Investigating Ideology: want to earn money, help

EA and/or me? Then check this out; it may be a 3

mighty neglected cause
by Dov 12th Aug 2022
Philosophy Building effective altruism Criticism and Red Teaming Contest
Philosophy of effective altruism Religion Criticism of effective altruism Requests (open) Frontpage

Substantive revision published September 1, 2022.  

The prize money was awarded in November 2022

but I think this is still worth reading. 

A word of warning: 
The aim of this essay was to help figure out how the most effective altruism is done, but
in the process I had to touch upon sensitive themes such as our mortality and a lack of
justification of many current religious viewpoints (including athiesm/naturalism[1]).

About financial compensation 

As if I wasn’t already convinced that Effective Altruism[2](EA) is the best, major EA
organizations are giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars to solicit criticism° and
explore new ideas. I would like to offer some suggestions and I’d really like your input.
You’re more than welcome to try to strengthen my arguments, but I’m even more
interested in being corrected if I’m wrong or missing something important.

I'm sure your time is precious, and you deserve to be compensated for reading this.
Sadly, I am still a student, so my budget is currently near nonexistent. However, if my
suggestions are awarded prizes,  I pledge to give back at least 30% of the winnings to
commentors that gave me the best feedback (which means your comment could earn
thousands of dollars). If you are interested, there are more details in the footnotes[3], but
without further ado:

Summary of Main ideas

Effective Altruism[2] (EA) is not even close to pursuing the best causes; that’s probably
what most people would think, if they knew of EA, because about 84% of the world
adheres to a religion[4] and EA is far from that.[5] Most of the world’s tacit disapproval of
EA need not trouble the movement since most of the world is surely sorely mistaken.
[6]
 However, I think this deserves to be a grave concern for now because Effective
Altruism’s incredible efforts may be undermined by untested assumptions.

For example, a very consequential and controversial premise EA seems to take for
granted is that there is no consciousness after bodily death (or none that we can prepare
for)[7]. Most American adults would disagree[8] and most religions would affirm that EA
is missing information essential for the most effective altruism.[9]

Although truth is not determined by popularity, I think it would be imprudent to dismiss

the majority of humanity without a fair trial. I suggest how to properly conduct a “fair
trail” in the tractability section [link to that°] and if my suggestions are sound, then
they are currently very neglected [link to that°]. That would imply this cause is full of
low hanging fruit that could nourish EA,[10] although even falling short could be very
fruitful.[11] 

I will also try to address some possible questions a reader might have (e.g. Why take
religious ideologies seriously?°) and I invite you to offer more. If you’re concerned
certain objections could undermine my entire essay, feel free to read that section first. If
you’re not bothered by any or all of the questions I bring up, then feel free to skip them. I
wrap up by confronting a challenge that most, if not all, people will be forced to face
before they can engage in the most effective altruism.

Preface
I would really to know how to the most effective altruism is done, so religion really
bothers me.[12] I have studied religion for about five years mostly through resources
online (and partly by immersing myself in religious communities) but have had almost
no formal education on the topic. I acknowledge I am far from an authority on even a
single religious ideology, so I have tried to cite every important claim on the topic with a
quote from at least one expert.

Upon request I could probably provide more references because I have not mentioned all
my sources in the interest of time. I will also do my best to indicate when I am uncertain
about a claim, but I would like to stress my ideas are tentative (especially before they
have been subjected to the scrutiny of great minds like many in EA).

I’d really like to be corrected if I’m wrong and will do my best to fix any mistakes in this
post as soon as I discover them. Feel free to try to shore up my arguments, but also do
not hesitate to let me know if you think they are misguided to the core. If these ideas are
unsalvageable, I would like to find out as soon as possible.

The Importance of Investigating Ideology

The stakes could not be higher

It is a common refrain that the heart of EA is the question “how can I do the most
good?".[13] Virtually all religions claim to know the best answer,[14] [15] though I prefer to
call them religious ideologies[16] since differing ideologies often exist within a single
religion and nonreligious ideologies also give conflicting answers to EA’s quandary (e.g.
communism vs capitalism). 

I will focus on religious ideologies, because they often claim to know by far the best ways
to do the most good. This is usually predicated upon the belief that human sentience
usually persists for a forever (or at least for a while)[17] after our bodily death.[18] And this
belief often comes with mutually exclusive advice for how to best prepare for
consciousness after death (e.g. accept Jesus as your lord and Savior vs don’t equate Jesus
with Allah).[19]

I would like to explicate the implications of these claims: If even a single person’s
sentience was never extinguished, then even the mildest pleasure or pain compounded
over infinite time will outweigh all the pleasure and pain felt by all the creatures in this
finite universe, because the product of finite numbers cannot exceed an infinite number. 

To put it another way: If you became just one penny richer every year but lived forever,
you could rest assured you would eventually be wealthier than Jeff Bezos. If a penny
represents a modicum of pleasure than most people think you are eligible for such an
endless jackpot.[20][21]

If they are not mistaken, is there anything more worthwhile than making an investment
that will accrue infinite interest? Wouldn’t such a possibility be especially enticing for
Effective Altruists trying to maximize their positive impact given limited resources? And
isn’t it in everyone’s best interest to try to find out for sure if any religious ideologies
have reliable information about this incomparable opportunity?

Better sooner rather than later

If just one religious ideology is (at least mostly) correct, it may mean that much of EA is
currently barking up the wrong trees because EA does not directly address the bulk of
our sentience. However, it would necessarily mean that all of EA’s work is in vain, and
the entire movement needs to change course. 

Numerous religious ideologies vociferously advocate many of EA’s current causes such
as global health and development or preventing factory farming from wreaking more
havoc on the world and its most marginalized.[22] Such service is part and parcel of a
panoply of religious ideals. There are almost limitless examples but to name just two: 

Mathew 25:31-46 speaks of the eternal import Jesus allegedly attached to caring for the
impoverished and oppressed[23]:

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed
you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger
and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or
in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you
did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"[24]

The passage goes onto warn of dire consequences for those that neglect the needy.
Although Gandhi considered himself an Orthodox Hindu[25] he similarly stressed:
 “All that I do by way of speaking and writing, and all my ventures in the political
field, are directed to this same end [which is “self-realization, to see God face to
face, to attain Moksha”] for the essence of religion is morality… If found myself
entirely absorbed in the service of the community, the reason behind it was my
desire for self-realization. I had made the religion of service my own, as I felt that
God could be realized only through service." [26]

Of course, many religious ideologies contain more than affirmations of EA’s work so far
but if it turns out one is mostly correct, it may adjust rather than upend EA’s current
course. For example, many religious ideologies make claims about eschatology, and if
some were reliable, that could improve forecasting and inform longtermist causes.

It is needless to say that if EA or anyone else is currently heading down a suboptimal

trajectory, it is best to course correct as soon as possible. However, I think it is worth
mentioning that our time, and the pace of its technological innovation, may be
particularly decisive for the future of humanity. I feel no need to elaborate because this
argument has already been put forth by people wiser people than me including but not
limited to Holden Karnofsky and Prof. Huston Smith:

The 20th century proved to be “the bloodiest of centuries; but if its ordeals are to be
birth pangs rather than death throes, the century’s scientific advances must be
matched by comparable advances in human relations."- The World's Religions.

Failure would not be worthless

I do not know what the outcome of investigating ideologies will be (or if it is even
possible for people to figure that out decisively), but the above has convinced me it is
imperative to try and find out for sure.

However, if it turns out that all religious ideologies are fundamentally flawed (except for
something like naturalism[27]), that does not mean that investigating them was a waste
of time. EA could still reap valuable insights from learning more about religion, even if
none of their claims should be taken too seriously. 

Religions are powerful if nothing else[28] [29] and can easily stymie technological

progress.[30] If reasonable altruists do not participate in religious discourse, that lacuna
may be filled by fools with vested interests.[31]

"From a strategic standpoint, at least here in America, it is worth noting that no

moral cause ever got very far that could not speak to religious conviction, drawing
on the deeper sensibilities that guide public opinion even in our more secular era" –
Dominion by Matthew Scully

Making progress on ideological investigations can also bear fruit on EA causes like
improving institutional decision making and individual reasoning. I will elaborate below
when I address tractability but, in the meantime, I hope to have made it clear why I think
it would be a grave mistake to explore religious ideologies solely from this angle i.e.,
with the sole aim of being better able to bend religion toward the EA movement’s
current trajectory.

I  do not mean to argue that this cause is an essential part of EA’s path of least
resistance, but I hope to have demonstrated that different possibilities lead to the same
conclusion: investigating religious ideologies is an important cause for Effective
Altruism to consider. If so, EA has so far not considered it nearly enough.

Neglectedness
A sea of confusion with no oasis in sight

“Aside from a small number of broader discussions about utilitarianism, Peter Singer,
and religion, the body of academic work on EA and faith appears to consist of no more
than a handful of articles.”[32] I have read the aforementioned “handful of articles” and
they did not provide adequate justification for EA’s current dismissal of all religious
ideologies. If such justification exists, I’d love to see it. 

However I will not get my hopes up because James Fodor’s 2019 analysis° concluded that
EA did not apply its characteristic rigor to this issue:

“most EAs [members of Effective Altruism] are highly dismissive of religious or

other non -naturalistic [33] worldviews, and tend to just assume without further
discussion that views like dualism, reincarnation, or theism cannot be true" &"I
have not found any evidence that this choice is the result of early investigations
 demonstrating that emerging technologies [an area popular with EA] are far
superior to the cause areas I mention [like investigating religious ideologies].”

I do not intend to demean EA; it’s oversight seems all too common (unlike contests for
soliciting criticism°):

“Although religious institutions have extensive resources, the amount of time and
money dedicated to systematically analysing the evidence and arguments for and
against different religious traditions is extremely small.”[34]

For now the void is generally being filled by amateurs and ideologues in echo chambers
instead of experts and qualified professionals with the necessary resources. I hope that
by now it goes without saying that I’d like to be corrected if I’m mistaken about that, but
I’ve tried and failed 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 listed
below).

By the way, if you’re skeptical that such evidence exists that may be because you haven’t
googled something like “evidence of [insert the name of a major religion] ”. If you try
that even briefly, I think you’ll conclude there is a lot of (confidently) alleged evidence
for and against virtually every major religious ideology. For example, there are
“hundreds of websites that attempt to prove the authenticity of the Quran on the basis of
modern science."[35]

I think it’s worth noting that I’ve heard purported evidence that isn’t easily accessible
on google (e.g. tucked away in books or other media that isn’t published online). And I
think it’s important to stress the fact that there’s a lot I haven’t heard, especially from
ideologies whose adherents primarily speak languages other than English. 

In sum I think the quantity and quality of evidence pose harder questions for
investigating religious ideologies (which I will try to address in the Objections section°)
than the pervasive claim that there is no evidence for religious belief.[36] After all, "most
religious traditions allow and even encourage some kind of rational examination of their
beliefs."[37]

Some Mormons may be role models?

So far, the best sources of evidence for and against the fundamental claims of a religious
ideology I have seen come from Mormons and former Mormons. Although it’s hard for
me to judge, since I’m nearly a complete ignoramus when it comes to this topic, I can’t
help but be impressed by the following work (especially after trying and failing to find
convincing critiques of it):

A relatively popular Mormon magazine has published an attempt to classify,

contextualize, and condense the major arguments for and against claims fundamental to
Mormonism, while providing sources for further research along the way (and even
illustrations too).[38]

Meanwhile mormonthink.com goes into more depth with the aim of presenting “the
strongest and most compelling arguments and explanations from both the critics and
the defenders of the [Mormon] Church”.[39] To this end they cite over “300 pro-LDS [i.e.
in support of Mormon ideology] website links and book references”[40] and many more
sources from other sides of the isle. They even invite readers to send them critiques of
their work.[41]

I think there are more lessons to be learned from these Mormons, but perhaps the ones
I’ve mentioned should be taken with a grain of salt since I may be very unqualified to
comment on the topic. However, if you conclude that there are sources (on the evidence
for and against Mormon ideology) that are above reproach, could that be enough to
properly judge unrelated religious ideologies i.e. religions that claim Mormonism is
fundamentally flawed (which includes virtually all religious ideolgies except for
Mormon splinter sects like FLDS, Community of Christ, etc.)?

Frankly I doubt that just perusing the evidence for Mormonism could even provide
sufficient justification to declare Mormonism the most correct ideology, aka “the one
true religion” since I think that would involve comparing the evidence in its favor with
the evidence behind competing ideologies (including naturalism).

As argued above,[42] subscribing to (or rejecting) an ideology is an incredibly

consequential decision but I think EA can meet the challenge. I’d like to share some ideas
on how to reach justified conclusions on religious ideologies that are not meant to be
exhaustive. I’d be glad to elaborate, but I’m itching to hear your input first.

Tractabililty
A source that sifts gold from garbage

I think it is crucial to compile major arguments for and against (at least major[43])
religious ideologies (including athiesm/naturalism) and steelman[44] them to the
satisfaction of their proponents.[45] A plausible next step would be to make the best
critiques of these major arguments easily accessible as well. I also found it enlightening
how the aforementioned Mormon magazine article’s overview[46] contextualized the
major arguments e.g. charted an argument’s impetus and its evolution.

A philanthropic funder could enable this work by sponsoring experts and the most
qualified apologists to make their case as convincingly as possible, as well as by
financially incentivizing criticism (perhaps with a contest like this one°). I suspect that
many passionate ideologues would not need much coaxing, so perhaps this intervention
would be relatively inexpensive. I think this response requires the least elaboration but
may be the most presumptuous if it is founded upon an untested evidentialism.

Scrutinizing evidentialism and alternatives

Evidentialism is the belief that justification for a proposition should be proportional to

the available evidence. I don’t know about you, but to me it seems like evidentialism is
the only reliable method to arrive at correspondent truth i.e., the only way to figure out
the facts. However, I worry that this conviction stems from my entrenchment in
evidentialism and is currently unjustified. Let me explain:

I was raised by ardent atheists and during my upbringing the best and brightest people I
knew of endorsed only evidentialism, explicitly or not. For most my life I did not even
realize there could be alternatives, yet renowned religions scholar Huston Smith claims:

"There are two distinct and complementary ways of knowing: the rational and the
intuitive... All religions carefully spell out the distinction between reason and
intuition. In the West, intellect (intellectus, gnosis, sapentia) is not reason (ratio);
in Sanskrit, buddhi is not manes; in Islam, ma’rifah, situated in the heart, is not aql,
which is situated in the brain. In Hinduism, the knowledge that effects union with
God is not discursive; it has the immediacy of direct vision, or sight."[47]

I cannot vouch for these alleged “ways of knowing”, because I understand little about
them, which is why I have trouble dismissing them either. Feel free to shed light on
them if you’re able to. For example, the esteemed Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali
thought that “we can comprehend the possibility of this state (revelation by means of
ecstasy [i.e. learning important facts about religion through mystical experience]) by a
chain of manifest proofs."[48]

On the other hand, there is no need for a chain of proofs to bolster evidentialism, which
alone is responsible for tremendous technological progress. It is also obvious that "we
implicitly rely upon evidentialist principles in many different areas of enquiry… [but]
this is far from conclusive evidence."[49]

Evidentialism’s amazing track record does not rule out the possibility that its
application is limited. Isn’t it plausible that evidentialism is like a car that works
wonders within its domain (like paved roads) but is unreliable in other terrains (like a
sandy beach) or may be a hinderance sometimes (like in the ocean)?

For example, I think evidentialism’s tangible success would not refute proponents of
jnana, which is a term in Hindu philosophy with a range of meanings “focusing on
a cognitive event that proves not to be mistaken”[50]

“Its opposite, ajnana (also called avidya), is the false apprehension of reality that

keeps the soul from attaining release [i.e. optimum wellbeing]; it is a form of
mistaken knowledge, which has a large measure of validity as far as the realities of
the present world are concerned but conceals the truth of a reality outside it."[51]

If you are convinced that the proponents of these different epistemologies i.e., alleged
“ways of knowing”, make claims that too important for effective altruism to be
dismissed  fair trial, then I would like to suggest some possible responses to the
challenge. 

Even if these suggestions are sound, they may not be able to prove that evidentialism is
completely reliable or the only epistemology required for investigating ideology.
However, they could provide justification for concluding evidentialism is (or isn’t) the
best epistemology, or what shouldn’t count as evidence, and what to do in addition or
instead of evidentialism if need be.

1. It seems to me that a cataloguing of epistemological alternatives to evidentialism is

in order
 a. ideally done by an epistemology’s best expositors, especially ones that are
willing to entertain being mistaken because…

2. It seems to me like due diligence would entail giving the best proponents of these
epistemologies a chance to make the case for them and address critiques.
a. It seems to me the alternative would be letting questions fester inside
evidentialist echo chambers.

b. It may be prudent to start with the process of elimination i.e. epistemologies

that have led people to ideologies most likely to be mistaken (e.g. ones that are
extinct or virtually universally rejected like cults) as it may be harder to
recognize truth than absurdities. This process could quickly yield practical
insights on what decision makers should avoid (examples culled from cults
follow).

Let me give you an example of what this process might look like:

The majority Mormon position is that “intellectual conviction” is not enough to reach
the right conclusions about the Mormonism.[52] Although mainstream Mormons may
affirm evidentialism in theory, in practice they seem especially dismissive of rational
arguments[53] and more permissive about what else counts as evidence. Here is a
Mormon author in his words, speaking on behalf of the majority position in
Mormonism:

“rational arguments or evidence in favor of historicity [of its foundational

Scripture, the Book of Mormon] do not provide sufficient reason for concluding that
the Book of Mormon is true [or fiction] … More is needed: a limbic, existential
witness to soul.. from an LDS [i.e. Mormon] point of view, one must weigh the issues
intellectually as part of a broader process of seeking truth through prayer and
examining one’s most deeply rooted feelings”[54]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is the best explanation of this
epistemology, and proponents can provide no reasons to bolster this position (so we can
ignore that in this demonstration).

I think reasonable responses would include pointing out that ideologies contrary to
Mormonism including many cults “place considerable emphasis on the experiential—on
feelings and emotions."[55] so could that be a reliable epistemology?
And I’d like to hear how they respond to examples of adherents of incompatible religions
claiming that sincere prayer, or perhaps even the semblance of the Holy Spirit, had led
them to one of Mormon’s ideological competitors.[56]

In response Mormon authorities might offer rebuttals, or provide nuance, or retort with
a similar criticism of evidentialism: it seems plain to see that exposure to the same
evidence does not stop equally intelligent people from reaching mutually exclusive
conclusions, especially in a field has charged as religion.

Refining evidentialism

It seems clear that simply mulling over all the relevant evidence is often not enough for
people to reach the right conclusions, but I think it’s less clear exactly what else is
needed. For example, rationality researcher Julia Galef proposes that evidence most
needs to be supplemented with an overriding desire for learning truth and avoiding
falsehood in order to result in sound judgement.[57]

To this end, her book “The Scout Mindset” provides many reasons why falsehood is
often more destructive than most people realize (and vice versa for truth) along with
concrete tools for developing clearer thinking. For example, it is often tricky for people
to understand, instead of unconsciously misrepresenting, an opposing viewpoint. A
simple remedy she proposes is the Ideological Turing test[58]: “an exercise where you try
to pretend to hold an opposing ideology convincingly enough that outside observers
can't reliably distinguish you from a true believer.”[59]

I would recommend the book to anyone who wants to be less wrong (or wants to want
that), but I don’t think it was ever intended to be exhaustive. In fact, I’m sure there is
room for further research, because she did not mention many of the 200 cognitive biases
that Buster Benson (with the help of Wikipedia) has catalogued.[60]

The list is helpful, because people can only work on correcting biases, they are aware
of[61]  but still leaves much to be desired, at least when it comes to this cause. There are
little to no practical remedies suggested, and perhaps it would not be too much to ask for
how prevalent or how influential a particular bias is, so we could prioritize responses.

On the bright side many of these 200+ biases do not seem very relevant for investigating
ideology. For example, the denomination effect is the tendency of people to favor
spending money in smaller denominations (e.g. spending 5 $20s is usually preferable to
spending a $100 bill). I think this cause will not be compromised if we let such sleeping
dogs lie.

Possibilities for philanthropic funding 

A reputable EA organization, 80000 Hours, makes the case that refining evidentialism is
moderately neglected and proposes ways to fix this. They argue that there is room for
more research to identify techniques that "reliably improve judgements and decision-
making." They also concluded there are currently not enough researchers working on
"robustly testing the most promising techniques". [62]

I would like to add that it may be fruitful to fund research into what to avoid e.g. how
cults or patently false idealogues (e.g. white supremacists) distort evidentialist
principles to reach their silly conclusions. However I daresay that scrutinizing
evidentialism itself, and alternative epistemologies, is more neglected. I don’t know of
anyone professionally working on that, but if you do, please let me know. Work on this
could include:

Funding research to identify distinct epistemologies and their most qualified

proponents

Financially incentivizing proponents to define, explain, and/or argue their

position; and consent to being questioned on the record

However, I worry that if surveys are simply sent to proponents, something may be lost
in translation even if everyone is speaking English. EA’s key concepts can be very foreign
to many ideologies (e.g. “Secular utilitarianism, for example, is utterly out of place in
modern India"[63]) and definitions can be slippery (e.g. what exactly is meant by
“faith”). A “mediator” may be essential for bridging cultural gaps.

On mediators and insiders

By mediators I mean people well acquainted with staples in EA’s cognitive toolkit (e.g.
naturalism) yet are familiar with the foreign concepts in question. There is precedent for
the cultivation of mediators, especially with the help of philanthropic funders. Here is
the instructive example of Huston Smith:

Smith was already a renowned teacher of the world's religions when a wealthy patron
gave Smith the chance to visit the places he taught about, instead of just parroting
others.[64] This offer would prove pivotal for Smith. His travels led him to writing one of
the most important and popular books about world religions, selling over three million
copies.[65]

Smith remarked in his autobiography: “I have taught innumerable students about world
religions, but my teacher of the world’s religions was the world.” Remarkably, his
success did not seem to hinge upon being a gifted writer, a talented expositor, or even
his intelligence.

I don’t mean to speak ill of him, but here’s how he describes himself in his
autobiography: “I was not a writer. Having been considered intellectually backward
growing up, I had little reason to suppose I would or could ever become one.”

Although he went on to receive a PhD in philosophy, afterwards he pulled back from the
field. Instead he devoted half his time to “immersing” himself in various
religions[66] (e.g. “studying the Hindu Upanishad texts in India, living with Zen
Buddhists in Japan, keeping the Muslim monthlong fast of Ramadan…”[67]). 

Though Smith’s hands-on approach has ignited the ire of many academics,[68] I propose
it is also what sets him apart from them. It seems to me to be the best culprit for his
phenomenal success understanding and explaining foreign religious ideologies (after
all, he denigrates his own intellectual prowess[69]). 

Like Huston Smith, people on the ground will probably have a better chance of
identifying the most well-respected ideological proponents in a religious community.
My experience has demonstrated it is not always the people that appear most in the
press, are most popular online, or shine most in the secular spotlight.

So, to make a long story short, I think that simply soliciting descriptions of differing
epistemologies would not be enough to properly scrutinize alternatives to evidentialism.
It seems to me that employing insiders and/or training “mediators” would be essential
to doing this topic justice.

It’s hard for me to estimate the impact per dollar of my suggested solutions, but if I am
not mistaken about the importance of this cause, I think it’s safe to say it would clear
Open Philanthropy’s bar of 1000x social return on investment.
I have not worked out all the details, such as particular grantees, because I’m far from
sure you’re interested in that. But if you’re still with me, I’d be happy to help figure that
out. On the other hand, if I’ve lost you, the Objections section may remedy that. The
following answers can be read a la carte, or completely skipped in the interest of time.

Answering potential objections

I have tried to address the most pressing objections readers may have, but if you feel I
missed something important, and you can’t find a good answer online, please let me
know.

Why take religious ideologies seriously?

To put the question another way: Isn’t it obvious ideologies rooted in the Medieval or
Iron Age are more outdated than what contemporary philosophers and modern
scientists could come up?

It’s not obvious to me, or most people[4] I tried to explain why the basic premise of many
religious ideologies is logically plausible in this essay (section entitled Why take religion
seriously?).°

Why not take most religious ideologies seriously?

Most religious ideologies are at least somewhat mistaken, since most are mutually
exclusive, and none are in the majority.[70] In my experience most religious people would
claim that other religious ideologies are sorely mistaken, which is why their particular
religion had to come along and set the record straight. 

Also “religions differ in what they consider essential and what negotiable. Hinduism and
Buddhism split over this issue, as did Judaism, Christianity, and Islam"[71] so I am
confident that most religious ideologies are largely malarkey. However, it doesn’t follow
that there is no exception to this rule, and it doesn’t seem obvious to me that atheism or
naturalism[72] is the exception. 

“The fact that men have had stupid and obviously incorrect ideas about God does
not justify us in trying to eliminate God from out of the universe. Men have had
 stupid and incorrect ideas on almost every subject that can be thought about.” –
Aldous Huxley[73]

Are you pushing any religious agenda here?

Not at all, I’m just an agnostic that’s confident there are more pressing issues than
spreading agnosticism like making sure Effective Altruism's philosophical
underpinnings are sufficiently justified since those premises are extremely
consequential for the movement and (since I think and hope EA will become more
popular and powerful) the world at large.

In this essay I argue that reaching justification is not necessarily impossible, but
probably not a one-man job,[74] at least in the current era. However in the process I seem
to have unintentionally implied that most (if not all) people do not have enough
justification for their religious viewpoints (including atheism).[75] 

If my arguments are sound, religious agnosticism seems to me like a reasonable

conclusion in most cases (for now), though that would be a side effect, not my goal. And
as always, my conclusions are tentative, at least until the preceding arguments have
been scrutinized. 

Would investigating religious ideologies properly be overwhelming?

Long story short: I'm not sure, but I think there's only way to find out (and it's worth
finding out). After all, it's almost unbelievable what people can accomplish when they
put their mind to something (especially when they have internet access). 

Long story long: Passionate ideologues have spilt a lot of ink over arguing in favor of the
“one true religion” or rebutting such claims. The Mormons provide yet another good
example:

"the literature on Book of Mormon historicity [i.e. a claim fundamental to Mormon

ideology] is so extensive—especially the literature orthodox scholars have produced
in support of historicity—it is hard to believe that someone could actually decide
what to think about the historicity question by impartially weighing all arguments
and evidence.”[76]
If that is the case for a relatively small and recent religion, then all the relevant evidence
for and against all or even most religious ideologies would probably overwhelm anyone.
Especially since that person would have to be proficient in multiple languages. For
example:

A popular argument in favor of the Quran’s divinity is its alleged inimitability

and inhuman eloquence (known as I’jaz) [77] which cannot be truly appreciated in
translation.[78] However even if this argument was discounted, it is hard to deny that
Quranic apologetic material in English pales in comparison to what is in Arabic and
other languages. Surely this truer of ideologies that aren’t part of huge worldwide
missionary religions. 

Therefore, weighing all the evidence is likely too great a task for a lone researcher to
shoulder. However, I think it is difficult to predict ahead of time what groups can achieve
when they put their mind to something. Two examples of collaboration’s incredible
track record:

1. Modern medicine has come a long way from bloodletting [79] and amputation

without pain relief. For example “We have data from a Boston hospital from 1941
that shows that 82% of bacterial infections of the blood resulted in death.
a. We can barely imagine the horror this number represents—a scratch and a
tiny bit of dirt literally could mean that your life was about to end. Today in
developed countries less than 1% of these kinds of infections are deadly.”[80]

2. "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all
human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing [with Wikipedia]." -  Jimmy Wales,
Wikipedia's co-founder

I don’t know if our ancestors could have foreseen the advent of antibiotics or anesthesia,
but Wikipedia’s growth exceeded even the most optimistic expectations of its founders.
[81]

Investigating ideologies will certainly present challenges that doctors and even
Wikipedians have not yet faced. If it turns out the task is insurmountable at least we can
be left with pride instead of regret. That’s what compelled Bezos to quit his day job and
start Amazon, despite thinking it would probably fail.[82]
 “In most cases, our biggest regrets turn out to be acts of omission. It’s paths not
taken and they haunt us. We wonder what would have happened,” Bezos said at
Summit LA. “I knew that, when I’m 80, I would never regret trying this thing
[creating Amazon] that I was super excited about and it failing. If it failed, fine. I
would be very proud of the fact when I’m 80 that I tried. I also knew that it would
always haunt me if I didn’t try."[83]

I think it’s worth reiterating that the rewards of leading even a single person to a mostly
correct religious ideology, and even a marginally better eternity, could be unimaginably
greater than becoming a billionare (for more info see the section The stakes could not be
higher°). Renowned philosopher Al Ghazali’s writes in his autobiography: 

“My object in this account is to make others understand with what earnestness we
should search for truth, since it leads to results we never dreamed of.”[84]

Closing thoughts
Long story short, religious ideologies claim to know by far the best way to be an effective
altruist and yet EA has condemned them without a fair trial (so far).  However, EA is still
the most impressive organization I know of and if anyone has the power to reevaluate
their worldview, I think it’s EA.[85]

However, I’ve wondered if it’s asking too much of anyone to question their own
ideology, especially on the basis of an essay of a stranger. So even if my arguments are
sound, I’m afraid I’m being unrealistic. 

However, I’m afraid quite a lot of paradigm shifting would be required of most people if
they are going to succeed in doing the most effective altruism they can, since most
people are raised in ideologies that assert misinformation critical for doing the most
good. Therefore most people would need to reconstruct their worldview to align with the
truly best causes. Let me explain with an example:
Let’s assume for the sake for argument that all religions are fundamentally mistaken. In
particular let’s assume that all holy scripture is just the product of fallible people, mostly
ancients that were surely more ignorant than the best of our contemporaries. There is no
afterlife either, so basically atheism is correct.

Only a tiny minority of the world are athiests, and a whopping 84% of the world adheres
to a religion. So wouldn’t the vast majority of people need to detach from religious
ideologies in order to realize that their altruistic potential lies in pursuing something
like EA’s causes (e.g. AI alignment, improving nuclear security, etc.) instead of wasting
their time and energy on religious pursuits (e.g. spreading the gospel, fasting during
Ramadan, studying the Torah, etc.) and preparing for an afterlife that will never arrive?

Of course, the aforementioned religious practices are not necessarily contrary to

effective altruism (if kept in moderation) because they may be a source of vitality for
some. However, devoting oneself to religious ideals competes with devoting oneself fully
to EA’s current causes:

"Both religious commitment and effective altruism demand a singular focus. They both
demand that one keep a particular aim at the forefront of one’s mind, and make the bulk
of one’s life decisions with this aim in view. And they each can see the other as a
competitor for that singular focus. As we know, you can only serve one master."[86]

Actually, I think many religious ideologies overlap with EA’s current causes more than
the above quote lets on (for more, see above Better sooner rather than later° section). 
 But more importantly, I hope you won't hesitate to let me know if I’m missing
something important, or made a mistake, or am woefully misguided. If I’m not the
latter, I hope this stimulates discussion among the incredible people of EA, because I
really want to know how to do the most effective altruism and I can use all the help I can
get.

 
1. ^ I am defining naturalism as the view that “The natural world is all that exists, or at least all that
should be of concern to us when deciding how to act.” This was lifted from Fodor’s 
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uxFvTnzSgw8uakNBp/effective-altruism-is-an-
ideology-not-just-a-question° This view is often opposed to religious ideologies which
claim the natural, material world doesn't contain all of reality.

2. ^ If you are unfamiliar with EA, in a nutshell “Effective altruism is a project that aims to find the
best ways to help others, and put them into practice. It’s both a research field, which aims to
identify the world’s most pressing problems and the best solutions to them, and a practical
community that aims to use those findings to do good.” – source:
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism accessed
September 1 2022  

3. ^  I  awarded 30% to the top commentor who asked me donate it to GiveDirectly.

 Here's a record of the terms and condition:

If possible, I may give away higher percentages of earnings from this post (especially if EA gives
the top prizes to other people) because I really want to incentivize feedback regardless of the
decision that EA makes. I really don't want anyone to pull any punches or try to dress up my
ideas in hopes of winning higher prizes. 

I will do my best to reward the most insightful input regardless of whether it’s critical or
supportive. Either way I really appreciate you taking the time to read this post. I’m afraid not
everyone who gives feedback will get financially compensated, but I will do my best to consider
all of it.

4. ^ About 84% of the world adhered to a religion in 2010. Source:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-
exec/#:~:text=A%20comprehensive%20demographic%20study%20of,world%20population%2
0of%206.9%20billion Accessed August 30, 2022.

5. ^ "The EA movement clearly has a secular character. When leaders of the movement state its core
project, or articulate reasons for pursuing it, they rarely ever put forward explicitly religious
claims.” – source: “Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D.
Roser et. al; published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3 

6. ^ In a nutshell that’s because most religions, and ideologies in general, give contradictory answers
to important questions and none are currently in majority, so if a correct ideology exists, it is in
the minority. 

For more info see the section entitled Why not take most religious ideologies seriously?°

7. ^  I back up this claim in the section A sea of confusion with no oasis in sight°
8. ^ For example, only “17% of US adults "do not believe in any afterlife at all. "
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/11/23/views-on-the-afterlife accessed
August 30, 2022

9. ^ I elaborate in the section: The stakes could not be higher°

10. ^ I elaborate in the section: Better sooner rather than later°

11. ^ I elaborate in the section: Failure would not be worthless °

12. ^ I explain why in the “Importance°” section.

13. ^ For example see https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FpjQMYQmS3rWewZ83/effective-

altruism-is-a-question-not-an-ideology°
and https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism which states
“Effective altruism is a project that aims to find the best ways to help others, and put them into
practice” emphasis added.

14. ^ Religion Prof. Charles Kimball Th.D: “The religions are united in presenting worldviews that
explain the nature and purpose of existence. Sacred stories convey vital information about the
human predicament, namely, what went wrong or why people are blocked from experiencing the
ideal state of existence. The structural patterns are the same, though the actual ‘problem’
humans must overcome varies significantly." Source: Prof. Kimball’s online course on
Comparative Religion (Lecture 16) Accessible at https://www.audible.com/pd/Comparative-
Religion-Audiobook/B00DAGYZNO?ref=a_library_t_c5_libItem_&pf_rd_p=80765e81-b10a-
4f33-b1d3-ffb87793d047&pf_rd_r=R5648MQ75WBH4C2SAF16 

15. ^ Influential religious philosopher John Hick affirms this in more religious terminology: "For
salvation, redemption, re-creation is really what the religions are all about. They are not
primarily sets of doctrines, or philosophies, but ways or paths of salvation — salvation being our
Christian term for a radical change from a profoundly wrong to a profoundly right and fulfilling
relationship to the divine or the ultimate" – original source accessible online at https://bahai-
library.com/hick_one_true_religion

16. ^ I am defining ideology the same way Merriam Webster’s dictionary does:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologies (on September 9, 2022) namely: 

“the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program; a

systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture”

James Fodor provides more information on and examples of ideologies (although I do not
necessarily endorse all his conclusions)
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FpjQMYQmS3rWewZ83/effective-altruism-is-a-
question-not-an-ideology° 
17. ^ For example, Eastern religious ideologies often assert that humans have soul that can get
reincarnated into a different body after death. However, many claim the intervening time can be
incredibly long and intense. For more information look up Naraka which is roughly the Eastern
equivalent of Hell. Although, naraka is ultimately temporary it purportedly has the potential to
be unimaginably more grueling than an individual lifetime. 

18. ^ I have yet to see an exception to this rule, only confirmation. Although I don’t have a good single
source for this broad claim, I thought this one would be better than nothing:Gale Encyclopedia of
the Unusual and Unexplained. Gale, 2003. (Accessible online at 
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/how-
major-religions-view-afterlife accessed August 29 2022:

“all the major faiths believe that after the spirit has left the body, it moves on to another
existence… All the major world religions hold the belief that how a person has conducted himself
or herself while living on Earth will greatly influence his or her soul's ultimate destiny after
physical death.” 

19. ^ Although I don't have a good single source for this, it is largely affirmed by Prof. Kimball
mentioned in the footnote above

20. ^ A large majority of world adheres to a religion and, as mentioned above, the major religions
affirm an afterlife.

About 84% of the world adhered to a religion in 2010, mostly Abrahamic ones. Source:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-
exec/#:~:text=A%20comprehensive%20demographic%20study%20of,world%20population%2
0of%206.9%20billion

Accessed August 30, 2022

21. ^ Pew offers more precise data on Americans: "Nearly three-quarters of all U.S. adults (73%) say

they believe in heaven, while a smaller share – but still a majority (62%) – believe in hell."
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/11/23/views-on-the-afterlife/ accessed
September 8.

22. ^ “Every religious traditions contains at least some elements directing us to treat other animals in
a humane and compassionate way.” according to religion Prof. Mark Berkson’s course on the
Afterlife (lecture 21). After a few years of study, I haven’t heard of any religious leaders that
would call factory farming a trifling matter if they knew about how it harms people as well:

 Factory farming does not just impose tremendous unnecessary suffering on about 70-250
billion helpless creatures, often for the sake of a luxury. It also contributes to the
malnutrition/starvation of roughly 1 billion people, increases everyone’s risk of disease, and
more you can learn about here: https://www.ciwf.org.uk/factory-farming/
23. ^ Although I am far from an authority on biblical exegesis, the Catechism of the Catholic Church
cites this passage when affirming the Christian duty to care for the “disadvantaged” (see more
at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a3.htm accessed September 2022) and an
international Christian humanitarian aid organization called Mathew 25 was ostensibly
established to fulfill these words (see more at https://m25m.org/about-us/)

24. ^ Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A31-

46&version=NIV accessed September 7, 2022

25. ^ Source: Mishra, Ravi K. “Gandhi and Hinduism.” Indian Journal of Public Administration, vol.
65, no. 1, Mar. 2019, pp. 71–90 https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556118820453

26. ^ Source: Gandhi’s Autobiography; Translated (from Gujarati) by Mahadev Desai. Accessible at:

https://www.mkgandhi.org/autobio/autobio.htm

27. ^ I am defining naturalism as the view that “The natural world is all that exists, or at least all that
should be of concern to us when deciding how to act.” This was lifted from Fodor’s
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uxFvTnzSgw8uakNBp/effective-altruism-is-an-
ideology-not-just-a-question° This view is often opposed to religious ideologies which
claim the natural, material world doesn't contain all of reality.

28. ^ John Kerry, US secretary of state from 2013-17, wrote: "I often say that if I headed back to college
today, I would major in comparative religions rather than political science. That is because
religious actors and institutions are playing an influential role in every region of the world.”
source: "We ignore the global impact of religion at our peril' published by America Magazine on
September 2015; accessed August 27, 2022. Accessible online
at: https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/religion-and-diplomacy 

29. ^ “Religions are powerful forces for good and evil… religion in one or more forms still holds sway
over the minds of most people in the world.” Source:  Linzey Andrew and Linzey Clair, Routledge
Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics, Routledge, 2019

30. ^  "Any new technology, be it the computer or biotechnology, creates a vacuum in social ethical
thought and fear. ‘What effect will this have on our lives? Is it good or bad? What do we need to
control?’… [for example, before animal cloning was accomplished Prof. Rollin advised scientists
to] create an educated populace on cloning and help them define the issues… Some years later,
the creation Dolly [the cloned sheep] was announced to a completely uninformed public. Time
Warner conducted a survey one week after the announcement. Fully 75 percent of the U.S. public
affirmed that cloning ‘violated God’s will. There are many other, similar stories…” source:
Rollin, Bernard E. Putting the Horse before Descartes Temple University Press, 2011.

31. ^ Adapted from ibid.

32. ^ “Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D. Roser et. al;
published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3 
33. ^  I am defining naturalism as the view that “The natural world is all that exists, or at least all that
should be of concern to us when deciding how to act.” This was lifted from Fodor’s
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uxFvTnzSgw8uakNBp/effective-altruism-is-an-
ideology-not-just-a-question°

34. ^ James Fodor 2019: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uxFvTnzSgw8uakNBp/effective-

altruism-is-an-ideology-not-just-a-question°

35. ^ Muzaffar Iqbal’s essay entitled “Scientific Commentary on the Quran”; featured in “The Study
Quran” published 2015

36. ^ For example Richard Dawkins writes: “I have met this kind of absurdity elsewhere, when I have
challenged religious but otherwise intelligent scientists to justify their belief, given their
admission that there is no evidence: [for example, a quote from Stephen Unwin:] 'I admit that
there's no evidence. There's a reason why it's called faith'” – The God Delusion published in
2006 

37. ^ https://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/ accessed August 11 2022

38. ^ https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-
overwhelmed-part-i/ 

39. ^ According to http://www.mormonthink.com/ accessed August 11, 2022

40. ^ According to http://www.mormonthink.com/introductionweb.htm accessed August 11, 2022

41. ^ For more info see http://www.mormonthink.com/introductionweb.htm , in particular “If you

believe we have misrepresented a position, please contact us and let us know the specific
information you believe is in error, and provide us with what you believe is the accurate
information as well as corroborating sources.” 

42. ^ In the Importance section°

43. ^ By “major religions” I mean religions with the greatest longevity, influence, and number of
current adherents. Most experts I’ve encountered concur that the following are major
religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

44. ^ “Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the

strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.”
Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning accessed August 11, 2022

45. ^ For more information about this, look for “Ideological Turing test” in this essay and/or
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/ideological-turing-tests

46. ^ https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-
overwhelmed-part-i/

47. ^ Huston Smith’s autobiography; Tales of Wonder published in 2009

48. ^ He claims to explain this “in the treatise entitled "Marvels of the Heart," which forms part of
our work, 'The Revival of the Religious Sciences.” The quote is from his autobiography entitled
“Confessions”, or “Deliverance from Error” c. 1100 CE available at
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/1100ghazali-truth.asp. Last I checked you could listen to
it for free here: https://librivox.org/the-confessions-of-al-ghazali-by-abu-amid-muammad-
ibn-muammad-al-ghazali/ and it only took about an hour or two

49. ^ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/ The Epistemology of Religion; First

published Wed Apr 23, 1997; substantive revision Tue Jun 22, 2021; accessed August 11, 2022

50. ^ Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "jnana". Encyclopedia Britannica, 19 Oct.

2007, https://www.britannica.com/topic/jnana. Accessed 3 February 2022.

51. ^ Ibid.

52. ^ https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-
overwhelmed-part-i/

53. ^ A major Mormon apologetic organization: “Are we to assume that the human intellect is perfect,
that we can’t be fooled by our intellect?... [spoiler alert: their answer is negative.] They go onto
say “Christ seems to place more value on having faith, without evidence.”
From https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/can-we-trust-our-feelings
accessed August 30 2022

54. ^ https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-
overwhelmed-part-i/ 

55. ^ "Cults Inside Out" by Ross 2014

56. ^ Many poignant examples shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycUvC9s4VYA&t=214

although I would be remiss not to mention that I disagree with the dichotomy he gives at 3:15
minutes in because it's clear to me the answer doesn't have to always be one of his two options.
If you’re curious about other possibilities, I listed some examples in the comments of that
YouTube video.

57. ^ "The Scout Mindset” by Julia Galef, published 2021

58. ^ “The Scout Mindset” Ch. 14

59. ^ Definition lifted from https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/ideological-turing-tests; accessed

August 29 2022. For more information about the Ideological Turing test and how to apply it see
“The Scout Mindset” Ch. 14

60. ^ The most helpful list I could find is on his app “Pocket Biases” https://pocket-

biases.glideapp.io/dl/d0a5f4 (section “All Biases”) which briefly summarizes each bias, usually
provides links for further reading, and is convenient for casual perusal. He’s written a lot more
about cognitive biases, but I don’t agree with much of his conclusions, so I’m not linking to that
stuff. 
61. ^ "Individuals can only work to correct for sources of bias that they are aware exist… Simply
knowing about implicit bias and its potentially harmful effects on judgment and behavior may
prompt individuals to pursue corrective action… Although awareness of implicit bias in and of
itself is not sufficient to ensure that effective debiasing efforts take place… it is a crucial starting
point that may prompt individuals to seek out and implement the types of strategies listed
throughout this document"; Source: Strategies to Reduce the Influence of Implicit Bias,
produced by the National Center for State Courts; available
at https://horsley.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/IB_Strategies_033012.pdf

62. ^ Source: https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/improving-institutional-decision-making/

accessed August 29, 2022

63. ^ Linzey Andrew and Linzey Clair, Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics, Routledge,
2019

64. ^ “Thanks to Mr. Danforth’s generosity, my travels began; and so began my love affair with the
world” source: Smith’s autobiography Tales of Wonder

65. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/01/us/huston-smith-author-of-the-worlds-religions-
dies-at-97.html

66. ^ Smith writes “Mysticism pointed toward the ‘mystical East,’ so, Ph.D. in hand and teaching now,
I cut back on philosophy to devote roughly half my time (as I have ever since) to immersing
myself in the world’s religions; immersing is the right word, for I have always been devotee as
much as scholar.”; source: The Way Things Are: conversations with Huston Smith on the
spiritual life

67. ^ https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-huston-smith-20170105-story.html

68. ^ “While Huston Smith’s books and classes have been popular, his eclectic approach has turned
many an academic apoplectic” source: The Way Things Are: conversations with Huston Smith on
the spiritual life

69. ^ “I was an agonizingly slow learner. Had I gone to a public school, and not received the attention
she lavished, I might have been segregated into a class for ‘special’ children”-  Smith’s
autobiography Tales of Wonder

70. ^ Ibid.

71. ^ “The World’s Religions” by Huston Smith

72. ^ As mentioned above, I am defining naturalism as the view that “The natural world is all that
exists, or at least all that should be of concern to us when deciding how to act.” This was lifted
from Fodor’s https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uxFvTnzSgw8uakNBp/effective-
altruism-is-an-ideology-not-just-a-question  °

This view is often opposed to religious ideologies which claim the natural, material world
doesn't contain all of reality.
73. ^ Source: https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/books/aldous-huxleys-quest-for-values-
religion/#:~:text=These%20then%2C%20briefly%20summarized%2C%20are,Judaism%2C%2
0Christianity%2C%20and%20Islam accessed August 12, 2022

74. ^ For more on the topic see the section entitled Would investigating religious ideologies properly
be overwhelming?°

75. ^ "I’ve tried and failed 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 listed below)." From
the section entitled Neglected°.

76. ^ https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-
overwhelmed-part-i/

77. ^ "From the beginning of Islam, Muslims have upheld the notion of the miraculous and inimitable
nature of the Qur’an as proof of Muhammad’s prophethood. “Indeed”, says Muhammad al-
Baqillani (d. /1013), “(his) prophethood is built upon this miracle” (1930, 13), a miracle which
“abides from its revelation up to the day of resurrection” (ibid.). The belief that the Qur’anic
revelations cannot be equaled or surpassed by any human power in its eloquence and its
contents acquired a more precise form in the teaching that each Prophet was given a verifying
miracle and that the Prophet Muhammad’s miracle was the Qur’an.” – Farid Esack’s The Quran:
A User’s Guide

78. ^ "Because [it is alleged that when it comes to the Quran/ Koran] content and container are here

inseparably fused, translations cannot possibly convey the emotion, the fervor, and the mystery
that the Koran holds in the original. This is why, in sharp contrast to Christians, who have
translated their Bible into every known script, Muslims have preferred to teach others the
language in which they believe God spoke finally with incomparable force and directness."
source: The World Religions by Huston Smith

79. ^ "But in earlier historical periods losing blood was considered to be beneficial to health. This
practice was called bloodletting and was the most common procedure performed by surgeons for
almost two thousand years. They did it to balance the humors, as a surplus was thought to cause
ill health." source: "Bloodletting". British Science Museum. 2009. Archived from the original on
15 April 2009. Retrieved 12 July 2009. Thanks to Wikipedia for finding this source.

80. ^ Immune by Philipp Dettmer, published 2021

81. ^ “By January 2002, one year after launch, Wikipedia had gone from zero to twenty thousand
articles. This was far beyond the imagination of even the most optimistic of the bunch." - The
Wikipedia revolution by Andrew Lih. By August 2022, twenty years later, Wikipedia has 55
million articles in 309 languages, at least according to this Wikipedia
article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons#:~:text=Currently%2C%20t
he%20English%20Wikipedia%20alone,million%20articles%20in%20309%20languages. 
82. ^ Galef’s book the Scout Mindset lists more examples of successful entrepreneurs like Elon Musk
that faced overwhelming odds. She also provides more background info on Bezos:

“In 1994, Jeff Bezos had a cushy and well-paying job as an investment banker in New York City.
He had been increasingly considering quitting to launch a company on this exciting new thing
called ‘The Internet.’ But he wanted to make sure he had a clear view of the odds facing him. By
his estimate, about 10 percent of internet start-ups grew into successful businesses. Bezos
suspected that his skill level and business idea were better than average, but he also knew that
wasn’t a justification for ignoring the baseline odds completely. All things considered, he gave
himself about a 30 percent chance of success. 

How did he feel about that level of risk? Could he stomach the possibility of failure? Bezos
imagined being eighty years old and looking back at his life choices. Missing out on his 1994 Wall
Street bonus wasn’t the kind of thing he would care about decades later. But passing up the
chance to participate in the growth of the internet absolutely was. ‘If it failed, fine,' he decided. 'I
would be very proud of the fact when I’m 80 that I tried.’ That’s what clinched his decision to
take the plunge, quit his job, and start the company that would become Amazon.” 

83. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/17/what-amazons-jeff-bezos-did-at-30-to-avoid-living-

with-
regret.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20most%20cases%2C%20our%20biggest,excited%20ab
out%20and%20it%20failing.

84. ^ As mentioned above: This quote is from his autobiography entitled “Confessions”,
or “Deliverance from Error” c. 1100 CE available at
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/1100ghazali-truth.asp. Last I checked you could listen to
it for free here: https://librivox.org/the-confessions-of-al-ghazali-by-abu-amid-muammad-
ibn-muammad-al-ghazali/ and it only took about an hour or two

85. ^ The Centre for Effective Altruism acknowledges that what EA  “focuses on could easily change.
What defines effective altruism are the values that underpin its search for the best ways of
helping others [which includes]... Open truthseeking: Rather than starting with a commitment
to a certain cause, community or approach, it’s important to consider many different ways to
help and seek to find the best ones. This means putting serious time into deliberation and
reflection on one’s beliefs, being constantly open and curious for new evidence and arguments,
and being ready to change one’s views quite radically.” Emphasis added. Source:
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism Accessed August
29, 2022

86. ^ Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D. Roser et. al;
published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3 

87. ^  

88. ^ “Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the

strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning.”
Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning accessed August 11, 2022
 89. ^ As mentioned above, I am defining naturalism as the view that “The natural world is all that
exists, or at least all that should be of concern to us when deciding how to act.” This was lifted
from Fodor’s https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uxFvTnzSgw8uakNBp/effective-
altruism-is-an-ideology-not-just-a-question° This view is often opposed to religious
ideologies which claim the natural, material world doesn't contain all of reality.

Philosophy 1 Building effective altruism 1 Criticism and Red Teaming Contest 1

Philosophy of effective altruism 1 Religion 1 Criticism of effective altruism 1 Requests (open) 1
Frontpage

Mentioned in
3 Why bother doing the most good?
6 comments, sorted by top scoring
[ ] Noah Scales 8mo
- 3 0
Here's a couple ideas:
1. make use of studies of ideology in general
2. study religious epistemologies using research done to date
I would be skeptical of the claim that religions all pursue effective altruism of some sort. Yes, altruism
was part of the religion I grew up in and a couple of others that I have first-hand knowledge of, but
religious philosophies are complicated, and the comparison of EA with religion wrt altruism might not
be an apples to apples comparison.
You could investigate religious models of morality using western distinctions (deontology, axiology,
consequentialism, utilitarianism, ..).
A final point, a person engaged in a religion adopts it articles on faith, and its philosophy after
generous study. It's unclear to me that anyone "inside" a religion will ever supply an outsider's
perspective well. However, your idea to use Julia Galef's Ideological Turing test would make sense for
someone outside a religion wanting to explore it with a more open mind. 
The major world religions are more or less immune to epistemological challenges and I am tempted to
think the same about any deeply held beliefs of folks who identify with EA. 
One such belief is likely to be technological determinism, actually an element of marketing use by
Silicon Valley companies. We have all bought into it, to some extent, and EA folks probably more than
most.
[-] Dov 7mo 1 0
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]°.
[-] Noah Scales 7mo 3 0
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.
[-] Dov 7mo 1 0
"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 :)
[-] Noah Scales 7mo 2 0
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.
[-] Dov 7mo 1 0
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." 
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!