I suggest instead finding an unforgivable sin within the religion you are seeking to escape. Then committing that sin gives you a personal incentive to build a belief structure that does not require good standing within that religion.
It seems to me that a rationalist provisionally believes that which is supported by the evidence, by the rationalist’s experience, and by logical demonstration/argumentation. If there is no such rational basis to believe in a particular religion, it is not clear to me why the rationalist would need any sort of trick to escape from it.
Is there such a cardinal sin in ‘rationality’?
It seems to me that deciding what belief you want to have and then tricking yourself into believing it via a ritualistic act rather than via an examination of the evidence, etc., (in other words, following the advice given in your post) could be considered a cardinal sin of (epistemic) rationality.
Thank you! So, the path of purposeful self-deception is not the road to higher rationality, no matter how well it happens to work.
To use the monkey riding on the tiger analogy for human cognition, I wonder which is more effective. The monkey putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone...Or the monkey that ties a steak to a stick and rides the tiger.
So, the path of purposeful self-deception is not the road to higher rationality, no matter how well it happens to work.
Correct
To use the monkey riding on the tiger analogy for human cognition, I wonder which is more effective. The monkey putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone...Or the monkey that ties a steak to a stick and rides the tiger.
I suspect the monkey is better off putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone—with a steak and a stick it is just a matter of time before the monkey loses control of the situation and becomes a side dish to the steak. Similarly, trying to harness self-deception to lead one to truth/rationality is apt to backfire.
Taking the analogy further to a community of tiger riding monkeys...The monkey that waves the steak on a stick in front of some other monkey’s tiger probably has a future in marketing.
The monkeys who decide to pen their tigers may have a problem, the tigers are still present, may be unhappy about their confinement, and after a time, the monkeys may not watch them as closely as they should...
As a case in point, I give you the prevalence of polyamory in the rationalist community. Historically, polygyny has been a feature of insular communities that wanted to become more insular. Is polyamory serving its purpose as a strong social barrier to entry for the high table of the rationalist community, or is it really just pure rationality at work?
I don’t see how it can be very useful as a “strong social barrier to entry”. It’s not as if you have to be poly to be accepted as a rationalist, is it?
It seems to me that a rationalist provisionally believes that which is supported by the evidence, by the rationalist’s experience, and by logical demonstration/argumentation. If there is no such rational basis to believe in a particular religion, it is not clear to me why the rationalist would need any sort of trick to escape from it.
It seems to me that deciding what belief you want to have and then tricking yourself into believing it via a ritualistic act rather than via an examination of the evidence, etc., (in other words, following the advice given in your post) could be considered a cardinal sin of (epistemic) rationality.
Thank you! So, the path of purposeful self-deception is not the road to higher rationality, no matter how well it happens to work.
To use the monkey riding on the tiger analogy for human cognition, I wonder which is more effective. The monkey putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone...Or the monkey that ties a steak to a stick and rides the tiger.
Correct
I suspect the monkey is better off putting the tiger in a pen and swinging through the trees alone—with a steak and a stick it is just a matter of time before the monkey loses control of the situation and becomes a side dish to the steak. Similarly, trying to harness self-deception to lead one to truth/rationality is apt to backfire.
Taking the analogy further to a community of tiger riding monkeys...The monkey that waves the steak on a stick in front of some other monkey’s tiger probably has a future in marketing.
The monkeys who decide to pen their tigers may have a problem, the tigers are still present, may be unhappy about their confinement, and after a time, the monkeys may not watch them as closely as they should...
As a case in point, I give you the prevalence of polyamory in the rationalist community. Historically, polygyny has been a feature of insular communities that wanted to become more insular. Is polyamory serving its purpose as a strong social barrier to entry for the high table of the rationalist community, or is it really just pure rationality at work?
I don’t see how it can be very useful as a “strong social barrier to entry”. It’s not as if you have to be poly to be accepted as a rationalist, is it?