= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Reflections on rationality a year out - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (105)
You're welcome.
What religion or denomination was it?
It was the non-denominational Antioch Community Church, a pretty large one, especially given the metro area's size.
Offhand, I'd think that the only mainstream American religions which could be compatible for most LessWrongians would be Unitarianism and the Quakers.
I'm a member of my local Unitarian Universalist church (in El Paso, just down the street from Waco by SW standards), and it is very friendly to atheists and skeptics -- I would say 15% to 20% of the membership would identify as "agnostic" or more skeptical. However, it is also friendly to an array of other, much less evidence-based views. I'd say a UU church would definitely be worth a look, and would almost certainly be a better fit for a LW denizen than a "non-denominational Christian" one. But one might need to be tolerant of some rather silly beliefs. OTOH, I'm starting to take it as an opportunity to learn to "evangelize" (gently).
I'd say that, depending on the congregation, Reconstructionist Judaism is quite compatible with LW-rationality. Granted, Reconstructionist Jews are a tiny minority of a tiny minority, but it still qualifies as a mainstream religion in the way that term is usually employed. I'd likely belong to a congregation if there were actually one located closer to me.
Naturalistic Neopaganism (HT Nick Tarleton)
I said "mainstream" because I'm assuming that the statistical good effects from religion require a social infrastructure that neo-paganism doesn't tend to have.
Having been to a pagan convention in San Jose, this seems most likely false. I'd have to attend some local, routine meetups to be sure, but I get the feeling there's an excellent social infrastructure in place.
Mainstream religions have people get together every week, with stuff going on between the major services. I don't know of pagan groups which have that much going on.
If there were pagan groups that have that much going on, would you know about it?
Maybe. Do you know of any?
I am not familiar with any pagan groups at all. I was just wondering how much evidence against a thing existing your non-observance of that thing is.
That was a very interesting article; I had not previously encountered such a perspective on the subject.
I don't agree with all of it, though:
Needs more joy in the merely real, and maybe some how an algorithm feels from the inside. But still, very interesting.
Most worthwhile thing I've read by someone (ESR) who has written a lot of worthwhile things even though I will concede that he is a little full of himself sometimes.
ADDED. Actually, "Sex tips for geeks" is also in the running for most worthwhile thing written by ESR.
When I first read that, it seemed slightly odd that he would place so much trust (provisionally?) in this particular psychological explanation. Later I read The Jung Cult, which includes a persuasive argument against the validity of the evidence for a collective unconscious. (And I guess the author had to fill the rest of the book somehow.) You'll have to decide if you think the prior probability suffices.
Mind you, I doubt this argument would make all the phenomena go away.
Quakers? What about the God and mysticism stuff? (I was going to mention technology, but I may be incorrectly equating them with the Amish.)
Edit: Also, don't forget the Church of Bayes.
My grandparents were Quakers. I've been to a few of their meetings. A Quaker meeting consists of everyone in the congregation sitting silently in a room, with individuals standing up to speak at irregular and unplanned intervals. In my experience, when people stand up to speak, they talk about the things that are important in their "spiritual" lives, which, in practice, means their emotional/moral lives. God was mentioned only in passing, and, aside from these mentions of God, I don't remember anything mystical.
As with Unitarians, there are apparently some groups of Quakers that have relinquished belief in God.
Quakers run the gamut from very conservative to explicitly atheist.
Thanks for the information-- I just assumed that the inner light could be interpreted as a neurologically based reward of meditation.