So, let’s take this hypothetical (harrumph) youth. They see irrationality around them, obvious and immense, they see the waste and the pain it causes. They’d like to do something about it. How would you advise them to go about it?
Donate to CFAR. There’s no good reason to demand a local increase in rationality.
[...]should we try to distance ourselves from atheism and anti-religiousness as such? Is this baggage too inconvenient, or is it too much a part of what we stand for?
We don’t stand for atheism; we stand by atheism, prepared to walk away at any time should the proper evidence come about. (Of course, it won’t.) In any case I think we should talk about atheism less because it is preaching to the choir and because the psychological principle of social proof makes people update on “a bunch of rationalists have all decided there’s no god!” which is double-counting evidence.
I see it as a true thing, and thus something to cooperate with. Normatively, I see it as instrumentally bad, but related to something I want to protect.
Perhaps it was imprudent, but I assumed that someone trying to promote rationality would herself be rational enough to overcome this parochialism bias.
I think that in the long run, donating to sens might be a better idea, right? Nothing would dilute religion more than the prospect of a very long life on earth. Looking at westerners and east asians with a little grudging envy because they are rich and happy is probably an
order of magnitude less worse than the realisation that they are going to be like that forever, while you die, your sons die and their sons die.
Donate to CFAR. There’s no good reason to demand a local increase in rationality.
We don’t stand for atheism; we stand by atheism, prepared to walk away at any time should the proper evidence come about. (Of course, it won’t.) In any case I think we should talk about atheism less because it is preaching to the choir and because the psychological principle of social proof makes people update on “a bunch of rationalists have all decided there’s no god!” which is double-counting evidence.
People with a desire to improve things generally have a very strong desire to spend some of that effort contributing to and seeing local improvements.
Do you see that as a good thing?
I see it as a true thing, and thus something to cooperate with. Normatively, I see it as instrumentally bad, but related to something I want to protect.
Perhaps it was imprudent, but I assumed that someone trying to promote rationality would herself be rational enough to overcome this parochialism bias.
Seeing improvements in ways that are immediately tabgible is very encouraging and motivating.
No, as a true thing.
I think that in the long run, donating to sens might be a better idea, right? Nothing would dilute religion more than the prospect of a very long life on earth. Looking at westerners and east asians with a little grudging envy because they are rich and happy is probably an order of magnitude less worse than the realisation that they are going to be like that forever, while you die, your sons die and their sons die.