[wallace_f]

>can only be a negative

Your argument is noy exactly true. If the value of finding a similarly open-minded individual outweighs the low probability* of finding it, then it makes sense.

Put another way if given a utility function with terms (utility of open minded individual) (probability of OMI) > 1 then it is rational.

[ericb]

I'll concede that, and also that my phrasing is off -- it should be "is most likely a negative."

All that being the case, there's still a certain irony to this chapter in Thiel's book.

Thiel thinks that thinking different on god or the existence of god is a terrible answer, even though it often means someone has a heretical belief vs. perhaps their parents and potentially the bulk of society.

His justifications for why this is a bad answer are flimsy, and seemingly the only reason he thinks this is because he agrees with mainstream thinking.

This proves the danger of answering the question--the spirit it is received, even in book form from the very person advocating it, is judgment of the answer and an underlying preference for mainstream thinking.