Phrases like “near-religious” and “leap of faith” have different meanings to rationalists, compared to NYT readership. Often rationalists have negative views about religion, and a phrase like “near-religious concerns about X” is taken to mean that the concerns about X are not based on evidence or reason. That’s a common meaning. It’s not the only one.
In the wider NYT readership, and in the world, there are lots of people with religion and/or faith. This pejorative meaning is not as central, and there is some space for other meanings. For example, a near-religious concern about X might mean:
X is eschatological. We might say, existential.
Fighting X is a commandment. We might say, morally demanding.
X is ineffable. We might say, a singularity.
X is extremely powerful. We might say, super-intelligent.
There is a community of people concerned about X that work together. We might say, like herding cats.
Meanwhile another meaning of “near-religious” and “leap of faith” is to mean that a belief is obviously and laughably false, like the dragon in my garage. Or it may mean that the person with that belief is as unworthy of respect as a creationist AGI researcher. Outside rationalist culture these are not common meanings. Again, there are many people with religion and/or faith.
So then if you’re a reporter, or a troll, or both, and you want to needle rationalists while appearing even-handed to outsiders, you go with the religious metaphor. This was an old joke when Yudkowsky wrote Is Humanism A Religion-Substitute? in 2008. I’m told that explaining a joke kills it, so perhaps this will help.
Phrases like “near-religious” and “leap of faith” have different meanings to rationalists, compared to NYT readership. Often rationalists have negative views about religion, and a phrase like “near-religious concerns about X” is taken to mean that the concerns about X are not based on evidence or reason. That’s a common meaning. It’s not the only one.
In the wider NYT readership, and in the world, there are lots of people with religion and/or faith. This pejorative meaning is not as central, and there is some space for other meanings. For example, a near-religious concern about X might mean:
X is eschatological. We might say, existential.
Fighting X is a commandment. We might say, morally demanding.
X is ineffable. We might say, a singularity.
X is extremely powerful. We might say, super-intelligent.
There is a community of people concerned about X that work together. We might say, like herding cats.
Meanwhile another meaning of “near-religious” and “leap of faith” is to mean that a belief is obviously and laughably false, like the dragon in my garage. Or it may mean that the person with that belief is as unworthy of respect as a creationist AGI researcher. Outside rationalist culture these are not common meanings. Again, there are many people with religion and/or faith.
So then if you’re a reporter, or a troll, or both, and you want to needle rationalists while appearing even-handed to outsiders, you go with the religious metaphor. This was an old joke when Yudkowsky wrote Is Humanism A Religion-Substitute? in 2008. I’m told that explaining a joke kills it, so perhaps this will help.