I would suggest an opposite approach: to adopt the parts of religions that work, especially if we already have a rational explanation why they work. And if some people don’t like it, no big deal: they don’t have to participate.
For example: we could meet regularly once a week, get regularly reminded of some fundamental facts that we believe (but are likely to forget), express thanks for the good things that happened to us recently, declare our wishes, do some emotional-connection-building activities such as singing together...
I repeat: only for those people who want to do that. If someone is opposed to wasting time on regular meetings, or is not interested in connecting emotionally, that is a perfectly valid choice; the point is to provide such opportunity for those who might like such things, because now the default option is the no one can have that (unless they join a group of irrational people who meet for specifically irrational purposes).
But I would prefer to keep that group unattached to the epistemic baggage of various religions, lest we end up worrying about possession by (metaphoric, I swear!) demons, etc.
I would suggest an opposite approach: to adopt the parts of religions that work, especially if we already have a rational explanation why they work. And if some people don’t like it, no big deal: they don’t have to participate.
This is what humanist churches try to do. Best I can tell, it doesn’t work.
unless they join a group of irrational people who meet for specifically irrational purposes
I’d just like to say I think this is unnecessarily uncharitable. I happily agree that many people who practice religion are less rational than would be ideal, but those people are not “irrational” they are instead people who sometimes, perhaps often, use irrational reasoning procedures, nor are their purposes irrational, since that isn’t really semantically sensible: purposes are just what they are, it’s only the reason why someone chooses to adopt a purpose that may be irrational, and there may well be rational reasons to adopt what seem to you foolish purposes given their circumstances.
This is what humanist churches try to do. Best I can tell, it doesn’t work.
I agree.
I suspect the problem is that they try to provide a watered down (sometimes to homeopathic levels) version of religion. Well, if you take the thing that is supposed to be the pillar, and weaken it, then weaker results should not come as a surprise.
If the group is not strongly religious, it needs to be strongly <something else>. Otherwise it is a waste of time. Strongly atheistic might work in a country where the atheists are a small minority, but where people can be openly atheists, even that is not enough. It should be something that you feel that you can get in the church, but not otherwise (or at least: not consistently enough, not concentrated enough).
My preferred choice would be a strongly rationalist, Read-the-Sequences fundamentalist church. Read a chapter from the Sequences or some other approved text. Think about how it applies to your life. Split into smaller working groups, and discuss whatever you want, but the recommended template is: express gratitude for the things you have succeeded at recently, express regret about things that didn’t go well, state your hopes and desires… after everyone had enough space to talk, start providing feedback and advice to each other. At some point, various community announcements are made, e.g. “there is a rationality meetup on day X in city Y”. Then the official part is over, and everyone is free to stay talking, or go away, or take a walk together...
That would require someone to take the role of the “priest”, i.e. select the text to read, remind people of the rules, etc. The responsibility could be shared by multiple people, but we can’t expect it to just happen spontaneously.
I may be wrong, but I think that with the right people, this could work. If there is a specific program (e.g. reading a chapter) each week, then people who skipped the meeting will feel like they have missed something specific (as opposed to when people only chat or sit in silence, which is the same thing every time). You can’t get “people discussing a chapter of the Sequences” outside the church.
Now I just need to find enough followers willing to meet every week and follow these rules...
I think this approach wouldn’t work for rationalists, for two reasons:
The rationality community is based around disputation, not canonicalization, of texts. That is, the litmus test for being a rationalist is not “Do you agree with this list of propositions?” (I have tried many times to draw up such a list, but this always just leads to even more debate), but rather “Are you familiar with this body of literature and do you know how to respond to it?” The kind of person who goes to LW meetups isn’t going to enjoy simply being “talked at” and told what to believe—they want to be down in the arena, getting their hands dirty.
Your “recommended template” is essentially individualistic—participants come with their hopes and desires already in-hand, and the only question is “How can I use this community to help me achieve my goals?” Just as a gut feeling I don’t think this is going to work well in building a community or meaningful relationships (seeing others not merely as means, but as ends in themselves—or something like that). Instead, there needs to be some shared purpose for which involvement in the community is essential and not just an afterthought. Now, this isn’t easy. “Solving AI alignment” might be a tall order. But I think the rationality community is doing a passable job at one thing at least—creating a culture of high epistemic standards that will be essential (for both ourselves and the wider world) in navigating the unprecedented challenges our civilization faces.
I know very little about Judaism, so I am not qualified to say, but I can quote Yudkowsky on the topic:
Modern Orthodox Judaism is like no other religion I have ever heard of, and I don’t know how to describe it to anyone who hasn’t been forced to study Mishna and Gemara. There is a tradition of questioning, but the kind of questioning . . . It would not be at all surprising to hear a rabbi, in his weekly sermon, point out the conflict between the seven days of creation and the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang—because he thought he had a really clever explanation for it, involving three other Biblical references, a Midrash, and a half-understood article in Scientific American. In Orthodox Judaism you’re allowed to notice inconsistencies and contradictions, but only for purposes of explaining them away, and whoever comes up with the most complicated explanation gets a prize.
There is a tradition of inquiry. But you only attack targets for purposes of defending them. You only attack targets you know you can defend.
In Modern Orthodox Judaism I have not heard much emphasis of the virtues of blind faith. You’re allowed to doubt. You’re just not allowed to successfully doubt.
To warp the quotations somewhat to focus on something:
… And if some people don’t like it, no big deal: they don’t have to participate.
… Best I can tell, it doesn’t work.
Specifically, it seems to me like not immediately making that first part overt, salient common knowledge would be load-bearing for acquiring the kind of social cohesion attributed to religious groups. The stickiness of mutual anticipation is a lot of the point.
I would suggest an opposite approach: to adopt the parts of religions that work, especially if we already have a rational explanation why they work. And if some people don’t like it, no big deal: they don’t have to participate.
For example: we could meet regularly once a week, get regularly reminded of some fundamental facts that we believe (but are likely to forget), express thanks for the good things that happened to us recently, declare our wishes, do some emotional-connection-building activities such as singing together...
I repeat: only for those people who want to do that. If someone is opposed to wasting time on regular meetings, or is not interested in connecting emotionally, that is a perfectly valid choice; the point is to provide such opportunity for those who might like such things, because now the default option is the no one can have that (unless they join a group of irrational people who meet for specifically irrational purposes).
But I would prefer to keep that group unattached to the epistemic baggage of various religions, lest we end up worrying about possession by (metaphoric, I swear!) demons, etc.
This is what humanist churches try to do. Best I can tell, it doesn’t work.
I’d just like to say I think this is unnecessarily uncharitable. I happily agree that many people who practice religion are less rational than would be ideal, but those people are not “irrational” they are instead people who sometimes, perhaps often, use irrational reasoning procedures, nor are their purposes irrational, since that isn’t really semantically sensible: purposes are just what they are, it’s only the reason why someone chooses to adopt a purpose that may be irrational, and there may well be rational reasons to adopt what seem to you foolish purposes given their circumstances.
I agree.
I suspect the problem is that they try to provide a watered down (sometimes to homeopathic levels) version of religion. Well, if you take the thing that is supposed to be the pillar, and weaken it, then weaker results should not come as a surprise.
If the group is not strongly religious, it needs to be strongly <something else>. Otherwise it is a waste of time. Strongly atheistic might work in a country where the atheists are a small minority, but where people can be openly atheists, even that is not enough. It should be something that you feel that you can get in the church, but not otherwise (or at least: not consistently enough, not concentrated enough).
My preferred choice would be a strongly rationalist, Read-the-Sequences fundamentalist church. Read a chapter from the Sequences or some other approved text. Think about how it applies to your life. Split into smaller working groups, and discuss whatever you want, but the recommended template is: express gratitude for the things you have succeeded at recently, express regret about things that didn’t go well, state your hopes and desires… after everyone had enough space to talk, start providing feedback and advice to each other. At some point, various community announcements are made, e.g. “there is a rationality meetup on day X in city Y”. Then the official part is over, and everyone is free to stay talking, or go away, or take a walk together...
That would require someone to take the role of the “priest”, i.e. select the text to read, remind people of the rules, etc. The responsibility could be shared by multiple people, but we can’t expect it to just happen spontaneously.
I may be wrong, but I think that with the right people, this could work. If there is a specific program (e.g. reading a chapter) each week, then people who skipped the meeting will feel like they have missed something specific (as opposed to when people only chat or sit in silence, which is the same thing every time). You can’t get “people discussing a chapter of the Sequences” outside the church.
Now I just need to find enough followers willing to meet every week and follow these rules...
I think this approach wouldn’t work for rationalists, for two reasons:
The rationality community is based around disputation, not canonicalization, of texts. That is, the litmus test for being a rationalist is not “Do you agree with this list of propositions?” (I have tried many times to draw up such a list, but this always just leads to even more debate), but rather “Are you familiar with this body of literature and do you know how to respond to it?” The kind of person who goes to LW meetups isn’t going to enjoy simply being “talked at” and told what to believe—they want to be down in the arena, getting their hands dirty.
Your “recommended template” is essentially individualistic—participants come with their hopes and desires already in-hand, and the only question is “How can I use this community to help me achieve my goals?” Just as a gut feeling I don’t think this is going to work well in building a community or meaningful relationships (seeing others not merely as means, but as ends in themselves—or something like that). Instead, there needs to be some shared purpose for which involvement in the community is essential and not just an afterthought. Now, this isn’t easy. “Solving AI alignment” might be a tall order. But I think the rationality community is doing a passable job at one thing at least—creating a culture of high epistemic standards that will be essential (for both ourselves and the wider world) in navigating the unprecedented challenges our civilization faces.
Is Judaism not also based around disputation of texts?
I know very little about Judaism, so I am not qualified to say, but I can quote Yudkowsky on the topic:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dHQkDNMhj692ayx78/avoiding-your-belief-s-real-weak-points
To warp the quotations somewhat to focus on something:
Specifically, it seems to me like not immediately making that first part overt, salient common knowledge would be load-bearing for acquiring the kind of social cohesion attributed to religious groups. The stickiness of mutual anticipation is a lot of the point.