Cayenne comments on Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves - Less Wrong

32 Post author: calcsam 10 May 2011 07:15AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (149)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Cayenne 10 May 2011 12:22:44PM *  4 points [-]

Some of it is difficult to pull apart into clear thought, but I'll try.

I don't want to have a list of groups I have to hate to belong. I don't want to have someone trying to control my behavior by defining things as 'sin'. I don't want to be told 'we love you, we just don't like your actions', when it's clear that there is no love involved in any case. I don't want to have to remember people and feel sorry that they're part of a malignant memeplex, and that I can't do anything to help them. I don't want to dread going to a meet because I don't fit in.

No, I really don't like the LDS church. That's probably never going to change, though I'll try not to influence others' decisions on the matter. I don't hate the members, I just feel sad when I think of them, and of my ex-family.

Edit - please disregard this post

Comment author: Swimmer963 10 May 2011 12:34:28PM *  1 point [-]

I don't hate the members, I just feel sad when I think of them, and of my ex-family.

That makes me sad too. I don't have a particularly negative attitude towards religion (alll my personal interactions with religions and religious people have been pretty positive and haven't included any of the aspects on your list) but I hear stories like yours about the incredibly toxic things people can do with their religions, and it depresses me, mostly because I don't think it's purely a symptom of people being religious. Otherwise, how could nearly all the religious people I've met be more accepting and less hypocritical about their daily life decisions than my atheist-by-default friends? It's more a symptom of people being flawed humans, and that is depressing.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 10 May 2011 02:59:51PM 0 points [-]

How much of what you don't like about LDS is entangled with the organizational structure?

I don't have a strong answer, just some concerns.

It may be that a lot of what's wrong there is having a hard boundary between members and non-members. If so, rationalists may be able to beat that one by wanting people to be more rational, though there do seem to be some firm lines in this community, like being obligated to be a materialist.

I don't want to have to remember people and feel sorry that they're part of a malignant memeplex, and that I can't do anything to help them.

You may be stuck with that one, especially in regards to cryonics, at least in the sense that you can't do much to help them.

Comment author: Swimmer963 10 May 2011 03:09:56PM 0 points [-]

If so, rationalists may be able to beat that one by wanting people to be more rational, though there do seem to be some firm lines in this community, like being obligated to be a materialist.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "materialist" in this context. Could you explain?

Comment author: Barry_Cotter 10 May 2011 03:40:23PM *  0 points [-]

Materialist as in reductionist, as in Thou Art Physics not as in being materialistic.

Comment author: Swimmer963 10 May 2011 04:01:21PM 0 points [-]

Ok (sigh of relief). That's what I thought but I'm not used to seeing the word used to mean 'reductionist'.

Comment author: saturn 10 May 2011 06:25:15PM *  2 points [-]

Not exactly. Strange as it sounds, there are non-reductive materialist philosophers.

Comment author: DSimon 10 May 2011 07:06:38PM *  1 point [-]

We are all reductionist girls*, living in a reductionist world.

* For a sufficiently broad value of "girls", or a sufficiently narrow value of "all".

Comment author: Cayenne 10 May 2011 03:09:32PM 0 points [-]

It is hard to say.

I have no doubt that rationalists will prevail eventually, and I wish luck to the ones that try.

Edit - please disregard this post