You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

OrphanWilde comments on Religious and Rational? - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 09 February 2016 08:12PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (86)
Tags: waterline sanity rationality religion outreach intentionalinsights wordspreading

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 09 February 2016 08:53:31PM 0 points [-]

I like this one, for a change. I'm uncertain LW is the place for it, except insofar as it might be a useful starting point.

You could allocate more space to talking about historic rationalist figures in the church, I think, as examples to live up to; some suitable imagery about leading the world into the light might work.

Comment author: RevPitkin 10 February 2016 08:46:50PM 1 point [-]

I think Augustine would be an interesting candidate. John Wesley from my own denomination. Many of the early church theologians. We live with a fairly well developed system of theology and Christian belief . However, the early church had to define and articulate the faith. For this they used the methods of logical inquiry available to them based on the idea that theology had to be understandable and had to be internally consistent. So many of them used tools of logical and reason to examine the Christian faith. Were many of them rationalist in the modern sense, no but were they in their time and place yes.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 10 February 2016 12:41:28AM 0 points [-]

Oh, nice idea! I'll see how Caleb feels about it for future articles.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 February 2016 01:57:19AM 0 points [-]

Does Caleb have a LessWrong account?

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 10 February 2016 02:32:17AM 0 points [-]

He's getting one to engage with the comments here.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 February 2016 02:35:32AM 1 point [-]

So when you said "Caleb does not have enough karma to post, so I am posting it on his behalf", that wasn't exactly true, was it?

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 10 February 2016 03:38:55AM -1 points [-]

How was it not true? He indeed did not have enough karma to post.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 February 2016 03:42:26AM 0 points [-]

Because he didn't have an account to start with?

Comment author: Clarity 10 February 2016 04:46:30AM 0 points [-]

'reverend bayes'

Comment author: gjm 10 February 2016 08:37:00AM 2 points [-]

He proved a theorem that LW-style rationalists are (rightly) fond of. That's not particularly the same as being a rationalist in any useful sense.

But if you are going to use him, note that "Reverend" is supposed to accompany a person's full name, not just their surname. You don't say "Reverend Bayes" or even "the Reverend Bayes"; you say "the Reverend Thomas Bayes" or "Reverend T Bayes". (I think "Reverend Thomas" is more acceptable than "Reverend Bayes".

Also, when you write "Reverend" seven times in one short paragraph, it starts to look really odd :-).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit