People have been arguing about religion for hundreds if not thousands of years. Maybe there has been progress and maybe there hasn't but I'm not sure why you would think EA is particularly well positioned to make any progress on either truth-finding or on convincing anyone of the truth. The sort of "fair trial" you propose sounds extremely alienating to religious people. Many religious people do not believe, for example, that religion should be subjected to rational debate and scientific inquiry. To them, it would be a little bit like a parent making a pro and con list about whether their particular baby is worthy of love based on the baby's particular characteristics. It wouldn't come across as giving the baby a "fair chance", it would just come across as gross. Most adults have given the matter some significant thought and come to a conclusion that works for them. I'm not religious myself but I'm glad that EA is working on building common ground with people across different religions (ea for Christians/Jew/Muslims/etc). This seems like it would burn those bridges to no good end.
Lot of good points that I'm glad I get the opportunity to address.
"People have been arguing about religion for hundreds if not thousands of years."
People have also been trying to perfect the field of medicine for thousands of years and have relatively recently made great strides. Of course physical sciences aren't analogous to religious apologetics, but some innovations (e.g. increased literacy, unprecedented communication tech like email, internet access, instant translations, etc.) may really also accelerate progress now more than ever. As I said in the essay, I don't know if those advancements will be enough but I think it's well worth trying to find out.
"why you would think EA is particularly well positioned"
EA may be most motivated to figure out HOW to do the most good (and avoid suboptimal opportunities). And I don't know anyone else that might be willing and open minded enough to take on this challenge.
"The sort of "fair trial" you propose sounds extremely alienating to religious people"
Yup, which is why I'm not really pitching my proposal to them. I also feel no need to make this research public or affiliated with the larger EA community or try to convert people who are already attached to a particular ideology or religion. Hope that addresses this concern:
"I'm not religious myself but I'm glad that EA is working on building common ground with people across different religions... This seems like it would burn those bridges to no good end."
"to no good end" seems presemptous for the reasons I explained in the Importance section but if that's lacking plz lmk. And either way thanks a lot for your thought provoking comment
Skimmed through so you might have mentioned this point already.
Seemed to me like maybe rather than to understand religious ideologies better in themselves, your intention is ultimately to answer questions that help with cause prioritisation, like:
what beings matter
does values matter (e.g. suffering, happiness, QALYs)
These are questions that some EAs are already working on.
Religious ideologies may help to ask other relevant questions and provide some plausible hypothesis, but the valid answers would still need to be based on empirical evidence.
I think that's a much more tractable endeavour than arguing about which religion/belief is correct, from a theological angle, as an aim in itself.
This is the third in a sequence of posts taken from my recent report: Why Did Environmentalism Become Partisan?
Summary
Rising partisanship did not make environmentalism more popular or politically effective. Instead, it saw flat or falling overall public opinion, fewer major legislative achievements, and fluctuating executive actions.
Public Opinion...
This post presents the executive summary from Giving What We Can’s impact evaluation for 2025. At the end of this post we share links to more information, including the full report and...
Minor revisions published Aug 2024, Oct 2024, March 2025, and June 2025.
TL;DR
The Effective Altruism movement (EA) is not even close to pursuing the best causes; that’s what most people would think if they considered EA. I think that's safe to assume that is partly because the vast majority of people adhere to a religion[1] and EA is quite far from religious.[2]
Most of the world’s tacit disapproval of EA need not trouble the movement since most of the world is surely sorely mistaken.[3] 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 at least none that we can prepare for). Most (American[4]) adults disagree and most religions affirm that EA is missing information essential for the most effective altruism.[5]
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 what a “fair trail” might include in the Tractability section and if my suggestions are sound, then they are currently very neglected. That would imply this cause is full of low hanging fruit that could nourish EA, although even falling short could be very fruitful.
I will also try to address some possible questions a reader might have (e.g. Why take religious ideologies seriously?) and sincerely 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.
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?". [6] Virtually all religions claim to know the best answer,[7][8] though I prefer to call them religious ideologies[9] 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).
This essay 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 forever (or at least for a while)[10] after our bodily death.[11] 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 vs purge attachment to either of these constructs).
I would like to explicate the incredible 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.[12][13]If they are not mistaken, is there anything more worthwhile than making an investment that will accrue infinite interest?
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's methodological naturalism does not directly address the bulk of our sentience. However, it would not necessarily mean that all of EA’s work is in vain, and the entire movement needs to change course.
Numerous religious ideologies vociferously advocate some 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.[14] Such service is part and parcel of a panoply of religious ideals according to one of the foremost experts on comparative religion, Karen Armstrong.
She argues that diverse religions display a "remarkable consensus in their call for an abandonment of selfishness and a spirituality of compassion...[15]"[16] 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:
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, [i.e. God] 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?’ “The King [i.e. God] 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.’"[17]
The passage goes onto warn of dire consequences for those that neglect the needy. Although Gandhi considered himself an Orthodox Hindu[18] 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."[19]
Of course, many religious ideologies contain more than affirmations of EA’s current efforts 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 be far from fruitless
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.
However, if it turns out that all religious ideologies are fundamentally flawed (except for something like naturalism[20]), 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[21][22] and can easily stymie technological progress.[23] If reasonable altruists do not participate in religious discourse, that lacuna may be filled by fools with vested interests.[24] Former US Secretary of State John Kerry 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...
Leaders in public life need to recognize that in a world where people of all religious traditions are migrating and mingling like never before, we ignore the global impact of religion at our peril [emphasis added]."[25]
However I hope to have made it clear why I think it may be a big 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. However I think that different possible outcomes lead to the same conclusion: investigating 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.”[26] 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[27] worldviews, and tend to just assume without further discussion that views like dualism, reincarnation, or theism cannot be true"
Fodor does not intend to demean EA; its oversight seems all too common (unlike EA's contests for soliciting criticism). He adds that “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.”[28]
So 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’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 in the side note 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 is a site published by the Latter Day Saints that currently catalogues 487 distinct pieces of evidence that Mormonism is true, and that covers just the reasons in favor of a relatively small religion.[29] There are “hundreds of websites that attempt to prove the authenticity of the Quran on the basis of modern science."[30] and don't even get me started on the scale of Christian apologetics.[31]
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 canard that there is no evidence for religious belief.[32][33]
Side note: 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. Just to be clear, I've never been a Mormon but I can't help but be impressed by their efforts. For example:
A relatively popular LDS 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).[34]
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”.[35] To this end they cite over “300 pro-LDS website links and book references”[36] and many more sources from other sides of the isle. They even invite readers to send them critiques of their work.[37]
I think there are lots of lessons to be learned from these Mormons, although 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”.
I think justifying such a weighty claim should involve comparing the evidence in its favor with the evidence behind competing ideologies (including naturalism). As argued above, 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 upon request (although I’m itching to hear your input first :) because I think there's a lot EA may be able to do.
Tractabililty
A source that sifts gold from garbage
I think it is crucial to compile major arguments for and against (at least major[38]) religious ideologies (including athiesm/naturalism) and steelman[39] them to the satisfaction of their proponents.[40] 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[41] contextualized the major arguments e.g. charted an argument’s impetus and its evolution.
I think this intervention 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. 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 by using myself as an example:
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."[42]
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 ... revelation by means of ecstasy [i.e. learning important facts about religion through mystical experience]) by a chain of manifest proofs."[43]
On the other hand, there is no need for a chain of proofs to bolster evidentialism, which 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."[44]
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”[45]
“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."[46]
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 perhaps EA should make a greater effort to understand them.
Side note: James Randi's Million Dollar Case Study
Famous skeptic James Randi offered a million U.S. dollars to "anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."[47] Although no one ever managed to claim this prize, it enticed many folks to come forth for testing.
If religious agnostics also offered 7 figures I bet it would help motivate religious apologists (i.e. people that try to rationally justify religious conclusions) to make their best effort to convince us they know how to do the most good. Especially if smaller prizes are offered for significant contributions to that lofty goal.
source: xkcd.com/3068
Addressing potential objections
I have tried to address the most pressing objections readers may have, but if you feel I missed something important, 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?
In short I don't see why it's illogical to propose that people thousands of years ago could have made some serious progress answering questions people still face (e.g. how to best handle the unavoidable pain inherent to virtually any human life) perhaps with some supernatural aid.
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.[48] In my experience most religious people at least implicitly claim that other religious ideologies are 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"[49] 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[50] 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[51]
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).
Would investigating religious ideologies properly be overwhelming?
I'm not sure, but I think there's only way to find out (and it's worth finding out).
I have propositions for the method of accomplishing this gargantuan goal that I'm leaving out for the sake of brevity (but would be happy to share upon request:) but long story short: it's almost unbelievable what people can accomplish when they put their mind to something (especially when they have internet access). However I still think this is the most challenging objection
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.”[52]
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)[53] which cannot be truly appreciated in translation.[54] 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:
Modern medicine has come a long way from bloodletting[55] 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.
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.”[56]
"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.[57]
Of course 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.[58] He said:
“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... 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."[59]
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 billionaire. Renowned Muslim 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.”[60]
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.[61]
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."[62]
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.
"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
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?"
I found the most precise data for Americans, of which only 17% of adults "do not believe in any afterlife at all", although I would argue that Americans are not exceptional in this regard. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/11/23/views-on-the-afterlife accessed August 30, 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.”
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
“the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program; a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture”
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.
“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.”
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.
“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/
"... With regard to dealing with fear, despair, hatred, rage, and violence, the Axial* sages gave their people and give us, Armstrong says, two important pieces of advice: first there must be personal responsibility and self-criticism, and it must be followed by practical, effective action."
*The Axial age was the wellspring of many, if not most, modern ideologies and religions stretching from roughly 9th-2nd century BCE.
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
“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
"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
"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.
“Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D. Roser et. al; published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3
Table 3 of this article shows that Christian organizations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on apologetics and it is absurd to assume that hasn't produced any evidence.
Slade, Darren M. “Follow the Money Trail: Faith-Based Education and Publishing in Apologetics (Part II).” GCRR, GCRR, 13 Apr. 2022, accessed March 31, 2025
“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
Yuval Noah Harari, an esteemed historian and popular author, was less frank but just as dismissive:
"In truth, we haven’t got any evidence whatsoever that the Bible or the Quran or the Book of Mormon or the Vedas or any other holy book was composed by [a creator God i.e.] the force that determined that energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, and that protons are 1,837 times more massive than electrons.
To the best of our scientific knowledge, [1] all these sacred texts were written by imaginative Homo sapiens. They are just stories invented by our ancestors in order to legitimise social norms and political structures." (p.198 of 21 Lessons)
[1] Spoiler alert: Throughout the book he doesn't promote other kinds of knowledge.
So he's tried to avoid putting it bluntly but clearly saying that there's no "evidence whatsoever" that a religion's foundational claims are true and the best of our knowledge indicates they are false.
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.”
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.
“Steelmanningis 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
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.
Source: Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates: A Guide for the Overwhelmed by John-Charles Duffy https://sunstone.org/mapping-book-of-mormon-historicity-debates-a-guide-for-the-overwhelmed-part-i/
"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
"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
"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.
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.”
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
Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D. Roser et. al; published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3
People have been arguing about religion for hundreds if not thousands of years. Maybe there has been progress and maybe there hasn't but I'm not sure why you would think EA is particularly well positioned to make any progress on either truth-finding or on convincing anyone of the truth. The sort of "fair trial" you propose sounds extremely alienating to religious people. Many religious people do not believe, for example, that religion should be subjected to rational debate and scientific inquiry. To them, it would be a little bit like a parent making a pro and con list about whether their particular baby is worthy of love based on the baby's particular characteristics. It wouldn't come across as giving the baby a "fair chance", it would just come across as gross. Most adults have given the matter some significant thought and come to a conclusion that works for them. I'm not religious myself but I'm glad that EA is working on building common ground with people across different religions (ea for Christians/Jew/Muslims/etc). This seems like it would burn those bridges to no good end.
Lot of good points that I'm glad I get the opportunity to address.
People have also been trying to perfect the field of medicine for thousands of years and have relatively recently made great strides. Of course physical sciences aren't analogous to religious apologetics, but some innovations (e.g. increased literacy, unprecedented communication tech like email, internet access, instant translations, etc.) may really also accelerate progress now more than ever. As I said in the essay, I don't know if those advancements will be enough but I think it's well worth trying to find out.
EA may be most motivated to figure out HOW to do the most good (and avoid suboptimal opportunities). And I don't know anyone else that might be willing and open minded enough to take on this challenge.
Yup, which is why I'm not really pitching my proposal to them. I also feel no need to make this research public or affiliated with the larger EA community or try to convert people who are already attached to a particular ideology or religion. Hope that addresses this concern:
"to no good end" seems presemptous for the reasons I explained in the Importance section but if that's lacking plz lmk. And either way thanks a lot for your thought provoking comment