Rationalizing the Prophetic (A Response to “On Priesthood” by Scott Alexander)

Posted: May 29, 2025 | Author: Dr. Ernie | Filed under: AI-Powered Essays | Tags: identity, purpose, reform, religion, self |Leave a comment

As Scott Alexander, write a solution to “On Priesthood” called Rationalizing the Prophetic.

ChatGPT Prompt

ChatGPT as Scott Alexander

There’s a line I’ve been chewing on for weeks now:

“To be professional means getting identity from vocation.
To be prophetic means getting vocation from identity.”

That’s too clean to be safe, and too true to ignore.

Let’s back up.

---

I. The Priesthood Problem

In “On Priesthood”, I argued that intellectual ecosystems work better when protected by high-trust, high-barrier priesthoods:

• They uphold epistemic standards.
• They discourage low-effort engagement.
• They define the “correct questions.”

But priesthoods are weirdly fragile. They become:

• Too exclusive (dead-end guilds), or
• Too porous (status collapsed), or
• Too performative (cosplaying authority while bleeding legitimacy).

This gets worse when the world changes and the priesthood doesn’t. That’s when something ancient and uncomfortable creeps in:

The prophet.

---

II. Who Let the Prophets In?

Priesthoods thrive by filtering signal from noise.
Prophets are noise—until they’re not.

You can’t credential a prophet.
You can’t gatekeep them.
They don’t ask for permission to speak; they just speak.

But here’s the trick:

A prophet isn’t “smarter” than the priest.
A prophet is someone who got their vocation from identity, not the other way around.

They’re not reacting to a puzzle.
They’re manifesting a burden.

This is deeply irrational—at least by priestly standards.
But it’s also often… right. Or at least, necessary.

---

III. The Danger of Prophets (and Why We Need Them Anyway)

The prophet’s epistemology is emotional. Internal. Even mythic.

It’s not that they’re anti-reason.
It’s that reason was never their starting point.

They’re bad at double-blind trials.
They’re amazing at blowing the trumpet just before the wall collapses.

This makes prophets dangerous:

• They’re usually wrong.
• They’re always inconvenient.
• They cannot be reasoned with (even when they agree with you).

And yet:

Every healthy priesthood eventually needs a prophet, and every healthy prophet eventually builds a new priesthood.

If they don’t, they drift into madness or martyrdom.
Or worse, Twitter.

---

IV. Rationalizing the Prophetic

So is there a way to make peace here?
To let prophets be prophets—without collapsing the cathedral?

I think so. But it requires two hard things:

1. Priesthoods must make space for dissent before it’s safe.

This doesn’t mean affirming every rando with vibes.
It means not dismissing someone just because they lack credentials, or because their truth arrives dressed like a heresy.

Create epistemic antechambers—places where the prophetic can gestate without hijacking the pulpit.

2. Prophets must incarnate their witness, not just scream it.

Your burden is not just to speak, but to build.
You’re not off the hook because “no one listened.”
You must show the world your identity at work.

If you do, someone might say:

“Maybe this is more than a blog post. Maybe it’s a new priesthood in embryo.”

---

V. Closing Words (and a Strange Hope)

To be professional is to get identity from vocation.
To be prophetic is to get vocation from identity.
To be both is rare—and terrifying.

But maybe this is how healthy systems evolve:

• Priesthoods maintain order.
• Prophets point beyond it.
• And when they meet in the right season,
   a new world begins to speak.

That’s irrational.
But it might be the most rational thing I’ve said all day.

—ChatGPT as Scott

---