that complex life could come to exist just by random chance). uncertain
life → dismiss → chance
It’s also useless: religion obviously doesn’t feel absurd to religious people, so it can do no work convincing them. asserted
it → ’ → them
So rather than stop here, we should dig in further: why do we exclude the Napoleon scenario from consideration, and what can we learn from it? asserted
we → stop → it
The “aliens caused Napoleon” scenario fails because of overfitting. asserted
scenario → cause → overfitting
Anything at all can be explained by “there was a powerful hidden entity trying to make that specific thing happen”. asserted
thing → explain → ?
Why does the location of the Great Pyramid encode the speed of light to seven decimal places? asserted
location → encode → places
There was a powerful hidden entity involved, and it aimed at that specific outcome. asserted
it → be → outcome
How did Donald Trump come from behind to win the 2016 election? asserted
Trump → come → election
Well, there was a powerful hidden entity, it wanted Donald Trump to win, and so it arranged to make that happen. asserted
that → be → ?
These pseudo-explanations aren’t merely as good as real explanations, they’re strictly better. asserted
they → ’re → explanations
Trump rode a wave of right-wing populism, but why didn’t that show up in earlier polls? asserted
that → ride → polls
How did Napoleon win all those battles? asserted
Napoleon → win → battles
The “powerful hidden entity trying to make that specific thing happen” explanation plows through objections like these easily. asserted
explanation → try → these
Any reasoner who ever wants to get past that to a more useful model will need to give the “powerful hidden entity” story a preemptive penalty. asserted
who → want → penalty
We usually apply this penalty under the term “conspiracy theories”. asserted
We → apply → term
Since no individual human is powerful enough to unilaterally choreograph the course of history, it must be a cabal of elites; since we haven’t seen such a cabal, it must be hiding its own existence. asserted
it → choreograph → existence
We debunk such theories by observing that large conspiracies are hard; a worldwide plot would have to maintain secrecy for decades or centuries, even though the real government sometimes accidentally invites hostile journalists to their Signal groupchats. asserted
government → debunk → groupchats
To avoid these counterarguments, the really intense conspiracy theorists add more epicycles: the conspiracy has memory-wipe technology that they can use to cover up leaks! asserted
they → avoid → leaks
…and 102 more, not listed.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support