I’m fascinated by the ‘religion inside rationalism’ thing. I think my biggest question is- are you sure it isn’t already a religion? It has ethical teachings it pushes (EA), revered prophets (like him!), sacred writings (The codex), and even communities of adherents.
It's a proto-religion. Give rationalism a good martyr, or a better cosmology, or just some clear collective sense of meaning you earn through belief, and it would graduate to full-fledged religion.
It seems like religions are generally evolved to be for the average person, leaving those on the periphery dissatisfied. Who exactly is the rationalist religion for? Something which works for the average person probably doesn't work for the average rationalist, or for the peripheral rationalist. Something which accommodates all of the above seems like it would be super soft as to lack all coherence.
Stepping into this conversation after it’s gotten pretty far along, I have three comments:
First, this feels like an earlier, happier internet, circa 2005, when religion/nonreligion was all anyone wanted to talk about. Takes me back!
Second, I shouldn’t have said the goal here was to “create a religion”. Rather, it’s about learning tools from religious communities to inspire better ways to cultivate Rationalist community.
And third, given the divisiveness of this topic, I’m really quite impressed at the restraint that many of us have been showing here. I haven’t yet had to ask anyone to edit their posts. Good job, team!
As this topic is largely outside the stated purpose of the blog, I’ll mostly not be posting about it here. But you can listen to the episode on the Bayesian Conspiracy’s feed. (I’m excited about where it ended, especially, and will be doing a follow-up soon.)
The linked materials are well worth studying in depth. Here are some key concepts to help getting started. Non theism is the parsimonious worldview. Reality is our common ground. Impartiality provides an important basis for moral reasoning. The universe is awesome, and humans crave community.
These all sound like principles I'd subscribe to. Sounds indeed like a good religion. Do you have a branch in the Twin Cities? Not yet? Why not? Where is the gap between the dream and its realization?
I experienced deep emotional resonance in a Secular Prayer workshop guided by @NathanpmYoung. If we're going to have healthy growth for our community I think we need practices like that. Something that builds community by offering lonely rationally-minded people a path towards more human connection.
My personal view is that to equate religion with the worship of currently existing supernatural sentient beings is highly problematic. It seems like a definition that is meant to isolate the most childish part in established religion and make it its defining feature. Rationalist beliefs are then excluded, but with the thinnest of margins, that the supernatural being is not yet in existence. A less demagogic definition of religion would focus on the orientation of humans toward values that they deem above all others. For the rationalists these would be Truth and Survival. Here are some values that are not considered above all else in the rationalist context: Love, Kindness, and Growth. There is no explicit argument that I’m aware of that justifies why Truth should be valued over Love. The cherished values rule supreme, floating above any need for justification. It’s a religion in my book.
My questions assume that you get through the basic ones about characterizing a religion or the need/use of a new one and have some time to spare for picking Mr. Brodski's brain for plans. Here's a few:
1. What are some of the ways you plan on outcompeting existing religions in mimetic spread?
2. How does birth rate and the advantage of home-grown believers over mimetic spread (in existing religions, but probably extrapolable) factor into your plans to incorporate pro-birth messages in the doctrine/culture?
3. What will be done to accommodate and facilitate families in this religion, and what consideration have you given to a desired family structure and tools for making sure families are able to flourish?
4. What membership benefits in general do you expect to confer via the organizational structure of your church? And what expectations would you have? Tithing, lecture attendance, "sunday school" or some equivalent, other gatherings, holidays...
5. If death is bad (and I know Brandon disagrees but Mr. Brodski doesn't), how will you make sure that the anti-deathers outcompete the pro-deathers in case of a religious schism, and how would you make sure both groups are still working together (and hopefully outcompeting other religions)?
Regarding point two, how do you plan to deal with the generally skewed gender demographics in rationalism? Firstly, because studies generally show that women tend to have greater religiosity than men. Secondly, it implies that any pro-birth messaging will require some sort of PUA component attached to it.
The only acronyms I could find for PUA were not pleasant, so I'm hoping you can tell me what you mean there. And isn't religiosity another word for willingness to share culture?
From ChatGPT: In the context of the rationalist community, "PUA" stands for "Pick-Up Artist." It refers to individuals, typically men, who engage in learning and applying techniques intended to attract and seduce women. The term is often associated with a community and industry that promotes various strategies and methods for improving success in dating and sexual encounters. Within rationalist discussions, PUAs and their methods are sometimes analyzed from psychological, sociological, and ethical perspectives.
You know, I think I've stayed away from that part of the discourse so far. I assume the spirit of that question is to insinuate more marketing (or proseletizing) should be done to women?
No, the context of the question is that I'm more or less skeptical of the project of creating a rationalist religion and one of the primary concerns I have is that it cannot both be compatible with rationalism as it currently exists and intergenerationally robust. Actually, it's not even clear to me if the rationalist movement will continue to exist once the progenitor generation dies out. It seems to me there are fewer young people identifying as rationalists these days, with the primary pipeline being through universities, and more explicitly EA rather than being primarily rationalist. To answer your other question, greater religiosity means more active and devout participation in the community and rituals.
The issue is that people typically do not join a new religion once their formative years are passed. The way that basically all religions spread is through marriage and then intergenerational transfer with population growth. For example, the Quakers died out when they no longer had a monopoly on orphanages. Even explicitly missionary religions have extremely low success rates when proselytizing. The LDS states that a typical two year mission leads to about 1.5 converts, and I expect they lose many adherents through the process even though the typical Mormon is extremely outgoing, unlike the typical rationalist. As a result, I'm trying to think of the mechanism by which this religion would spread. Presumably it would start with existing rationalists, who are mostly male and childless. Step three is an active community of practice with many children to take up the mantle for the next generation. What is step two? It's exactly the issue that the obvious solution seems controversial that bears analysis.
I should note that Eneasz's interest in creating a rationalist religion is partially inspired by the Collins' book on the subject, so I'm drawing on some of the thoughts and conclusions they make in that book.
Great questions! Yes, please ask these! I’d say that the education of children is the primary question on the table, for me. The details of that are what makes or break a religion, in my mind.
I notice the comments seem on the whole, to approach religion from an Abrahamic, and more specifically Protestant framework.
For many other religions, there are aspects that are for the average layperson, and others (maybe even the majority of the religion) that are for those more dedicated to the path. Monasticism for example. You have the various monastic orders in Catholicism and Orthodoxy even within Christianity, but if you look at Buddhism, a large part of the religion historically was meant for monastics (study, meditation, etc), while laypeople mostly focused on ethical conduct and donations.
I have no horse in this race, I don't identify as a "Rationalist", but if Rats want to build a quasi-religious structure, maybe you guys can learn from some of these other religions.
I’m fascinated by the ‘religion inside rationalism’ thing. I think my biggest question is- are you sure it isn’t already a religion? It has ethical teachings it pushes (EA), revered prophets (like him!), sacred writings (The codex), and even communities of adherents.
It's a proto-religion. Give rationalism a good martyr, or a better cosmology, or just some clear collective sense of meaning you earn through belief, and it would graduate to full-fledged religion.
It seems like religions are generally evolved to be for the average person, leaving those on the periphery dissatisfied. Who exactly is the rationalist religion for? Something which works for the average person probably doesn't work for the average rationalist, or for the peripheral rationalist. Something which accommodates all of the above seems like it would be super soft as to lack all coherence.
Stepping into this conversation after it’s gotten pretty far along, I have three comments:
First, this feels like an earlier, happier internet, circa 2005, when religion/nonreligion was all anyone wanted to talk about. Takes me back!
Second, I shouldn’t have said the goal here was to “create a religion”. Rather, it’s about learning tools from religious communities to inspire better ways to cultivate Rationalist community.
And third, given the divisiveness of this topic, I’m really quite impressed at the restraint that many of us have been showing here. I haven’t yet had to ask anyone to edit their posts. Good job, team!
As this topic is largely outside the stated purpose of the blog, I’ll mostly not be posting about it here. But you can listen to the episode on the Bayesian Conspiracy’s feed. (I’m excited about where it ended, especially, and will be doing a follow-up soon.)
How can we best accelerate a transition to a real good religion? See: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Real_Good_Religion
This looks very interesting, but is quite long. Can you give an example of a particular point you would like to discuss?
The linked materials are well worth studying in depth. Here are some key concepts to help getting started. Non theism is the parsimonious worldview. Reality is our common ground. Impartiality provides an important basis for moral reasoning. The universe is awesome, and humans crave community.
These all sound like principles I'd subscribe to. Sounds indeed like a good religion. Do you have a branch in the Twin Cities? Not yet? Why not? Where is the gap between the dream and its realization?
The linked materials are freely available worldwide.
I experienced deep emotional resonance in a Secular Prayer workshop guided by @NathanpmYoung. If we're going to have healthy growth for our community I think we need practices like that. Something that builds community by offering lonely rationally-minded people a path towards more human connection.
My personal view is that to equate religion with the worship of currently existing supernatural sentient beings is highly problematic. It seems like a definition that is meant to isolate the most childish part in established religion and make it its defining feature. Rationalist beliefs are then excluded, but with the thinnest of margins, that the supernatural being is not yet in existence. A less demagogic definition of religion would focus on the orientation of humans toward values that they deem above all others. For the rationalists these would be Truth and Survival. Here are some values that are not considered above all else in the rationalist context: Love, Kindness, and Growth. There is no explicit argument that I’m aware of that justifies why Truth should be valued over Love. The cherished values rule supreme, floating above any need for justification. It’s a religion in my book.
Is eschatology the secret sauce of religion?
I'd say that religion promises the good life, either here or thereafter. It has to dangle some reward.
My questions assume that you get through the basic ones about characterizing a religion or the need/use of a new one and have some time to spare for picking Mr. Brodski's brain for plans. Here's a few:
1. What are some of the ways you plan on outcompeting existing religions in mimetic spread?
2. How does birth rate and the advantage of home-grown believers over mimetic spread (in existing religions, but probably extrapolable) factor into your plans to incorporate pro-birth messages in the doctrine/culture?
3. What will be done to accommodate and facilitate families in this religion, and what consideration have you given to a desired family structure and tools for making sure families are able to flourish?
4. What membership benefits in general do you expect to confer via the organizational structure of your church? And what expectations would you have? Tithing, lecture attendance, "sunday school" or some equivalent, other gatherings, holidays...
5. If death is bad (and I know Brandon disagrees but Mr. Brodski doesn't), how will you make sure that the anti-deathers outcompete the pro-deathers in case of a religious schism, and how would you make sure both groups are still working together (and hopefully outcompeting other religions)?
Regarding point two, how do you plan to deal with the generally skewed gender demographics in rationalism? Firstly, because studies generally show that women tend to have greater religiosity than men. Secondly, it implies that any pro-birth messaging will require some sort of PUA component attached to it.
The only acronyms I could find for PUA were not pleasant, so I'm hoping you can tell me what you mean there. And isn't religiosity another word for willingness to share culture?
From ChatGPT: In the context of the rationalist community, "PUA" stands for "Pick-Up Artist." It refers to individuals, typically men, who engage in learning and applying techniques intended to attract and seduce women. The term is often associated with a community and industry that promotes various strategies and methods for improving success in dating and sexual encounters. Within rationalist discussions, PUAs and their methods are sometimes analyzed from psychological, sociological, and ethical perspectives.
You know, I think I've stayed away from that part of the discourse so far. I assume the spirit of that question is to insinuate more marketing (or proseletizing) should be done to women?
No, the context of the question is that I'm more or less skeptical of the project of creating a rationalist religion and one of the primary concerns I have is that it cannot both be compatible with rationalism as it currently exists and intergenerationally robust. Actually, it's not even clear to me if the rationalist movement will continue to exist once the progenitor generation dies out. It seems to me there are fewer young people identifying as rationalists these days, with the primary pipeline being through universities, and more explicitly EA rather than being primarily rationalist. To answer your other question, greater religiosity means more active and devout participation in the community and rituals.
The issue is that people typically do not join a new religion once their formative years are passed. The way that basically all religions spread is through marriage and then intergenerational transfer with population growth. For example, the Quakers died out when they no longer had a monopoly on orphanages. Even explicitly missionary religions have extremely low success rates when proselytizing. The LDS states that a typical two year mission leads to about 1.5 converts, and I expect they lose many adherents through the process even though the typical Mormon is extremely outgoing, unlike the typical rationalist. As a result, I'm trying to think of the mechanism by which this religion would spread. Presumably it would start with existing rationalists, who are mostly male and childless. Step three is an active community of practice with many children to take up the mantle for the next generation. What is step two? It's exactly the issue that the obvious solution seems controversial that bears analysis.
I should note that Eneasz's interest in creating a rationalist religion is partially inspired by the Collins' book on the subject, so I'm drawing on some of the thoughts and conclusions they make in that book.
I think the discussion of PUA probably has a net adverse effect on gender ratios.
Great questions! Yes, please ask these! I’d say that the education of children is the primary question on the table, for me. The details of that are what makes or break a religion, in my mind.
I think they really make or break a society. Ours seems to barely tolerate children, and definitely doesn't seek to prioritize them.
I notice the comments seem on the whole, to approach religion from an Abrahamic, and more specifically Protestant framework.
For many other religions, there are aspects that are for the average layperson, and others (maybe even the majority of the religion) that are for those more dedicated to the path. Monasticism for example. You have the various monastic orders in Catholicism and Orthodoxy even within Christianity, but if you look at Buddhism, a large part of the religion historically was meant for monastics (study, meditation, etc), while laypeople mostly focused on ethical conduct and donations.
I have no horse in this race, I don't identify as a "Rationalist", but if Rats want to build a quasi-religious structure, maybe you guys can learn from some of these other religions.
1. how does religion and rationalism conflict and how does it compliment or blend?
2. What rule/law/norm/ritual that is most couterculture do you wish you could instate?
3. What is your favorite things about religion that you feel cannot be retrieved because of conflicts with other things?
How does he define “religion”? Do Unitarianism, Baha’i, and Communism count?