= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
eli_sennesh comments on Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable - 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 (310)
Very well written, as usual. But many other modern institutions have analogous ancient institutions that look rather silly by modern standards. Consider trial by combat in law, or ancient scholastic obsessions with the "true" meaning of ancient texts. If lawyers and academics can disavow these ancient practices, while still embracing a true essence of law or academia, why can't religious folks disavow ancient religious practice in favor of some true essence that makes sense in modern terms?
Because when you try that you get New Age cults and faith-healing. The true essence is the toxic and wrong part.
You might want to reread the original essay, for context. Hanson's reply makes more sense in context.
Invariably?
Well, name a religion that's true. The problem with religion is that the emotions and experiences it evokes, qua emotions and experiences, are invariably tied to some kind of belief and ritual, and since the beliefs are invariably wrong, you always end up with a toxic practice.
Maybe the people who are disavowing ancient religious practice in favor of some true essence that makes sense in modern terms are coming up with something you wouldn't categorise as religion.
Possibly. In which case I'd ask that they articulate what they mean.