0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Raemon · 2022-11-14T23:12:41.416Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
As the guy who created the Secular Solstice [? · GW], helped run Sunday Assembly NYC and has thought a bunch about humanist religion, I feel fairly doomy about this path. I think the Way of Religion is fading – organized religion was a response to one set of societal pressures, and we now live in a different set of societal pressures.
My impression is that hardcore conservative religions are still doing okay, but that more scientifically minded or liberal religions are mostly losing membership. Atomic individualism, the rise of the internet and other modern forces make religion a lot less compelling than it used to be. There are lessons to be learned from religion, but simply copying them doesn't work. Religion-as-we-know-it is built around society being a lot more stable/persistent than it now is.
(also, doublechecking if you've read the sequences on the Craft and the Community, [? · GW] which are the relevant background reading here)
Replies from: TheAspiringHumanist, TheAspiringHumanist↑ comment by TheAspiringHumanist · 2022-11-16T00:59:06.351Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also thanks for the suggestion!
↑ comment by TheAspiringHumanist · 2022-11-16T00:57:24.241Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I have encountered this issue of "religion" having far reaching unintended connotations before by talking with Humanists who were aghast at the notion of calling Humanism a religion. The term really doesn't work with secular people. And for good reason, as even though I myself had a fairly amicable exit with the church I know many who have risked their wellbeing leaving.
I just used the term here to try and get at the general role such an organization would mimic, in that it would provide community, traditions, ethics, and an understanding of the world grounded in reality enough not to have serious ethical connotations.
Again, the organization would never market itself as a religion. That's stupid. I should have said that front and center a bit more obviously.
The part about society being atomized is the part I'd like to push against rather. Humans are social creatures. I am fairly confident based off of even a cursory reading of the subject that community and social ties are very important to human wellbeing, and that the atomization of society is really not something we should be simply shrugging our shoulders at. If you meant it as a practical obstacle, then I agree it would make such an idea harder to implement, but if you meant it as a sign that religion was outdated then I would push back and say that in this respect the communal aspect of religion is actually likely superior to the hyper-individualized society we now live in.
Replies from: Raemon↑ comment by Raemon · 2022-11-16T01:04:50.444Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
FYI, I'm totally fine calling things religion. It's the actual structure of religion (i.e. community centered around intergenerational memetic ideology) I think no longer works.
My point isn't that atomization is good, but that it makes different sets of things practical/impractical for creating community. (i.e. I think most people would rather get their community from Dancing or Crossfit groups or whatever than from a humanist religion. Ideological conformity is actually a key ingredient for religion working, and it's incompatible with the kinds of humanism you probably want).
(I have a bunch more thoughts/models here, may not have time to articulate them. But, a lot of people have attempted the thing you're articulating here and my current bet is that this thing doesn't work)
To be clear, I think there's a huge problem humanity is facing about how to do community and various social structure in this era, I just don't think the solution is to try to do religion-structured-things.
comment by joseph_c (cooljoseph1) · 2022-11-15T17:06:31.918Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Fact check: Mormons don't go on missionaries until they are at least 18 for men and 19 for women.
Missionaries can be single men between the ages of 18 and 25, single women over the age of 19 or retired couples. Missionaries work with a companion of the same gender during their mission, with the exception of couples, who work with their spouse. Single men serve missions for two years and single women serve missions for 18 months.
See https://news-pg.churchofjesuschrist.org/topic/missionary-program.
Also, ever since the most recent transfer of power, Mormons have decided they want to be called "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" instead of "Mormons".
When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Latter-day Saints,” “members of the Church of Jesus Christ” and “members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” and “LDS” not be used.
See https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide.
Also, could I seriously advise not mimicking the Mormon missionary program? Mormon missionaries are basically cut off from everyone and everything except the Mormon church. Until about three years ago, they weren't even allowed to call home more than twice a year. Apparently it's also so stressful that about half of them return home early, where they're further shamed for not meeting the exacting expectations of their church. It's basically human trafficking in the name of religion. You can read all kinds of mission horror stories on (the admittedly terribly biased) https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon.
Replies from: TheAspiringHumanist↑ comment by TheAspiringHumanist · 2022-11-16T00:46:02.204Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh I'm well versed in the horrors of contemporary religious tradition and ritual. The idea was always to mimic the good without the bad.
The tradition itself would never be good, it would be the end to which it serves that makes it good. This ideally keeps traditions in check.
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2022-11-17T17:29:51.449Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh I'm well versed in the horrors of contemporary religious tradition and ritual. The idea was always to mimic the good without the bad.
That brings its own horrors. See the recent events and commentary around SBF and FTX.
The tradition itself would never be good, it would be the end to which it serves that makes it good. This ideally keeps traditions in check.
When the end is everything, everything else is nothing, and the zealous bull of paperclip utility maximisation tramples every Chesterton fence in sight.