I have very mixed views about this, as someone who is myself religious. First, I think it’s obviously the case that in many instances religion is helpful for individuals, and even helps their rationality. The tools and approaches developed by religion are certainly valuable, and should be considered and judiciously adopted by anyone who is interested in rationality. This seems obvious once pointed out, and if that was all the post did, I would agree. (There’s an atheist-purity mindset issue here where people don’t want to admit “The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point” and that’s a related issue.)
But the argument here is far stronger—not that the tools work, or that some people benefit, but “that these traditions, whose areas of convergence could together be referred to as the perennial philosophy, are trustworthy.” And that seems to be going too far, failing to have the critical crisis of faith. And the next post in the series shows why—it takes far too many claims at face value to reach a convenient conclusion. So it’s not overall completely off base, but it does seem to go in the wrong direction, or at least fail to embody the virtues of rationality I think the best work on Lesswrong is suppose to uphold.
I have very mixed views about this, as someone who is myself religious. First, I think it’s obviously the case that in many instances religion is helpful for individuals, and even helps their rationality. The tools and approaches developed by religion are certainly valuable, and should be considered and judiciously adopted by anyone who is interested in rationality. This seems obvious once pointed out, and if that was all the post did, I would agree. (There’s an atheist-purity mindset issue here where people don’t want to admit “The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point” and that’s a related issue.)
But the argument here is far stronger—not that the tools work, or that some people benefit, but “that these traditions, whose areas of convergence could together be referred to as the perennial philosophy, are trustworthy.” And that seems to be going too far, failing to have the critical crisis of faith. And the next post in the series shows why—it takes far too many claims at face value to reach a convenient conclusion. So it’s not overall completely off base, but it does seem to go in the wrong direction, or at least fail to embody the virtues of rationality I think the best work on Lesswrong is suppose to uphold.