It’s sort of true that there are ritual observances and holy texts… but nah, not really. “Rationality” is not some particular practice or some defined ritual; it’s just doing whatever wins. Thus speak the holy texts.
Research consistently shows that religious communities outperform secular ones on all sorts of desirable metrics—they are happier, live longer, have less poverty, antisocial dysfunction etc etc. To the extent that “rationalists” haven’t yet shown their ability to surpass, or at least match religionists there, they don’t get to claim the high ground on this.
But I do agree with you that mainstream religions aren’t a good fit for self-identified rationalists. There are good reasons for why they are on the retreat worldwide despite their clear benefits, and dogmatic attachment to sacred nonsense patently incompatible with contemporary understanding of the world is prominent among those.
Research consistently shows that religious communities outperform secular ones on all sorts of desirable metrics—they are happier, live longer, have less poverty, antisocial dysfunction
Then religious people are simply more instrumentally rational than the “Rationalists” , the “rationality as winning” is a definition which doesn’t restrict itself to superiority of a group which calls itself “Rationalists”.
Hmm… that’s quite a big topic. Are you sure that you want to have this discussion in this comment thread? I don’t object, mind you, and it’s your post, so I’ll follow your preference here. It’s not a “couple of comments and done” sort of thing, though.
For now I will just note that the view is hardly unique to me, nor even original to me; “EA is a religion” is something that I’ve seen quite a few people opine. Haven’t you encountered this view before? I am surprised, if that’s the case.
Most of the time when I hear people say “EA is a religion” it’s because they are trying to discredit EA without actually engaging with EA, so I was honestly curious what you could mean here since it seems, to me, a claim on par with people calling rationalists a cult.
Alas, I banned you already for your other comment on this post, so I guess we won’t be getting into it.
EA is; “rationality” clearly isn’t.
It’s sort of true that there are ritual observances and holy texts… but nah, not really. “Rationality” is not some particular practice or some defined ritual; it’s just doing whatever wins. Thus speak the holy texts.
Research consistently shows that religious communities outperform secular ones on all sorts of desirable metrics—they are happier, live longer, have less poverty, antisocial dysfunction etc etc. To the extent that “rationalists” haven’t yet shown their ability to surpass, or at least match religionists there, they don’t get to claim the high ground on this.
But I do agree with you that mainstream religions aren’t a good fit for self-identified rationalists. There are good reasons for why they are on the retreat worldwide despite their clear benefits, and dogmatic attachment to sacred nonsense patently incompatible with contemporary understanding of the world is prominent among those.
Then religious people are simply more instrumentally rational than the “Rationalists” , the “rationality as winning” is a definition which doesn’t restrict itself to superiority of a group which calls itself “Rationalists”.
Why do you think EA is a religion? I disagree in a sibling comment.
Hmm… that’s quite a big topic. Are you sure that you want to have this discussion in this comment thread? I don’t object, mind you, and it’s your post, so I’ll follow your preference here. It’s not a “couple of comments and done” sort of thing, though.
For now I will just note that the view is hardly unique to me, nor even original to me; “EA is a religion” is something that I’ve seen quite a few people opine. Haven’t you encountered this view before? I am surprised, if that’s the case.
Most of the time when I hear people say “EA is a religion” it’s because they are trying to discredit EA without actually engaging with EA, so I was honestly curious what you could mean here since it seems, to me, a claim on par with people calling rationalists a cult.
Alas, I banned you already for your other comment on this post, so I guess we won’t be getting into it.
The referencing of the holy texts to say why there aren’t holy texts, is quite funny, lol. I assume that was intentional.
If the text says that it is not holy, then who are we to disagree?
lmao, i dont think this is a joke, right?