Comparisons between religions and cults.

[Cleopatra]

In another thread Mercutio and I had an argument as to how legitimate is to compare the cult of Jedi Knights with the Christians.

I want to explore this topic a bit further. It seems logical to me that the mechanism that creates the religious feeling is similar all around the world but still I think that while we might be able to follow some similar patterns there is a point where the religious feeling starts to differ among groups.

Mercutio said -- he may correct me if I don't word this opinion accurately although I do-- that nothing distinguishes the Jedi Knights or the followers of marginal and extreme cults from the followers of the Catholic Church ( for example).

In my opinion this theory seems that it is based on the premise that religion is a form of lunacy so we cannot really distinguish the different religions and there is nothing that distinguishes the followers of David Koresh or Phelps from the followers of the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

I am interested to see how many people in this forum really agree with that theory.

 

[Mercutio]

I
Mercutio said -- he may correct me if I don't word this opinion accurately although I do-- that nothing distinguishes the Jedi Knights or the followers of marginal and extreme cults from the followers of the Catholic Church ( for example).

Although I agree that this is a good thread topic, and a valuable area of discussion, you have read more into my comment than was originally there. My analogy was intended to examine only the degree to which individuals who call themselves "christian" or "jedi" behave as their self-claimed titles would say they should.

Later in the thread, I do say that I believe that if we wish to study the mechanisms of belief, that it would benefit us to study both groups (as well as any other group of believers in a particular world-view). It was my assumption (perhaps unfounded, I must admit) that our mechanisms of belief are independent of what is believed; that my atheist world-view and your christian world-view were both the product of our interactions with our worlds, and that neither is lunacy.

I absolutely do not think that religious belief is a form of lunacy. I think it is a system of belief, learned the same way other belief systems are learned. If I grow up in a religious household, am exposed to intelligent arguments in favor of religion, experience events which I can only explain in terms of my religious framework...I would suggest that in that case, the lunatic would be the one who ignores this "evidence" and does not believe!

I think this is all I will say for now, and wait to see how the discussion goes.

 

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

Although I agree that this is a good thread topic, and a valuable area of discussion, you have read more into my comment than was originally there. My analogy was intended to examine only the degree to which individuals who call themselves "christian" or "jedi" behave as their self-claimed titles would say they should.

Yes but your analogy showed that you have them as similar and that you expect from the followers of those two religions some things that makes them good JKs or good Christians. Your analogy means that JK's code and the Christian moral code can be compared and you can talk the same way about good or consistent with their beliefs JKs and good Christians.

Later in the thread, I do say that I believe that if we wish to study the mechanisms of belief, that it would benefit us to study both groups (as well as any other group of believers in a particular world-view).

I agree if somebody wants to study the mechanism of belief he must study it in full scale, he must study even the most extreme manifestations of belief.

It was my assumption (perhaps unfounded, I must admit) that our mechanisms of belief are independent of what is believed; that my atheist world-view and your christian world-view were both the product of our interactions with our worlds, and that neither is lunacy.

If it is independant of what is believed why we don't have more JKs or more suicide bombers who die for the sake of Allah? Which similar mechanism you can detect between myself and a follower of David Koresh?

I absolutely do not think that religious belief is a form of lunacy. I think it is a system of belief, learned the same way other belief systems are learned. If I grow up in a religious household, am exposed to intelligent arguments in favor of religion, experience events which I can only explain in terms of my religious framework...I would suggest that in that case, the lunatic would be the one who ignores this "evidence" and does not believe!

This is a rather politically correct approach. Between the lines I can read the following :" I despise you but I am not saying it because it is not polite". ( I don't suggest that you despise me )

Do you make the distinction between the common and the extreme manifestations of religiosity?

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

Yes but your analogy showed that you have them as similar and that you expect from the followers of those two religions some things that makes them good JKs or good Christians. Your analogy means that JK's code and the Christian moral code can be compared and you can talk the same way about good or consistent with their beliefs JKs and good Christians.

I think it is fair to say that.

I agree if somebody wants to study the mechanism of belief he must study it in full scale, he must study even the most extreme manifestations of belief. If it is independant of what is believed why we don't have more JKs or more suicide bombers who die for the sake of Allah? Which similar mechanism you can detect between myself and a follower of David Koresh?

Why not more JK's or suicide bombers? A good question...perhaps it is the equivalent of a small evolutionary niche. Why not more spotted owls? Suicide bombers would, I think (speculation alert), be "selected against"--it might be difficult to get to that second generation. A similar problem doomed the Shaker religion--religious rules against reproduction. As for JK's...their inspirational text (? movie) is only 25 years old or so. How many Christians were there 25 years after the crucifixion? (I don't know, I am asking)

As for similar mechanisms in both...I need to get to my office for a couple of books there...there are people who study religious belief, but I don't have this particular answer off the top of my head.

This is a rather politically correct approach. Between the lines I can read the following :" I despise you but I am not saying it because it is not polite". ( I don't suggest that you despise me )

There are things I despise. I still wish to study the mechanisms behind them. Religion, however, is not one of these. I don't see my perspective as being "politically correct" so much as treating people as my laboratory animals. This may still be insulting...but it is a hazard of my profession.

Do you make the distinction between the common and the extreme manifestations of religiosity?

Excellent question! One assumption (and it is an assumption and nothing more) is that these are various degrees of expression of the same mechanisms. This may not be the case.

 

[Yahweh]

I am interested to see how many people in this forum really agree with that theory.

By a technicality, a "cult" is defined as "a new or developing religion". However, I usually extend the definition of "cult" to include many of the negative psychological/authoritarian/"profit at the expense of your followers" behavior of cults.

So, I'd say that Jedi is distinguished from Catholicism in the same way Hinduism is distinguished from Catholicism: That is the basic tenets of the religion.

I would distinguish Jedi from cults because Jedi does not encourage the negative behaviors that accompany cults.

 

[Peskanov]

There is a problem with that kind of question.
If we choose a large religion like the catholic one as reference, we will find a big quantity of smaller organizations and differents trends inside.
I have little doubts about labelling CNC (neocathecumenal way) or Opus Dei as "cults", and both of them pertain to the catholic church but are quite isolacionist and extreme.
In the other hand, what happens with little religions like bahai? They are very moderated and sensate. Are they a cult 'cause they are small?

 

[Atlas]

Orginally posted by Cleopatra
It seems logical to me that the mechanism that creates the religious feeling is similar all around the world but still I think that while we might be able to follow some similar patterns there is a point where the religious feeling starts to differ among groups.

I think there is a basic understanding that life is precious and the Life Giver is God. Perhaps it is the Sun, or the Ocean, Perhaps it is the Buffalo or the Walrus.

Sometimes humans assume power and seek to convince others that they are God. The Pharaoh or Caesar who may originally have to wait until they die to attain the status are followed by those who install themselves with the title while they yet live.

The early Jews understood that one who was prosperous was one who was blessed. There is still a vestige of that in our own culture. Rock Bands develop cultish followings and devotees will "do anything" to hang with the band. They will tattoo the names or symbol of the band on their body. They will fight others who are disbelievers.

Another example is the European Soccer teams have their violent, devoted following. Is Soccer or futbol life giving. Oh yes. There are rival gods, there is a dogma. There are heroes that act horribly and run afoul of the law and there are fans who will defend them if they have to burn every cop car in the village. That life giving aspect is the emotional bond, the frenzy, the fervor that one can reach. The hopes and prayers that are answered. The priesthood is often the owners and sportswriters who write the great tales of the hero players.

I'm echoing Mecutio in this (maybe not to his liking). There is a mechanism by which humans adopt strong beliefs. The object of the belief is usually not worthy of the devotion, but in the belief there is a true emotional attachment. An "I love you even if you spit on me" attitude. Believers in any deity get spit on alot, often it makes them try harder. It's their own fault for not having the correct or deep enough faith. I think the same psychological mechanism might exist in other battered relationships where the controlling life giver exerts power and contempt over others. The David Koresh types; Charles Manson, and Jim Jones... self appointed Masters who lord over others that they hold in deep contempt. They are all their own priest and hero rolled into one. They may pay lip service to God but they retain all power unto themselves.

I guess I could say alot more but I'll stop now and give others a chance to chime in with their thoughts.

 

[Fade]

I think the functional difference between a member of the Catholic Church, and a member of, say Heaven's Gate, was the amount of brainwashing the leaders of these two organizations did.

The Catholics, like every religion I've ever encountered, use techniques of persuasion. These usually involve punishment, promise of rewards, and small controls over the lives of it's members. There is also the undeniable force of community that is exerted over each and every one of us. After all, the best (by an astronomical margin!) indicator of what religion a person may belong too is what their parents happen to believe. In effect, each member is instrumental in propogating the organization. Most cults rely on their members to find weak, miserable, or highly gullible friends and family to bring into the flock. Trying to grow a religion from nothing requires more effort, than simply bearing a child into one of the larger and more established ones.

Many people believe that they had a real, conscious choice in their religion. I know this simply isn't true. The vast majority of people on this earth do not choose what they believe. It truly takes an exceptional person to fully alter their assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Consider, take any Westerner raised by spiritually christian (Whether actively or no) people. The idea of there being a god may or may not be reasonable. The idea of there being many gods is simply not feasible. It's silly, right? How could anyone believe in a huge elephant god?

Take an Easterner, raised by spiritually Hindu people, and the idea of a single god is just plain stupid! Not only is religion bored into our heads with unending tautologies, but the idea is repeated SO OFTEN that it becomes reasonable, even if we DON'T believe in it. I myself admit that the idea of a single god sounds more reasonable than many gods. I think they are all silly propositions, but because I have been exposed to The One God so many times, it has had it's effect on me. I doubt you will find many that escape this.

To me, going to church every day is fundamentally no different than being involved with Jim Jones, or any of the other horrible guru's that have come out of nowhere in the history of our species. Sure, average church goer won't willingly accept the poisonous kool-aid right now, but I don't really think it would take a lifetime to change that. Thankfully, mainstream religions tend to not want their followers to suicide, but they do other things that are equally dispicable. The worse thing is, they think there is nothing wrong with it.

Religion doesn't really look too good from my perspective.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm echoing Mecutio in this (maybe not to his liking). There is a mechanism by which humans adopt strong beliefs. The object of the belief is usually not worthy of the devotion, but in the belief there is a true emotional attachment. An "I love you even if you spit on me" attitude. Believers in any deity get spit on alot, often it makes them try harder. It's their own fault for not having the correct or deep enough faith. I think the same psychological mechanism might exist in other battered relationships where the controlling life giver exerts power and contempt over others. The David Koresh types; Charles Manson, and Jim Jones... self appointed Masters who lord over others that they hold in deep contempt. They are all their own priest and hero rolled into one. They may pay lip service to God but they retain all power unto themselves.

Echoing me...hmm...yes and no (my son would say that is my response to everything). Your comments are absolutely in line with the assumption of a (singular) belief mechanism. (in particular, your examples here echo the research in cognitive dissonance, and are arguably quite supported in the literature on belief). But to quibble just a bit...I advanced it as an assumption rather than as a belief. I think it is still a reasonable question whether there is one belief mechanism or several. The notion that there is one mechanism is a very reasonable hypothesis, but I don't yet have the confidence to say it is the best explanation, let alone the only one.

********

Fade, I find myself in the odd position of being considerably more pro-religion than you (or at least less anti-religion). Religion has been, at least in the course of our recorded history, a tremendously successful means by which to govern people. It has been a mechanism to temper our selfishness, to love our fellow humans (by which I mean simply to consider more than simply what is best for ourselves), to think beyond the present. Perhaps I insult religion to treat it pragmatically, but I would suffer the same insult to science. No, it is not the only possible means to this end, but it is the one that has worked in our particular history.

 

[LuxFerum]

Why not more JK's or suicide bombers? A good question...perhaps it is the equivalent of a small evolutionary niche. Why not more spotted owls? Suicide bombers would, I think (speculation alert), be "selected against"--it might be difficult to get to that second generation.

Not really. The ideia of applying natural selection to suicidal tendencies is not correct. They can always commit suicide after reproduction. Almost in the same way that some insects die after copulation. And another problem with that approach is that you would have to have pre-programed ideias in the brain, which don't really make sense, there isn't many things that we are pre-programed, just some reflexs and for learning. Of course we could have some defective brains here and there, but that doesn't explain the vast majority of the cases. Another thing that I find interresting, is that suicide rates are not equally distributed among countries or cities. Implying that is not a mental problem but a social one.

By a technicality, a "cult" is defined as "a new or developing religion". However, I usually extend the definition of "cult" to include many of the negative psychological/authoritarian/"profit at the expense of your followers" behavior of cults.

Nope

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

So, I'd say that Jedi is distinguished from Catholicism in the same way Hinduism is distinguished from Catholicism: That is the basic tenets of the religion.

I would distinguish Jedi from cults because Jedi does not encourage the negative behaviors that accompany cults.

JK is not even good to be a cult. It was never meant to be serious, it is fiction. It is completely different from a religion or a cult. It is self delusion to the point of completely ignoring its origins, which is not far away, it is easy to see that is not something to be take seriously.
Even the founder of the worst cult, can came up with something better, more plausible, and be serious about it, not by distorcing a joke an try to build a cult based on that.

JK is almost the same thing as to say that you are in love with Barbie, a cult is almost the same thing as to be in love with some celebrity, and religion it is almost the same as to be in love with your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband. Some things are good in life, and some are not.

Some people marry celebrities, but no one marry barbie.

 

[Iacchus]

The Catholics, like every religion I've ever encountered, use techniques of persuasion. These usually involve punishment, promise of rewards, and small controls over the lives of it's members.

Sounds to me like driving down the road and getting pulled over by a cop. You really have very little say so in whether he's going to give you a ticket or not.

It seems like no matter who's in control, you still have to abide by the rules, petty or otherwise.

 

[Yahweh]

Some people marry celebrities, but no one marry barbie.

Oh really?

 

[LuxFerum]

Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

Oh really?

Dang!

Ok, lets change it a little bit

Some people have child with celebrities, but no one have child (real person) with barbie.

 

[Mercutio]

Not really. The ideia of applying natural selection to suicidal tendencies is not correct. They can always commit suicide after reproduction. Almost in the same way that some insects die after copulation. And another problem with that approach is that you would have to have pre-programed ideias in the brain, which don't really make sense, there isn't many things that we are pre-programed, just some reflexs and for learning. Of course we could have some defective brains here and there, but that doesn't explain the vast majority of the cases. Another thing that I find interresting, is that suicide rates are not equally distributed among countries or cities. Implying that is not a mental problem but a social one.

You misunderstand me. THe natural selection going on here is not genetic; it does not have to be. Beliefs are transmitted across generations, they vary, and they have differential success. That is all that is required for natural selection. The fact that suicide bombers may promote their ideas in another generation (through learning, not reproduction) is not a deal-killer here; after all, we are not talking about extinction, we are talking about rarity. The idea is that there is a niche for this behavior, but it is not the dominant strategy. There is no need for programming in the brain--that would be necessary only if it were a genetic trait. I do agree with you that it is a social, rather than a biological, phenomenon. That does not preclude a natural selection explanation.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

JK is not even good to be a cult. It was never meant to be serious, it is fiction. It is completely different from a religion or a cult. It is self delusion to the point of completely ignoring its origins, which is not far away, it is easy to see that is not something to be take seriously.

Two quick points.

The origins of Mormonism are equally dumb and nearly as recent, historically speaking. Heck, people believed Smith at the time! The fact that a religion is ridiculous and obviously fraudulent has never stopped one before.

Secondly, the Jedi beliefs were fictional but they were a fictionalised, sci-fi pastiche of taoism and buddhism. Since it has core concepts in common with religions that are still active in the wild (the universal energy field, the requirement to let go of emotions and discursive thought, life after death as an energy being) it's not really surprising that it gets some people where they are going.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

The origins of Mormonism are equally dumb and nearly as recent, historically speaking. Heck, people believed Smith at the time! The fact that a religion is ridiculous and obviously fraudulent has never stopped one before.

I would add that Scientology might be even crazier in it's origin - and space based to match JK.

 

[LuxFerum]

I think the functional difference between a member of the Catholic Church, and a member of, say Heaven's Gate, was the amount of brainwashing the leaders of these two organizations did.

That is a little bit paranoic, don't you think?
All those people brainwashed walking around like zombies, and you and your buddies are the only ones who know the truth.
There is no brainwashing, people beleive in what they want to believe, they are responsable for what they put in their heads, and no one else.

The Catholics, like every religion I've ever encountered, use techniques of persuasion. These usually involve punishment, promise of rewards, and small controls over the lives of it's members. There is also the undeniable force of community that is exerted over each and every one of us.

I don't think they do that, they just tell truth in their point of view, but even if they use some techniques, what is the big deal?
If I try to sell something with the same techniques I won't have the same success that religion did. I can't force something that people don't want.

After all, the best (by an astronomical margin!) indicator of what religion a person may belong too is what their parents happen to believe.

That is true for atheism too.

In effect, each member is instrumental in propogating the organization. Most cults rely on their members to find weak, miserable, or highly gullible friends and family to bring into the flock. Trying to grow a religion from nothing requires more effort, than simply bearing a child into one of the larger and more established ones.

Same thing for atheism, politic parties, nationalities, music style, games, dance, ............

Many people believe that they had a real, conscious choice in their religion. I know this simply isn't true. The vast majority of people on this earth do not choose what they believe. It truly takes an exceptional person to fully alter their assumptions about the nature of the universe.

You are wrong, they do chose their religion. And they are free to choose other anytime.
They choose the same religion of his family for one reason, it is because it works. And it does a fine good job. That is why people tend to change religion only in some problematic part of life.

Consider, take any Westerner raised by spiritually christian (Whether actively or no) people. The idea of there being a god may or may not be reasonable. The idea of there being many gods is simply not feasible. It's silly, right? How could anyone believe in a huge elephant god?

Some people did believe that they would get a ride in a comet.
I don't think that is hard to find some westerner that believe in that.

Take an Easterner, raised by spiritually Hindu people, and the idea of a single god is just plain stupid! Not only is religion bored into our heads with unending tautologies, but the idea is repeated SO OFTEN that it becomes reasonable, even if we DON'T believe in it. I myself admit that the idea of a single god sounds more reasonable than many gods. I think they are all silly propositions, but because I have been exposed to The One God so many times, it has had it's effect on me. I doubt you will find many that escape this.

You assumption of religion as some mind controling organisation is just silly.Sorry, but maybe I was brainwashed too.

To me, going to church every day is fundamentally no different than being involved with Jim Jones, or any of the other horrible guru's that have come out of nowhere in the history of our species. Sure, average church goer won't willingly accept the poisonous kool-aid right now, but I don't really think it would take a lifetime to change that. Thankfully, mainstream religions tend to not want their followers to suicide, but they do other things that are equally dispicable. The worse thing is, they think there is nothing wrong with it.

I think that a paranoic view of the world like yours is much more close to some crazy short lived cults, that religion will ever be.

Religion doesn't really look too good from my perspective.

Change your perspective.

 

[LuxFerum]

Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

Two quick points.

The origins of Mormonism are equally dumb and nearly as recent, historically speaking. Heck, people believed Smith at the time! The fact that a religion is ridiculous and obviously fraudulent has never stopped one before.

But at least their religion is based in something serious, and not in a teen movie.

Secondly, the Jedi beliefs were fictional but they were a fictionalised, sci-fi pastiche of taoism and buddhism. Since it has core concepts in common with religions that are still active in the wild (the universal energy field, the requirement to let go of emotions and discursive thought, life after death as an energy being) it's not really surprising that it gets some people where they are going.

If is that what they whant, they could convert themselfs to taioism of buddhism. Or even if they never heard about those religions, they could start their own religion with the same bases.
To take a explicit fictional characters as real, is clearly wrong.

 

[Kopji]

Mercutio and I had an argument as to how legitimate is to compare the cult of Jedi Knights with the Christians.

I'm partway through an interesting book that claims to be a source of some of Luca's thoughts on creating religions for 'Star Wars'. (Claimed on the book jacket). The title is 'The Hero With a Thousand Faces' by Joseph Campbell. This was an out-of-print 1948 book, (but now currently in reprint at Barnes & Noble).

The book presents religious ideas/myths/archetypes as related to commonly experienced life passages: Birth, puberty, marriage, death, death as birth. Religious myth is seen as a tool for addressing human needs at each 'milepost' of people's lives.

Despite the Jedi's being a fictional group, it was created using tools all religions use, so shares 'family' traits. It is probably ok to compare the Jedi's to Christianity, but I would recommend the book to see why they share a common foundation.

 

[Dancing David]

Very simple:
the principle are the same, the names change as do the virtues, but the principles are the same, especialy as the JK are meant to be a kind of 'organic' religion.

Simple way to tell the two apart.
Mine=religion
Yours=cult