Do you regard the undermining of religious belief as important and as a priority? I ask in the context of your previous article, which calls on its readers to collectively seek wealth, power, and influence, so as to pursue an unspecified agenda.
I don’t know where you may have gotten that. The agenda is the prevention of existential risk. One of the most effective ways that can be indirectly achieved is through the promotion of analytical thinking skills and the improvement of the level and quality of instrumental and epistemological rationality. The movement for rationality having a strong, powerful, influential base is the tertiary goal that would enable that: rationality sequences do not implement themselves. If the religious phenomena diminish in scope and intensity, or even disappear, as a side-effect of raising humanity’s level of e+i rationality, I, for one, deem it an acceptable loss for the sake of the continued existence of humanity, but I, for one, don’t advocate going out of one’s way to achieve that particular effect.
Just from the succession of topics. I don’t know much about you; the abolition of religion might have been part of your personal concept of how to save the world. But I see that the religious bronies are safe for now!
Regarding the topic of this post, I would add that analytical thinking can undermine many other forms of belief too, not just religious belief.
Political belief, philosophical belief, belief about what you should have for breakfast. Belief in an idea or belief in a person. What beliefs aren’t at risk of modification or abandonment, if subjected to scrutiny? Not many.
I don’t know, I didn’t think that far ahead, and you’ve already said you’re not a militant atheist. All that happened was, first you made a post saying, let’s get strong and powerful so we can save the world, then you made a post saying, reminders of rationality can reduce religiosity, and I asked if reducing religiosity was part of the plan to save the world, and you answered no, it’s not, and I quipped that the religious people are safe for now, meaning, safe from whatever world-changing activities you do have in mind.
Do you regard the undermining of religious belief as important and as a priority? I ask in the context of your previous article, which calls on its readers to collectively seek wealth, power, and influence, so as to pursue an unspecified agenda.
I don’t know where you may have gotten that. The agenda is the prevention of existential risk. One of the most effective ways that can be indirectly achieved is through the promotion of analytical thinking skills and the improvement of the level and quality of instrumental and epistemological rationality. The movement for rationality having a strong, powerful, influential base is the tertiary goal that would enable that: rationality sequences do not implement themselves. If the religious phenomena diminish in scope and intensity, or even disappear, as a side-effect of raising humanity’s level of e+i rationality, I, for one, deem it an acceptable loss for the sake of the continued existence of humanity, but I, for one, don’t advocate going out of one’s way to achieve that particular effect.
Just from the succession of topics. I don’t know much about you; the abolition of religion might have been part of your personal concept of how to save the world. But I see that the religious bronies are safe for now!
Regarding the topic of this post, I would add that analytical thinking can undermine many other forms of belief too, not just religious belief.
Please develop that.
Be wary of Internet Cold Reading, and of jumping to conclusions on insufficient evidence.
Safe from what?
Political belief, philosophical belief, belief about what you should have for breakfast. Belief in an idea or belief in a person. What beliefs aren’t at risk of modification or abandonment, if subjected to scrutiny? Not many.
Why would anyone think I do that...
Your Chaos Legion.
“at risk of modification or abandonment” =/= “undermined”. The correct expression would be “questioned”, The connotations are very different.
I gathered that. From what actions or policies?
I don’t know, I didn’t think that far ahead, and you’ve already said you’re not a militant atheist. All that happened was, first you made a post saying, let’s get strong and powerful so we can save the world, then you made a post saying, reminders of rationality can reduce religiosity, and I asked if reducing religiosity was part of the plan to save the world, and you answered no, it’s not, and I quipped that the religious people are safe for now, meaning, safe from whatever world-changing activities you do have in mind.