Just went to my first rationalist/EA meetup; it was wonderful to have a friendly and measured discussion with people who valued rationality. Would highly recommend real-life conversation!
A quick reminder not to allow perfect to be the enemy of good; just because a proposal does not completely resolve a problem does not mean it will not improve the situation. It is better to do something right rather than endlessly quibble about doing nothing wrong. We must strive to do our best, even when it is not enough, rather than becoming paralyzed by the sheer scale of the world’s problems. Be kind to the people around you, practice self-care, and be willing to forgive yourself while correcting your errors.
So I saved up all month to spend a weekend at the Hilbert Hotel, eagerly awaiting the beautiful grounds, luxurious amenities, and the (prominently advertised) infinite number of rooms. Unfortunately, I never got to use the amenities; my time was occupied as I was forced to schlep my luggage from room to room every time they got a new guest. You’d think you’d finally have a moment to relax, but then the loudspeakers would squwak, “The conference of Moms Against Ankle-Biting Chihuahuas has arrived, everybody move two-hundred thirty-seven rooms down!” and you’d have to start up again. By the time I was asked to move all my stuff from the 468219869th room to the 936439738th room (which was in a whole different building!) at 3:00am to accommodate some unorganized school group were too lazy to count their members and reserved enough rooms for every natural number, I’d had enough. The manager was so cheap, he wouldn’t even consider a refund, even though I’d only stayed one of the two nights I’ve booked.
Incensed, I conspired to get revenge against the manager (and maybe some of my money back) by revealing their false claims. I gathered my uncountably infinite amount of friends, and we went to the front desk to request a room. However, whenever the manager thought he had finally given us all rooms, we were able to demonstrate that he had failed to accommodate one of us by pooling our government-assigned IDs containing a real number between zero and one (you need to have one of these to travel nowadays; TSA is getting ridiculous), lining them up against the list of assigned rooms, and flipping the digit corresponding to the room number to obtain the ID of a friend who had not been included. Eventually, we were thrown out of the hotel (alongside the Union of Barbers-Who-Shave-Those-Who-Don’t-Shave-Themselves—not only is that manager greedy, he’s an enemy of the working class!) and filed a class action lawsuit against the Hilbert Hotel for false advertising. The judge, who’d “mysteriously” come into possession of a waiver for a free stay, ruled in our favor, but smugly declared that, because any monetary compensation would be reduced to naught once it was divided among us, it would be useless to impose a fine. Any legal advice would be strongly appreciated!
Fair; in either case, I wrote it myself because I have the sense of humor of a college student taking his first discrete math class (because this is what I am).
I know many members and influential figures of this are atheists; regardless, does anyone think it would be a good idea to take a rationalist approach to religious scripture? If anything, doing so might introduce greater numbers of the religious to rationalism. Plus, it doesn’t seem like anyone here has done so before; all the posts regarding religion have been criticizing it from the outside rather than explaining things within the religious framework. Even if you do not believe in said religious framework, doing so may increase your knowledge on other cultures, provide an interesting exercise in reasoning, and most importantly, be useful in winning arguments with those who do.
There is a very long history of interaction between scripture and reason, both collaborative and adversarial. But I assume you are thinking mostly of Less Wrong rationalism, rather than earlier rationalist movements.
Let’s think for a moment of where Less Wrong rationalism came from. What are its sources? It’s a mix of transhumanism and secular science, with a bit of metaphysics to furnish tentative answers to questions like, what is consciousness, or what is existence. It is very secular and materialist in its approach to ontology and epistemology. But because of its transhumanism, its notion of the possible, and the destiny of the world, can remind people of religion, with its heavens and hells and its superintelligences reaching out acausally across the multiverse. The Sequences also tackle ethics and the meaning of life.
Now while this may be an outgrowth of atheism and humanism which has come to acquire features also seen in religion, one thing that distinguishes it from scriptural religions, is that there is no divine revelation. The Sequences are just a message from Eliezer, not a message from God. The rationalist attitude here towards the world’s scriptures is going to be that they are purely a product of human brains. Whether they are regarded as poetry, pragmatism, or delusion, there are no divine minds involved in their production.
That is going to be a major “crux” of disagreement between rationalists and adherents of scriptural religion (a disagreement that was central to many earlier interactions between scripture and reason). And it raises the question, what kind of interaction are you looking for? Would it be to retain some of the premises of scriptural belief, but employ rationalist epistemology within that framework? Or it could be to find rationalist interpretations of religious parables and aphorisms, which are notoriously susceptible to reinterpretation.
Or, you could be looking for people who are both rationalists and theists. Bentham’s Bulldog is a scion of academic philosophy, but he manages to be both sympathetic to elements of the Less Wrong outlook, while also being a theist and even believing in miracles. Early in the 2010s, Leah Libresco was an atheist rationalist who converted to Catholicism. (I predicted, incorrectly, that it wouldn’t last a year.) Then there’s the diffuse realm of “post-rationalists” (TPOT on X), I’m sure there are quite a few theists there.
Thank you for your reply! I will try my best to address your concerns. Apologies for my late reply, I am busy with schoolwork at the moment.
Sequences are just a message from Eliezer, not a message from God.
As such, it is not contrary to disagree with Eliezer, or other rationalists, in some regards and remain a rationalist.
what kind of interaction are you looking for?
I am seeking general interaction between the religious and rationalism, as well as the application of rationalism to religious principles. You put it perfectly: My goal it “to retain some of the premises of scriptural belief, but employ rationalist epistemology within that framework”. @Viliam made a good point that the requirement for faith is inherently not rational; however, rational discussion of topics that are not points of faith may still be rational, albeit with such points of faith as axioms.
I would find that difficult, because in my understanding, religion requires some sins against rationality: motivated thinking, privileging a hypothesis, writing your bottom line first...
I mean, most religions assume that a book written a few millennia ago, when people knew practically nothing about the world, because the scientific method didn’t exist, and “a high-status person made it up” was a likely source of any statement that couldn’t be immediately verified… that this book contains the true answers to the secrets of the universe and beyond. The obvious rational answer is: “why should we even take this hypothesis seriously?” (And the traditional answers mostly reduce to: “because someone powerful will hurt you if you don’t”.)
Now this is different from the fact that religion as a social process has accumulated some wisdom over the years. Like, smart people were thinking about things, figured out something, and sometimes added “because god wanted it this way” on the top of it. Or people were motivated by the religion to do something, and during the real work they discovered something; for example the religion wants you to build big churches, so you invent architecture.
But then you have the problem of how to separate the true knowledge from the religious justifications. Also, to separate the true knowledge from things that also have a religious justification but aren’t true. And this is something that religious people would probably feel uncomfortable about, because the motivation is obvious: to separate the useful parts and then throw away the rest.
(My pet peeve: we already have fans of Buddhism here, who in my opinion fail to separate the wheat from the chaff, fail to consider alternative explanations, dismiss evidence by “if it fails for you, you must be doing something wrong”. That’s what you get when you become emotionally attached to the source you take the information from.)
Note: I will be referencing Protestant Christianity, as this is the only religion I can provide informed conjectures about, and I am not comfortable speaking when I am ill-informed. I will assume the same is true for other religions.
Thank you for your comment! You make some good points, so I will amend my framework accordingly, but there is ultimately no reason why we shouldn’t try to introduce theists to rationalism or why rationality cannot be applied to religious scripture in some contexts.
...religion requires some sins against rationality: motivated thinking, privileging a hypothesis, writing your bottom line first.
These are things that everyone does. Best to recognize that nobody is a perfect rationalist. I will concede that religions which prioritize faith require privileging a hypothesis, which is inherently antithetical to rationalism. However, this does not mean that religious people cannot be rational about topics that do not involve that specific point of faith, or apply rationalism to topics that involve religion but do not involve the specific point of faith. (Alternatively, a point of faith may be taken as an axiom.)
Most religions assume that a book written a few millennia ago … contains the true answers to the secrets of the universe and beyond.
Most Christians, at least in the United States, know that the Bible is a collection of historical documents are written and translated by humans, who have biases and flaws; the notion that the Lord personally took a pen to paper, wrote each scripture Himself in American English, and distributed the result to hotels and dollar stores nationwide is a minority position, to put it lightly. (In regards to the linked survey: The difference between “God-inspired but not to be taken literally all the time” and “fables/moral precepts recorded by man” is not relevant and probably would not be of much interest; if you care, feel free to reply.)
And this is something that religious people would probably feel uncomfortable about, because the motivation is obvious: to separate the useful parts and then throw away the rest.
At least in regard to Christianity, this is what precisely religious discourse does. Every time you see a Christian eating shellfish (forbidden in the Old Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded before Jesus’s birth, but allowed in the post-Gospel New Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded after Jesus’s ascension) or wearing clothes without tassels (forbidden in the Old Testament, implicitly allowed in the New Testament; for a simple explanation, see here), they have already “thrown away the rest” without issue. While I cannot speak definitively, as I am ill-informed, many members of other religions do the same; I have known Hindus who are vegetarian and Hindus who only abstain from red meat as well as Muslim women who wear the hijab and Muslim women who do not, and I assume they all have some religious justification (other than apathy) for doing so.
Like, smart people were thinking about things
So would it not behoove rationalists to invite such to discussion? Would it not behoove those discussing religious topics to use a successful framework (rationalism) to do so?
Just went to my first rationalist/EA meetup; it was wonderful to have a friendly and measured discussion with people who valued rationality. Would highly recommend real-life conversation!
A quick reminder not to allow perfect to be the enemy of good; just because a proposal does not completely resolve a problem does not mean it will not improve the situation. It is better to do something right rather than endlessly quibble about doing nothing wrong. We must strive to do our best, even when it is not enough, rather than becoming paralyzed by the sheer scale of the world’s problems. Be kind to the people around you, practice self-care, and be willing to forgive yourself while correcting your errors.
Have a wonderful Saturday night!
So I saved up all month to spend a weekend at the Hilbert Hotel, eagerly awaiting the beautiful grounds, luxurious amenities, and the (prominently advertised) infinite number of rooms. Unfortunately, I never got to use the amenities; my time was occupied as I was forced to schlep my luggage from room to room every time they got a new guest. You’d think you’d finally have a moment to relax, but then the loudspeakers would squwak, “The conference of Moms Against Ankle-Biting Chihuahuas has arrived, everybody move two-hundred thirty-seven rooms down!” and you’d have to start up again. By the time I was asked to move all my stuff from the 468219869th room to the 936439738th room (which was in a whole different building!) at 3:00am to accommodate some unorganized school group were too lazy to count their members and reserved enough rooms for every natural number, I’d had enough. The manager was so cheap, he wouldn’t even consider a refund, even though I’d only stayed one of the two nights I’ve booked.
Incensed, I conspired to get revenge against the manager (and maybe some of my money back) by revealing their false claims. I gathered my uncountably infinite amount of friends, and we went to the front desk to request a room. However, whenever the manager thought he had finally given us all rooms, we were able to demonstrate that he had failed to accommodate one of us by pooling our government-assigned IDs containing a real number between zero and one (you need to have one of these to travel nowadays; TSA is getting ridiculous), lining them up against the list of assigned rooms, and flipping the digit corresponding to the room number to obtain the ID of a friend who had not been included. Eventually, we were thrown out of the hotel (alongside the Union of Barbers-Who-Shave-Those-Who-Don’t-Shave-Themselves—not only is that manager greedy, he’s an enemy of the working class!) and filed a class action lawsuit against the Hilbert Hotel for false advertising. The judge, who’d “mysteriously” come into possession of a waiver for a free stay, ruled in our favor, but smugly declared that, because any monetary compensation would be reduced to naught once it was divided among us, it would be useless to impose a fine. Any legal advice would be strongly appreciated!
I found this funny.
I have no clue if this is LLM-written or not.
An LLM would have a smoother writing style and less grammatical errors than the above, unfortunately :(
only by default. you can prompt LLMs to emulator less smooth styles.
Fair; in either case, I wrote it myself because I have the sense of humor of a college student taking his first discrete math class (because this is what I am).
I know many members and influential figures of this are atheists; regardless, does anyone think it would be a good idea to take a rationalist approach to religious scripture? If anything, doing so might introduce greater numbers of the religious to rationalism. Plus, it doesn’t seem like anyone here has done so before; all the posts regarding religion have been criticizing it from the outside rather than explaining things within the religious framework. Even if you do not believe in said religious framework, doing so may increase your knowledge on other cultures, provide an interesting exercise in reasoning, and most importantly, be useful in winning arguments with those who do.
There is a very long history of interaction between scripture and reason, both collaborative and adversarial. But I assume you are thinking mostly of Less Wrong rationalism, rather than earlier rationalist movements.
Let’s think for a moment of where Less Wrong rationalism came from. What are its sources? It’s a mix of transhumanism and secular science, with a bit of metaphysics to furnish tentative answers to questions like, what is consciousness, or what is existence. It is very secular and materialist in its approach to ontology and epistemology. But because of its transhumanism, its notion of the possible, and the destiny of the world, can remind people of religion, with its heavens and hells and its superintelligences reaching out acausally across the multiverse. The Sequences also tackle ethics and the meaning of life.
Now while this may be an outgrowth of atheism and humanism which has come to acquire features also seen in religion, one thing that distinguishes it from scriptural religions, is that there is no divine revelation. The Sequences are just a message from Eliezer, not a message from God. The rationalist attitude here towards the world’s scriptures is going to be that they are purely a product of human brains. Whether they are regarded as poetry, pragmatism, or delusion, there are no divine minds involved in their production.
That is going to be a major “crux” of disagreement between rationalists and adherents of scriptural religion (a disagreement that was central to many earlier interactions between scripture and reason). And it raises the question, what kind of interaction are you looking for? Would it be to retain some of the premises of scriptural belief, but employ rationalist epistemology within that framework? Or it could be to find rationalist interpretations of religious parables and aphorisms, which are notoriously susceptible to reinterpretation.
Or, you could be looking for people who are both rationalists and theists. Bentham’s Bulldog is a scion of academic philosophy, but he manages to be both sympathetic to elements of the Less Wrong outlook, while also being a theist and even believing in miracles. Early in the 2010s, Leah Libresco was an atheist rationalist who converted to Catholicism. (I predicted, incorrectly, that it wouldn’t last a year.) Then there’s the diffuse realm of “post-rationalists” (TPOT on X), I’m sure there are quite a few theists there.
Thank you for your reply! I will try my best to address your concerns. Apologies for my late reply, I am busy with schoolwork at the moment.
As such, it is not contrary to disagree with Eliezer, or other rationalists, in some regards and remain a rationalist.
I am seeking general interaction between the religious and rationalism, as well as the application of rationalism to religious principles. You put it perfectly: My goal it “to retain some of the premises of scriptural belief, but employ rationalist epistemology within that framework”. @Viliam made a good point that the requirement for faith is inherently not rational; however, rational discussion of topics that are not points of faith may still be rational, albeit with such points of faith as axioms.
I would find that difficult, because in my understanding, religion requires some sins against rationality: motivated thinking, privileging a hypothesis, writing your bottom line first...
I mean, most religions assume that a book written a few millennia ago, when people knew practically nothing about the world, because the scientific method didn’t exist, and “a high-status person made it up” was a likely source of any statement that couldn’t be immediately verified… that this book contains the true answers to the secrets of the universe and beyond. The obvious rational answer is: “why should we even take this hypothesis seriously?” (And the traditional answers mostly reduce to: “because someone powerful will hurt you if you don’t”.)
Now this is different from the fact that religion as a social process has accumulated some wisdom over the years. Like, smart people were thinking about things, figured out something, and sometimes added “because god wanted it this way” on the top of it. Or people were motivated by the religion to do something, and during the real work they discovered something; for example the religion wants you to build big churches, so you invent architecture.
But then you have the problem of how to separate the true knowledge from the religious justifications. Also, to separate the true knowledge from things that also have a religious justification but aren’t true. And this is something that religious people would probably feel uncomfortable about, because the motivation is obvious: to separate the useful parts and then throw away the rest.
(My pet peeve: we already have fans of Buddhism here, who in my opinion fail to separate the wheat from the chaff, fail to consider alternative explanations, dismiss evidence by “if it fails for you, you must be doing something wrong”. That’s what you get when you become emotionally attached to the source you take the information from.)
Note: I will be referencing Protestant Christianity, as this is the only religion I can provide informed conjectures about, and I am not comfortable speaking when I am ill-informed. I will assume the same is true for other religions.
Thank you for your comment! You make some good points, so I will amend my framework accordingly, but there is ultimately no reason why we shouldn’t try to introduce theists to rationalism or why rationality cannot be applied to religious scripture in some contexts.
These are things that everyone does. Best to recognize that nobody is a perfect rationalist. I will concede that religions which prioritize faith require privileging a hypothesis, which is inherently antithetical to rationalism. However, this does not mean that religious people cannot be rational about topics that do not involve that specific point of faith, or apply rationalism to topics that involve religion but do not involve the specific point of faith. (Alternatively, a point of faith may be taken as an axiom.)
Most Christians, at least in the United States, know that the Bible is a collection of historical documents are written and translated by humans, who have biases and flaws; the notion that the Lord personally took a pen to paper, wrote each scripture Himself in American English, and distributed the result to hotels and dollar stores nationwide is a minority position, to put it lightly. (In regards to the linked survey: The difference between “God-inspired but not to be taken literally all the time” and “fables/moral precepts recorded by man” is not relevant and probably would not be of much interest; if you care, feel free to reply.)
At least in regard to Christianity, this is what precisely religious discourse does. Every time you see a Christian eating shellfish (forbidden in the Old Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded before Jesus’s birth, but allowed in the post-Gospel New Testament, or the part of the Bible recorded after Jesus’s ascension) or wearing clothes without tassels (forbidden in the Old Testament, implicitly allowed in the New Testament; for a simple explanation, see here), they have already “thrown away the rest” without issue. While I cannot speak definitively, as I am ill-informed, many members of other religions do the same; I have known Hindus who are vegetarian and Hindus who only abstain from red meat as well as Muslim women who wear the hijab and Muslim women who do not, and I assume they all have some religious justification (other than apathy) for doing so.
So would it not behoove rationalists to invite such to discussion? Would it not behoove those discussing religious topics to use a successful framework (rationalism) to do so?