3 ms·
> [18] The principles defining a religion have to be mistaken. Otherwise anyone might adopt them, and there would be nothing to distinguish the adherents of the
by kens 3y ago
> [18] The principles defining a religion have to be mistaken. Otherwise anyone might adopt them, and there would be nothing to distinguish the adherents of the religion from everyone else.
I think what's going on here is the theory that the purpose of religion is to create a trusted in-group separated from the out-group, with rules that make it difficult to casually join. [1] If you start from that premise, PG's footnote makes sense. But this ignores the fact that the largest religions really want as many members as possible and would be delighted if everyone followed their principles.
[1] See for instance: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/24/there-are-rules-here/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/24/there-are-rules-here/
- dmvdoug 3y agoThis is actually helpful. So, he’s saying, religions really exist for this social function of group formation/identity. Thus, we know that the principles they proclaim, which tend to be universal claims of truth, are wrong, since if those principles were true, they would defeat the real purpose of religion. Therefore, one good way to find ideas to explore is to question the principles or bracket them and see what you can do without them. That does make what he’s saying there cohere better. Of course, what he’s saying turns entirely on the ambiguity he’s playing on (which I suspected): religion in the sense of concrete historical/social human practices and religion in the sense of identifying strongly with and thus not questioning your principles. Never a good idea to hang your hat on the coatrack of suggestive language games. Or, you know, outrageous bullshit. I almost think it makes it worse, finding a coherent meaning—-which is so silly.