No—I think this comment just makes my earlier point about “schizophrenia” in The uniquely awful example of theism: We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything irrational as “religion”.
Also, this post says “theism” but really means “Christianity and Islam”.
Consider Scientology. I think we can agree it’s a religion. But it doesn’t presuppose a spiritual realm which can cause effects in the natural world and yet not be investigated. It doesn’t disclaim evidential reasoning; it actually relies on evidential reasoning. Just not very good evidential reasoning, plus some good stagecraft.
Consider Hinduism. It doesn’t have much dogma. It isn’t about making claims about the world the way Christianity or Islam is. It’s more like a catalog of Jungian archetypes and models for thinking about the world. A Hindu “God” isn’t a cause of events in the world; it’s more like a manifestation of or symbol for patterns of events.
Consider Buddhism. It doesn’t have any “offstage” place for events that impact our world.
Consider animism. It also is very brief on dogma. It’s very evidential. The volcano erupted; therefore, the volcano god is angry.
Consider Unitarianism. Brief on dogma. It’s mainly about community.
So why do we call these things religions? Because “religion”, the way most non-LW people (can we call them MW people?) use it, has to do with providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community.
You’ve used the word “theism” in your post, instead of “religion”. Your points are better (tho still not to the point of my “agreeing” with them) if we’re careful to use the word “theism” and not “religion”. I might even agree with you if we use the term “monotheism”, although there are versions of Judaism that resist your accusations.
But it takes a lot of discipline to read an argument made explicity about “theism”, and refrain from applying it to “religion”. Unless you explicitly point out that you’re not talking about religion in general, I would expect the majority of LW readers to classify this mentally in the “arguments against religion” folder.
Heck, I’m a non-religious non-atheist. I consider it somewhere between possible and probable that our world is a simulation created by a God, probably for research or entertainment.
We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything irrational as “religion”.
Being the least bit charitable, the irrational belief that the moon is made of cheese has nothing to do with religion and I am guessing most people here would not file it under that category. Your sentence might read better the other way:
We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything “religious” as irrational.
At which point I would hazard that the community would accept it and wait for evidence to the contrary.
Consider Scientology [… et al]
I am not sure what you are asking us to consider.
Are you proposing these as examples of rational religions? I can follow the concept that a “rational religion” may or could exist, which is what I think you are trying to say, but I cannot tell if you think the religions you listed were rational.
Perhaps the list is an example of nontheistic religions? That seems to fit better with the rest of what you said:
[W]hy do we call these things religions? Because “religion”, the way most non-LW people use it, has to do with providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community
Providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community fits a broader subject than “religions.” Your average high-school fits those criteria and does not qualify as a religion. At this point it would also be useful to start trying to strictly define the terms. This is especially true if you think that “religion” is negatively and unfairly associated with “irrational.”
Unless you explicitly point out that you’re not talking about religion in general, I would expect the majority of LW readers to classify this mentally in the “arguments against religion” folder.
Personally, I drop it in the folder labeled “arguments related to religion.” Argue semantics all you want, it fits.
The religions I listed, some of which are theistic, do not claim to be immune to evidential reasoning. The post says that is the defining characteristic of religion.
No—I think this comment just makes my earlier point about “schizophrenia” in The uniquely awful example of theism: We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything irrational as “religion”.
Also, this post says “theism” but really means “Christianity and Islam”.
Consider Scientology. I think we can agree it’s a religion. But it doesn’t presuppose a spiritual realm which can cause effects in the natural world and yet not be investigated. It doesn’t disclaim evidential reasoning; it actually relies on evidential reasoning. Just not very good evidential reasoning, plus some good stagecraft.
Consider Hinduism. It doesn’t have much dogma. It isn’t about making claims about the world the way Christianity or Islam is. It’s more like a catalog of Jungian archetypes and models for thinking about the world. A Hindu “God” isn’t a cause of events in the world; it’s more like a manifestation of or symbol for patterns of events.
Consider Buddhism. It doesn’t have any “offstage” place for events that impact our world.
Consider animism. It also is very brief on dogma. It’s very evidential. The volcano erupted; therefore, the volcano god is angry.
Consider Unitarianism. Brief on dogma. It’s mainly about community.
So why do we call these things religions? Because “religion”, the way most non-LW people (can we call them MW people?) use it, has to do with providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community.
You’ve used the word “theism” in your post, instead of “religion”. Your points are better (tho still not to the point of my “agreeing” with them) if we’re careful to use the word “theism” and not “religion”. I might even agree with you if we use the term “monotheism”, although there are versions of Judaism that resist your accusations.
But it takes a lot of discipline to read an argument made explicity about “theism”, and refrain from applying it to “religion”. Unless you explicitly point out that you’re not talking about religion in general, I would expect the majority of LW readers to classify this mentally in the “arguments against religion” folder.
Heck, I’m a non-religious non-atheist. I consider it somewhere between possible and probable that our world is a simulation created by a God, probably for research or entertainment.
To be nitpicky...
Being the least bit charitable, the irrational belief that the moon is made of cheese has nothing to do with religion and I am guessing most people here would not file it under that category. Your sentence might read better the other way:
At which point I would hazard that the community would accept it and wait for evidence to the contrary.
I am not sure what you are asking us to consider.
Are you proposing these as examples of rational religions? I can follow the concept that a “rational religion” may or could exist, which is what I think you are trying to say, but I cannot tell if you think the religions you listed were rational.
Perhaps the list is an example of nontheistic religions? That seems to fit better with the rest of what you said:
Providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community fits a broader subject than “religions.” Your average high-school fits those criteria and does not qualify as a religion. At this point it would also be useful to start trying to strictly define the terms. This is especially true if you think that “religion” is negatively and unfairly associated with “irrational.”
Personally, I drop it in the folder labeled “arguments related to religion.” Argue semantics all you want, it fits.
The religions I listed, some of which are theistic, do not claim to be immune to evidential reasoning. The post says that is the defining characteristic of religion.
Oh! Okay, I think I understand much better. For reference, I think I found the relevant sentence in the original post:
Of note, what one claims to be is not always what one is, but I catch your drift and the point stands.
I’m pretty sure you’ve got it.