Thanks for the feedback, it got me thinking and led to me clarifying my work. Feel free to offer more.
”make use of studies of ideology in general study religious epistemologies using research done to date”
Good idea, it would be wasteful to try to reinvent what has already been done. However I have tried and failed to find comprehensive studies and research thorough enough for an issue whose stakes are so high. How about you?
“I would be skeptical of the claim that religions all pursue effective altruism of some sort.”
Me too! To clarify, one of my points was that religions claim to know by far the best ways (and so aspiring effective cannot afford to dismiss them without a fair trial), not they are good at putting those answers into practice [more on this in the section The stakes could not be higher].
In fact, I think it is safe to say most religious adherents often fall short of the ideal. For example popular Christian apologists write “Someone once said the biggest problem with Christianity is Christians” (Geisler and Turek, 2004) and I’ve heard similar sentiments from prominent Muslims and Jews and I bet they exist in other religions.
“You could investigate religious models of morality using western distinctions (deontology, axiology, consequentialism, utilitarianism, ..).”
Could you elaborate why? I was thinking it’s less important to classify claims (essential to effective altruism) and more important to focus on verifying or falsifying them asap.
“[#1] The major world religions are more or less immune to epistemological challenges and [#2] I am tempted to think the same about any deeply held beliefs of folks who identify with EA.”
Re #1: I don’t disagree and that’s okay with me since I want to figure out how the most effective altruism is done, not waste my time convincing religious people who don’t share that interest.
#2 I empathize, but think it would be a mistake to underestimate EA without giving them a shot. Not only do they pledge allegiance to selflessness and seek criticism more than most, but the Centre for EA even states that radical open mindedness is a core value of EA. Thanks to your comment I have specified that in (what is currently) footnote [83].
Study of religions is not my main interest, so I don’t have a good list of resources for you, but I believe they exist. There have been many studies of religion over the years, from outsider and insider perspectives, evaluating all aspects of religions. I remember that much from literature searches on the general topic done many years ago. Some studies are sympathetic, some are critical. Religious scholars that adhere to one religion will study another. Some scholars find common ground, others catalog differences. Some get it right, and some don’t. Some religions have sects and subsects, with different philosophies, so there’s lots of confusion in any discussion of the beliefs of actual religions.
Religious philosophies about altruism are based on religious ideas of the world. They assume a certain ontology and then discuss where they find instances of entities identified in that ontology. For example, if a faith has angels in its ontology, it might also keep a history of the actions of a particular archangel. That ontology was not necessarily constructed in a manner that everyone agrees is valid. But do you believe that the ontology applies? If you do, then regardless of whether you identify its entities operating in the world, you can trust that they do or have. The implications for what you consider altruistic are strong, particularly when the religion insists that you suffer consequences if you do not meet its definition of altruism or goodness. You can use that for your outsider’s perspective, if you like.
If you apply western ethics to religious philosophies, then you gain the distinctions that western ethicists use to evaluate altruism. That lens is helpful for you to try to bridge the gap between EA and religions. In particular, with thorough knowledge of a religious philosophy, you can steelman its arguments for altruism to an EA crowd, provided you understand western philosophy and ethics to some degree. I don’t have the background knowledge to steelman any religion to an EA crowd.
Overall, I think your approach poses an unnecessary challenge to religion. Religions are formed based on articles of truth that they typically take on faith (for example, the divine inspiration for a religious text articulating the religion’s precepts). Religion is not a human enterprise formed around maximizing altruistic activity per se. The belief systems of religions go beyond altruism and center on how to do deal with a world containing the supernatural or the spiritual as those religions define it.
It’s usually the case that knowing the truth (about the world or existence) and knowing what to do about it (how to practice your faith) are part of a religion. Once you know the truth, and are taught what to do, you can go apply it and save yourself, or others, or something, maybe ascend a spiritual ladder as part of your self-development, recognize deeper truths, etc. The actions you take might be altruistic in some cases in some religions but not in others. Nevertheless, they are appropriate for the religion. In addition, the definitions of altruism that religions use might be different, depending on the religion’s priorities or beliefs.
I think that you seek an an incompatible (apples-to-oranges) comparison of religions and EA. The ontologies, purposes, and means are all different. Comparing religious altruism with EA altruism will leave out a large part of what each believes about the world, resulting in misleading conclusions about each’s purposes and actions.
You can evaluate the fit of each’s ideas and execution of altruism to their own epistemology and ontology, but that is really a more general analysis about ideologies and their implications for altruism, the concept. EA’s might appreciate the focus on altruism, but that’s not all of what religions are about, so it would be unfair to religion.
Religions are about responding to the state of the world as they find it, which involves an ontology that is not always built around the need for altruism. If a religion practiced altruism in a less effective way, that might be because their ideology demands it and so their priorities are different.
Sorry if that was rambling or repetitive. I don’t have time to edit this down.
“There have been many studies of religion over the years, from outsider and insider perspectives, evaluating all aspects of religions”
I agree because I have been reading these studies for years.
I have added a preface [link] that explains my background, but as I mentioned above I have yet to find ” a reliable, balanced, up-to-date source of the evidence for and against even a single major religious ideology (with one possible exception)” [more on that here] or a proper inquiry into alternatives to evidentialism [more on that here].
How about you?
“If you apply western ethics to religious philosophies… understand western philosophy and ethics to some degree.”
Well put.
“I think that you seek an an incompatible (apples-to-oranges) comparison of religions and EA.”
I don’t think so and I don’t see how comparing them is necesssary for figuring out how to do the most good. If truth is not dependant on its source, then I don’t care if the information vital for maximally effective altruism comes in the garb of EA or religion or any other label.
“Overall, I think your approach poses an unnecessary challenge to religion.”
I didn’t intend to challenge religion at all. Can u please explain why u think I am being “unfair to religion” (preferably while referring to specific quotes)?
“Sorry if that was rambling or repetitive. I don’t have time to edit this down.”
No worries (your unedited comments are a lot better than nothing :)
Well, I did my best to understand your essay, Dov.
I will say that some religious organizations do good works as part of their faith, and that those organizations offer value to their communities. There might be effective ways to support their community that a religious charity would adopt with help from the EA community, and vice-versa. The two communities could help each other.
Thank you very much for doing your best and sorry about not being clearer in my first draft. I really appreciate your comments, they have definitely helped me clarify this essay. I’m sorry I was harsh in my last comment (I deleted the harsh parts).
“I will say that some… The two communities could help each other.”
I agree. As I mentioned in my essay, there is considerable overlap in EA and religion.
Here’s a quote I like but didn’t get a chance to mention:
“But, curiously, religious commitment and effective altruism are united in telling us we should not serve mammon. They are united in claiming that the ordinary, 21st-century American and Western European way of living has gone drastically wrong, and that we need to create a different way of living from the ground up. They are united in thinking that people who are not part of our everyday social group should occupy a much larger part of our concern. They are united in thinking that our focus should be on others rather than on ourselves, not just part of the time, but as a way of life.”
Thanks for the feedback, it got me thinking and led to me clarifying my work. Feel free to offer more.
”make use of studies of ideology in general
study religious epistemologies using research done to date”
Good idea, it would be wasteful to try to reinvent what has already been done. However I have tried and failed to find comprehensive studies and research thorough enough for an issue whose stakes are so high. How about you?
“I would be skeptical of the claim that religions all pursue effective altruism of some sort.”
Me too! To clarify, one of my points was that religions claim to know by far the best ways (and so aspiring effective cannot afford to dismiss them without a fair trial), not they are good at putting those answers into practice [more on this in the section The stakes could not be higher].
In fact, I think it is safe to say most religious adherents often fall short of the ideal. For example popular Christian apologists write “Someone once said the biggest problem with Christianity is Christians” (Geisler and Turek, 2004) and I’ve heard similar sentiments from prominent Muslims and Jews and I bet they exist in other religions.
“You could investigate religious models of morality using western distinctions (deontology, axiology, consequentialism, utilitarianism, ..).”
Could you elaborate why? I was thinking it’s less important to classify claims (essential to effective altruism) and more important to focus on verifying or falsifying them asap.
“[#1] The major world religions are more or less immune to epistemological challenges and [#2] I am tempted to think the same about any deeply held beliefs of folks who identify with EA.”
Re #1: I don’t disagree and that’s okay with me since I want to figure out how the most effective altruism is done, not waste my time convincing religious people who don’t share that interest.
#2 I empathize, but think it would be a mistake to underestimate EA without giving them a shot. Not only do they pledge allegiance to selflessness and seek criticism more than most, but the Centre for EA even states that radical open mindedness is a core value of EA. Thanks to your comment I have specified that in (what is currently) footnote [83].
Hi Dov
Study of religions is not my main interest, so I don’t have a good list of resources for you, but I believe they exist. There have been many studies of religion over the years, from outsider and insider perspectives, evaluating all aspects of religions. I remember that much from literature searches on the general topic done many years ago. Some studies are sympathetic, some are critical. Religious scholars that adhere to one religion will study another. Some scholars find common ground, others catalog differences. Some get it right, and some don’t. Some religions have sects and subsects, with different philosophies, so there’s lots of confusion in any discussion of the beliefs of actual religions.
Religious philosophies about altruism are based on religious ideas of the world. They assume a certain ontology and then discuss where they find instances of entities identified in that ontology. For example, if a faith has angels in its ontology, it might also keep a history of the actions of a particular archangel. That ontology was not necessarily constructed in a manner that everyone agrees is valid. But do you believe that the ontology applies? If you do, then regardless of whether you identify its entities operating in the world, you can trust that they do or have. The implications for what you consider altruistic are strong, particularly when the religion insists that you suffer consequences if you do not meet its definition of altruism or goodness. You can use that for your outsider’s perspective, if you like.
If you apply western ethics to religious philosophies, then you gain the distinctions that western ethicists use to evaluate altruism. That lens is helpful for you to try to bridge the gap between EA and religions. In particular, with thorough knowledge of a religious philosophy, you can steelman its arguments for altruism to an EA crowd, provided you understand western philosophy and ethics to some degree. I don’t have the background knowledge to steelman any religion to an EA crowd.
Overall, I think your approach poses an unnecessary challenge to religion. Religions are formed based on articles of truth that they typically take on faith (for example, the divine inspiration for a religious text articulating the religion’s precepts). Religion is not a human enterprise formed around maximizing altruistic activity per se. The belief systems of religions go beyond altruism and center on how to do deal with a world containing the supernatural or the spiritual as those religions define it.
It’s usually the case that knowing the truth (about the world or existence) and knowing what to do about it (how to practice your faith) are part of a religion. Once you know the truth, and are taught what to do, you can go apply it and save yourself, or others, or something, maybe ascend a spiritual ladder as part of your self-development, recognize deeper truths, etc. The actions you take might be altruistic in some cases in some religions but not in others. Nevertheless, they are appropriate for the religion. In addition, the definitions of altruism that religions use might be different, depending on the religion’s priorities or beliefs.
I think that you seek an an incompatible (apples-to-oranges) comparison of religions and EA. The ontologies, purposes, and means are all different. Comparing religious altruism with EA altruism will leave out a large part of what each believes about the world, resulting in misleading conclusions about each’s purposes and actions.
You can evaluate the fit of each’s ideas and execution of altruism to their own epistemology and ontology, but that is really a more general analysis about ideologies and their implications for altruism, the concept. EA’s might appreciate the focus on altruism, but that’s not all of what religions are about, so it would be unfair to religion.
Religions are about responding to the state of the world as they find it, which involves an ontology that is not always built around the need for altruism. If a religion practiced altruism in a less effective way, that might be because their ideology demands it and so their priorities are different.
Sorry if that was rambling or repetitive. I don’t have time to edit this down.
I agree because I have been reading these studies for years.
I have added a preface [link] that explains my background, but as I mentioned above I have yet to find ” a reliable, balanced, up-to-date source of the evidence for and against even a single major religious ideology (with one possible exception)” [more on that here] or a proper inquiry into alternatives to evidentialism [more on that here].
How about you?
Well put.
I don’t think so and I don’t see how comparing them is necesssary for figuring out how to do the most good. If truth is not dependant on its source, then I don’t care if the information vital for maximally effective altruism comes in the garb of EA or religion or any other label.
I didn’t intend to challenge religion at all. Can u please explain why u think I am being “unfair to religion” (preferably while referring to specific quotes)?
No worries (your unedited comments are a lot better than nothing :)
Well, I did my best to understand your essay, Dov.
I will say that some religious organizations do good works as part of their faith, and that those organizations offer value to their communities. There might be effective ways to support their community that a religious charity would adopt with help from the EA community, and vice-versa. The two communities could help each other.
Thank you very much for doing your best and sorry about not being clearer in my first draft. I really appreciate your comments, they have definitely helped me clarify this essay. I’m sorry I was harsh in my last comment (I deleted the harsh parts).
I agree. As I mentioned in my essay, there is considerable overlap in EA and religion.
Here’s a quote I like but didn’t get a chance to mention:
“But, curiously, religious commitment and effective altruism are united in telling us we should not serve mammon. They are united in claiming that the ordinary, 21st-century American and Western European way of living has gone drastically wrong, and that we need to create a different way of living from the ground up. They are united in thinking that people who are not part of our everyday social group should occupy a much larger part of our concern. They are united in thinking that our focus should be on others rather than on ourselves, not just part of the time, but as a way of life.”
Source: “Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D. Roser et. al; published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3
I get the feeling you might like this book and thanks again for your feedback!