Scott Alexander rejects the 'cultural Christianity' argument, stating that both Christian and secular liberal societies eventually succumb to modernism, making Christianity no more stable than secular alternatives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the 'cultural Christianity' argument, which suggests atheists should support Christian society for its cultural benefits. He acknowledges being part of the target audience, appreciating certain aspects of past Christian-influenced cultures. However, he rejects the argument on two grounds: his personal aversion to asserting falsehoods, and the observation that Christianity, like other cultural systems, has also succumbed to modernism and 'wokeness'. He argues that if both Christian and non-Christian liberal societies eventually collapse into undesirable cultural states, there's no advantage in advocating for Christianity over secular liberalism. The post concludes that addressing modern cultural challenges requires inventing a new cultural package rather than reverting to Christianity. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander investigates whether non-religious people are more prone to believing conspiracy theories, finding a U-shaped relationship between religiosity and skepticism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines the claim that non-religious people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories and woo. He analyzes various studies on beliefs in UFOs, Bigfoot, and astrology across different religious groups. The results show a more nuanced picture: both strongly religious people and outright atheists are generally less likely to believe in these theories, while those in the middle (weakly religious or agnostic) are more susceptible. Scott discusses possible explanations for this pattern, including intellectual coherence and closed-mindedness. He concludes that the relationship between religiosity and belief in conspiracy theories is more complex than commonly assumed. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the rise and fall of New Atheism, arguing it was replaced by social justice as the dominant online 'hamartiology' explaining society's problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the rise and fall of New Atheism, a movement that dominated online discourse in the early 2000s. He traces its origins to the early days of the internet, when intellectual debates about religion were common, and its peak in the mid-2000s with the rise of prominent atheist authors. Scott argues that New Atheism declined around 2015 as it was supplanted by the social justice movement. He proposes that both movements served a similar psychological function as 'hamartiologies' - explanations for what's wrong with the world. New Atheism blamed religion for society's ills, while social justice focuses on racism and sexism. The essay suggests this transition reflects broader changes in how people engage in online discourse and form tribal identities. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concepts of 'pulling goals' (driven by specific desires) and 'pushing goals' (driven by existing structures), expressing his preference for the former and strategies to deal with the latter. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the distinction between 'pulling goals' and 'pushing goals'. Pulling goals are when you want to achieve something specific and create a plan, while pushing goals are when you have a structure but are trying to figure out what to do with it. He gives examples of both, such as studying to cure cancer (pulling) versus doing a research project just to graduate (pushing). Scott expresses his dislike for pushing goals, finding them potentially dishonest and often a sign that something has gone wrong. He argues that pushing goals can lead to confusion about one's true motivations and often result in inferior outcomes. The post concludes with Scott's personal strategy of keeping lists of things he wants to pull, to use when faced with pushing situations. Shorter summary

In a fictional story, five islanders confront their society's religious taboos after a shipwrecked sailor points out their blue eyes, leading them to question and ultimately reject their beliefs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a fictional story about five islanders who discover a flaw in their society's religious taboos after a shipwrecked sailor points out their blue eyes. The story explores themes of knowledge, belief, and social pressure as the characters grapple with the implications of their newfound awareness and ultimately reject their society's beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends the use of extreme thought experiments in moral philosophy, using Phil Robertson's controversial remarks as an example to explain their necessity and purpose. Longer summary

Scott Alexander defends the use of extreme thought experiments in moral philosophy, using Phil Robertson's controversial remarks about atheists as an example. He argues that such thought experiments, while disturbing, are necessary to tease out our true moral intuitions and principles. Scott explains that these scenarios are designed to be extreme to magnify small effects, similar to how physicists use extreme conditions to study fundamental laws. He emphasizes that engaging with such thought experiments doesn't mean philosophers endorse or fantasize about these scenarios, but rather use them as tools to explore complex ethical issues. Shorter summary

Scott explores why conservative religious movements thrive while liberal ones decline, suggesting that strict rules and commitments strengthen communities, and considers this in the context of atheist religion-substitutes. Longer summary

This post discusses the counterintuitive success of conservative religious movements compared to liberal ones, exploring the idea that demanding commitments and strict rules can actually strengthen religious communities. Scott examines this concept in the context of atheist religion-substitutes, noting their tendency to avoid placing rules on members. He contrasts this with the approach of Giving What We Can, which requires a specific commitment from members. The post concludes by considering the potential of 'nomic' subcultures based on rule-following as a possible direction for secular community-building. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how 'weak men' arguments can be weaponized to unfairly discredit entire groups, forcing defensive coalitions and unnecessary conflicts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'weak men' arguments and how they can be used as 'superweapons' in debates. He explains how targeting the weakest or most extreme members of a group can unfairly discredit the entire group, even if most members don't share those characteristics. The post explores this dynamic in various contexts, including religion, atheism, feminism, and men's rights movements. Scott argues that this tactic forces people to defend even the worst members of their group, creating unnecessary conflicts and making it difficult for individuals to distance themselves from extreme positions within their broader category. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander, though pro-gay rights, criticizes the suspension of Phil Robertson for his comments, arguing for broader societal tolerance of differing views beyond legal requirements. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a post by JT criticizing defenders of Phil Robertson, who was suspended for his comments about homosexuality. Scott, while being pro-gay rights, expresses concern about Robertson's suspension. He argues that although freedom of speech doesn't legally bind private actors, there's a societal need for tolerance of differing views beyond legal requirements. He draws parallels with religious freedom and warns against normalizing punishment for expressing opinions, suggesting it could backfire on minority groups like atheists or gay people. Scott emphasizes the importance of counterarguments over punitive actions in ideological debates. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the Rationalist Solstice Ritual, exploring how 'cringeworthiness' can strengthen communities and the challenges atheists face in community-building. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the Rationalist Solstice Ritual, discussing its perceived 'cringeworthiness' and how this relates to community building. He argues that stronger religious communities often have more unusual or 'cringeworthy' beliefs, which create a stronger separation from out-groups. The post then explores how atheist communities struggle to build strong bonds due to lack of this separation, and speculates on various strategies atheists use to overcome this. Finally, Scott addresses the perceived lack of atheist art and music, arguing that many great secular songs about progress and humanism fill this role. Shorter summary

Scott critiques Chesterton's 'truth-telling thing' argument, suggesting that religion's apparent coherence stems from cultural conditioning rather than inherent truth. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques G.K. Chesterton's 'truth-telling thing' argument for religion. He argues that religion's claims are often wrong when testable, and that the feeling of coherence people get from religion is due to cultural conditioning rather than inherent truth. Scott uses a metaphor of fractured Roman culture being restored by ancient texts to illustrate how exposure to religious doctrines can create a false sense of enlightenment. He suggests that modern Western thought is a mix of Christian and modernist ideas, and that exposure to pure forms of either can feel revelatory, but for different reasons related to how we hold beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores whether atheists can fully appreciate Chesterton's work, arguing that the moral beauty in his writing stems more from modern humanism than Christianity itself. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses whether atheists can appreciate the works of G.K. Chesterton, a Christian author. He argues that the moral qualities that make Chesterton and C.S. Lewis admirable are more a product of modernity than Christianity itself. Scott suggests that these authors took humanist ideas and dressed them in Christian clothing. He explores several reasons why the Christian framework might be particularly effective for conveying moral beauty, including the power of myth, legitimacy, a different perspective, and a focus on the individual. Lastly, he considers the challenge for atheists in portraying Good as an active, terrifying force, but finds some hope in works like 'Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality'. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that many debates are 'bravery debates' where different groups need opposing advice, making it challenging to target advice effectively. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept that all debates are essentially 'bravery debates,' where different advice is needed for different groups. He uses several examples to illustrate this point: Ayn Rand's philosophy helping some people overcome excessive self-sacrifice, while others need to be less selfish; atheist memes being helpful for some raised in strict religious environments, while being off-putting to others; and self-help advice that tells some people to be less hard on themselves, while others need to take more responsibility. The post argues that it's difficult to target advice only to those who need it, so debates often involve each side promoting advice that would benefit their own culture or background, unaware that the other side comes from a different context where that advice might be harmful. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses how the clarity experienced when awakening from meditation-induced delusions mirrors his appreciation for simplifying philosophical concepts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes his experiences with meditating while tired, which lead to increasingly complex and delusional thoughts. He then experiences a moment of awakening where he realizes the simplicity of the task. This feeling of clarity and simplification is compared to his passion for ideas like consequentialism, atheism, and capitalism, which provide similar moments of clarity in complex situations. While acknowledging that this feeling isn't an argument for these ideas, Scott expresses how fundamental this aesthetic is to his thinking. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores how selection bias might create the stereotype of angry, vocal atheists, and speculates on how this concept might apply to other groups. Longer summary

This post discusses how selection bias may contribute to the stereotype of atheists as loud and angry. Scott argues that while religious people are visible in many contexts, atheists are typically only noticed when criticizing religion or advocating for atheist causes. This creates a false impression that atheists are obsessed with attacking religion. The post suggests that most atheists rarely discuss their lack of belief, but these individuals don't get attention as atheists. Scott then extends this concept to other groups, speculating that similar selection biases might contribute to stereotypes about Muslims, Christians in secular areas, and even ethnic groups. Shorter summary

Scott shares a comedic video about people praising a non-existent Pope, using it to humorously critique Catholic tendency to believe in nonexistent father figures. Longer summary

Scott humorously reflects on his inability to consistently produce clever but slightly unfair zingers about religious people, a skill needed for atheism blogging. He shares a video where comedians ask people on the street about a non-existent new Pope, noting how quickly Catholics praise this nonexistent father figure under mild social pressure. Scott's reaction draws a parallel between this behavior and broader Catholic beliefs, demonstrating his improving ability to create the kind of zingers common in atheist blogging. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander humorously profiles potential papal candidates from an atheist's perspective, focusing on their quirky aspects rather than theological positions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander humorously analyzes potential papal candidates from an atheist's perspective, focusing on their hilarity rather than their theological positions. He provides brief profiles of several cardinals, highlighting quirky facts, quotes, and potential scandals. The post includes funny images replacing the cardinals' faces with celebrities who have similar names. Scott expresses his desire for a progressive pope while acknowledging it's unlikely, and settles for hoping the new pope will at least be entertaining. He also touches on the difficulty of understanding the distinctions between liberal, moderate, and conservative cardinals from an outsider's perspective. Shorter summary