Comparisons between religions and cults.

[Dancing David]

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

Sorry but

Yeah riiight!

The Mormons and the Jedi are exactly as serious as each other!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

A religion is a cult that has existed long enough to garner a substantial amount of secular mitigation.

 

[The idea]

[...] 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. [...]

I'm not going to claim that JK is a good religion or even a religion, but I wonder what you would say if a physics hobbyist wrote a novel about fictional future developments in physics and technology and some physicists borrowed substantive physics ideas from the novel. Would you automatically conclude that those physicists must be suffering from (self) delusions?

 

[Cleopatra]

I don't see what the post above has to do with the topic. Please stay on topic.

 

[Cleopatra]

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

I think it is fair to say that.
Why not more JK's or suicide bombers? A good question...perhaps it is the equivalent of a small evolutionary niche.

Oh yes I forgot about that. I remember that in another forum somebody claimed that Jews have developped a sense of collective guilt and a sense of collectivefeeling of being chased. If I remember well from school though evolution needs thousands of years to occur. I remember this since I was debating racists in another forum who asked me why black people haven't changed their color since they migrated (sic) to North America. If I remember well the color needs around 400.000 years to change. The gene of mallaria though needs less.
Has the science of psychology determined how psychological phaenomena behave in terms of time. I mean in how many centuries Christians and Jedi Knights will get over their illusions?

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)

True but while I am waiting to learn how psychological phaenomena behave in time the only counter-argument I can find is 1. Media in the time of Paul didn't exist to spread his ideas fast.2. Paul's ( Christianity) ideas cover more effectively the real needs of various people . Ooops I forgot, you don't make this distinction so you will reject this argument on principle.

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.

No it's not insulting this is how things are. Well I can't help to add though that history teaches us that whenever some humans treated other humans as laboratory animals things didn't turn out well. I have faith in the God of Science though.

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.

I don't know. Before the day before yesterday I though that this is what logic dictated it seems that it is not.

 

[The idea]

I don't see what the post above has to do with the topic. Please stay on topic.

Are you asking for an explanation as to why it is or may be on topic or are you asserting that it is not on topic?

 

[Cleopatra]

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.

Well, even the Pope has accepted the evolution and the Greek Church has recognized it long ago. The Greek Church has established a section of Bioethics to discuss issues that pop-up from the latest developments in science.

Atheists do not even get into the trouble of discussing bio-ethics. If you don't believe me read the threads in this forum. Name hamburger eating as ethics and you will see a chorus of atheists bashing eating hamburgers on principle.

In this forum I have read that eating the corpse of dead people is ok, eating your dead dog is ok, necrophilia is not bad if you exclude the problem of hygene and of course incest is an old fashioned religious concept of social structure.

So, who is really progressed. The atheists who claim that there is no such a thing as incest or the Pope that has accepted evolution and he still gives hope to million of people.

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.

So does the President of USA. He and the citizens of his country behave as if they are God. How can we talk about secular states when the concept of the nation is worshipped like a God? How can you talk about secular states when flag burning in many modern secular states is a crime? Not to say that today's USA President is the son of a previous President. Has anybody said anything about Pharaohs?

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.

Exactly. So, where do we conclude? That there is no such a thing as a non-theist way of thinking? This is what I personally believe, we are all believers in something , some of us are more brave to admit it.

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.

A very astute example. This is how modern secular states behave in terms of foreign relations: french-fries that are re-named freedom fries-- I wonder why this example came to my mind, atheists that cannot even agree on what atheism is like different sects of the same religion and I could go on like that for hours ...

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

What? Do you know how many people, how many nations survived in history because they believed in God? Do you know how many people manage to survive illness,to cope with losses and difficulties just by believing and this is an option that religion has given to people. Which is atheism's contribution in comforting people, in helping them overcoming difficulties in giving them hope just to continue living. Which is atheism's contribution in History? If you say nothing then I will have to ask you how atheists dare to criticize those who believe.

but in the belief there is a true emotional attachment. An "I love you even if you spit on me" attitude.

BTW a very wise church father has equated the religious belief to a love affair and he lived centuries before Freud

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.

No you are wrong. The priest of my neighborhood gives people a reason to live, not a reason to die.

 

[Atlas]

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

True but while I am waiting to learn how psychological phaenomena behave in time the only counter-argument I can find is 1. Media in the time of Paul didn't exist to spread his ideas fast.2. Paul's ( Christianity) ideas cover more effectively the real needs of various people . Ooops I forgot, you don't make this distinction so you will reject this argument on principle.

Cleo,

I do think the idea of "needs" is relevant here. Apart from the truth of religion, it seems to "evolve" to fit the culture that it is in and the nature of the times. Christians today do not worship in the way the Christians of Peter and Paul's time. I think you agreed to that idea in your opening post with the words there is a point where the religious feeling starts to differ among groups.Now I've got a thing about Scientologists that registers on my lunacy meter just like Applewhite and Heaven's Gate. But putting that aside, I wonder if the "needs" of people in affluent societies may have shifted from the people Paul was reaching out to.

Perhaps we are entering an age of diversion. You touched on it in the post I quoted above when you mentioned the media. I'm thinking about the phenomenon of Flash Mobs.

They appear as if on command from the voice of God and "perform" a ritual and then disappear. To me it is something that could "evolve" over time into a "religion". If people disconnect from the idea that a person is just making ritual up, and if the government decides to stamp out the practice, there might be enough emotional investment for people to believe that it matters, or it is Good, or even that God has called them to it.

No matter how my personal lunacy meter pegs, people band together in custom and ritual because they believe that it enhances there life in some mystical, spiritual, ineffable way. I guess in that regard I think it is fair, perhaps even necessary, to compare these modern congregations to traditional ones, if only to identify the distinctions between them that make one or the other preferred.

 

[Mercutio]

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

Oh yes I forgot about that. I remember that in another forum somebody claimed that Jews have developped a sense of collective guilt and a sense of collectivefeeling of being chased. If I remember well from school though evolution needs thousands of years to occur. I remember this since I was debating racists in another forum who asked me why black people haven't changed their color since they migrated (sic) to North America. If I remember well the color needs around 400.000 years to change. The gene of mallaria though needs less.
Has the science of psychology determined how psychological phaenomena behave in terms of time. I mean in how many centuries Christians and Jedi Knights will get over their illusions?

What you are asking here is "how quickly do things evolve?" The answer must always be "it depends". What is evolving, and under what conditions? Different animal species evolve biologically at different rates; different cultural practices evolve socially (with not genes, but teaching, as the mechanism of transfer from generation to generation) at different rates. I think perhaps historians are in a better position to answer your last question than are psychologists. My own answer would be "why do you think this must happen?" It is arguably a very useful illusion, one which has served a very practical purpose over our history. Social cognition research has identified many biases in our perceptual processes. While each of these could be considered an illusion, each has adaptive value (for instance, we appear to be biased toward seeing connections or correlations; it is better to see something that is not really there than it is to miss something that really is there, so our perceptual systems are biased that way.)

True but while I am waiting to learn how psychological phaenomena behave in time the only counter-argument I can find is 1. Media in the time of Paul didn't exist to spread his ideas fast.2. Paul's ( Christianity) ideas cover more effectively the real needs of various people . Ooops I forgot, you don't make this distinction so you will reject this argument on principle.

As I say above, the fact that something is illusory does not mean it is useless. An example, by Douglas Adams, in his speechIs there an artificial God?, is money:

Money is a completely fictitious entity, but it’s very powerful in our world; we each have wallets, which have got notes in them, but what can those notes do? You can’t breed them, you can’t stir fry them, you can’t live in them, there’s absolutely nothing you can do with them that’s any use, other than exchange them with each other—and as soon as we exchange them with each other all sots of powerful things happen, because it’s a fiction that we’ve all subscribed to. We don’t think this is wrong or right, good or bad; but the thing is that if money vanished the entire co-operative structure that we have would implode, but if we were all to vanish,
money would simply vanish too. Money has no meaning outside ourselves, it is something that we have created that has a powerful shaping effect on the world, because its something we all subscribe to.

Religious belief has been tremendously useful over our history.

No it's not insulting this is how things are. Well I can't help to add though that history teaches us that whenever some humans treated other humans as laboratory animals things didn't turn out well. I have faith in the God of Science though.

"whenever"? I would say "sometimes". I would like to think that clinical trials have helped us with polio, smallpox, measles, etc...

I don't know. Before the day before yesterday I though that this is what logic dictated it seems that it is not.

I honestly do not know.

 

[Cleopatra]

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.

So are you suggesting that if somebody used on me sophisticated methods of persuasion he could turn me into a Heaven's Gate believer?

Most cults rely on their members to find weak, miserable, or highly gullible friends and family to bring into the flock.

I am sure that you can name many persons that can be described in many ways other than "weak", " Highly gullible" and "miserable". I try to fit in your description the founder of modern skepticism, Martin Gardner but for some reason I fail. There are many many people who changed History with their scientific breakethroughts and they didn't hesitate to declare that they believe in God. Those people can hardly fit in your description as well. On the other hand I try to find people that changed the History and they were declared atheists. Funny. Only actors and entertainers come to my mind.

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.

I agree with you. There must be a kind of mechanism behind that. I know people that declare that they are skeptics and yet they behave like mujahideens of skepticism, atheists that are so certain about their beliefs that they raise their kids as militant atheists although they accuse their parents of using methods of persuasion on them. I guess it is the human nature.

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 have given the explanation previously by talking about cultural models and the influence of the society each of use grows in.

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.

This is exactly what religious people say about people like you, about people that never goto church. It seems that you have more things in common with the religious fanatics than me who declares a fideist.

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.

So I guess that this is a reply to the first question I posed to you in this post. All the Christians have the potential to become killers or to commit suicide.

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.

As Penn said they are F***** retards. What do you expect.

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

Well, this is how life goes. Orthodox hate Catholics, Muslims hate Jews and vice-verca and Atheists hate them all. Each religion has the sperm of hatred in it and each religion from its perspective thinks that other people's religion doesn't look too good.

 

[Mercutio]

In this forum I have read that eating the corpse of dead people is ok, eating your dead dog is ok, necrophilia is not bad if you exclude the problem of hygene and of course incest is an old fashioned religious concept of social structure.

but there have also been threads examining morality from an atheist view which do not come to these conclusions! Please do not tar all atheists with the same brush! (and yes, I recognise the irony in that request in a thread devoted to seeing similarities in all religion, but bear with me, I will explain later)

So does the President of USA. He and the citizens of his country behave as if they are God. How can we talk about secular states when the concept of the nation is worshipped like a God? How can you talk about secular states when flag burning in many modern secular states is a crime? Not to say that today's USA President is the son of a previous President. Has anybody said anything about Pharaohs? Exactly. So, where do we conclude? That there is no such a thing as a non-theist way of thinking? This is what I personally believe, we are all believers in something , some of us are more brave to admit it. A very astute example. This is how modern secular states behave in terms of foreign relations: french-fries that are re-named freedom fries-- I wonder why this example came to my mind, atheists that cannot even agree on what atheism is like different sects of the same religion and I could go on like that for hours ...

Color highlighting mine...This is my point exactly; I could not have phrased it better. Our beliefs (human beliefs, not religious or atheist or skeptical or bright or soccer-fan or any subset) make us all "believers" in something.

What? Do you know how many people, how many nations survived in history because they believed in God? Do you know how many people manage to survive illness,to cope with losses and difficulties just by believing and this is an option that religion has given to people. Which is atheism's contribution in comforting people, in helping them overcoming difficulties in giving them hope just to continue living. Which is atheism's contribution in History? If you say nothing then I will have to ask you how atheists dare to criticize those who believe.
BTW a very wise church father has equated the religious belief to a love affair and he lived centuries before Freud No you are wrong. The priest of my neighborhood gives people a reason to live, not a reason to die.

I agree with every bit of this. (although, in fairness, atheism is not organised, so "atheism's contribution" is an odd term)

 

[Mercutio]

So I guess that this is a reply to the first question I posed to you in this post. All the Christians have the potential to become killers or to commit suicide.

Look at Stanley Milgram's "Obedience" research. Virtually anyone, under the proper circumstances, can be a killer. No personality or personal variable was as good a predictor as was the experimental situation they were in. for those unfamiliar with Milgram

When I show Milgram's work to my students, they invariably think they would not be the one to go all the way and shock an innocent person with 450 volts; in the initial experiments, 65% did this. We don't like to think of ourselves as subject to the same forces we are shocked at (no pun intended) in others. So we distance ourselves... when in fact we are very similar. We point to the evil or the weakness in others...it is in ourselves as well.

 

[Cleopatra]

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

My own answer would be "why do you think this must happen?" It is arguably a very useful illusion, one which has served a very practical purpose over our history. Social cognition research has identified many biases in our perceptual processes. While each of these could be considered an illusion, each has adaptive value (for instance, we appear to be biased toward seeing connections or correlations; it is better to see something that is not really there than it is to miss something that really is there, so our perceptual systems are biased that way.)

I don't know. I am not very familiar with the theories of social evolution or to put it in a different way, I am not familiar with theories that explain how traits of a group ( national or religious) evolve in generations and how they become part of our genetic code, assuming that this thing happens.

As I say above, the fact that something is illusory does not mean it is useless.

Si non e vero e ben trovato. This is exactly my theory. If Religion didn't exist we should have invented it anyway.

Religious belief has been tremendously useful over our history.

I know that. It is useful in my everyday life anyway. Every day before unlocking the door of my office I whisper " Please God don't let me eat somebody alive today". I need to believe that we are not super-humans, I need to believe in the existence of the universal justice , I need to believe that if I am unfair to people I will pay for it, otherwise I am sorry to say it, I know how ugly will appear but it is true, I know that if I don't believe in those principles and I let myself admire how intelligent and educated I am and how much power springs from my intelligence and education ( plus my endurance to difficulties) I will be able to harm many people.If I don't believe in the devine justice I will start believing what many atheists seem to believe, I will start considering myself as bright. I need every possible help in order not to start considering myself as a bright. I admire and partly I am envious of those who don't need this kind of help but most of all I am envious of people who are not ashamed to describe themselves as brights....

"whenever"? I would say "sometimes". I would like to think that clinical trials have helped us with polio, smallpox, measles, etc...

Yes I was talking about other kind of experiments.

I honestly do not know.

I honestly think that you should have become a diplomat. Maybe it's your type of intelligence that makes the existence of God unnecessary in your dealings with people but it is comforting for me to believe that diplomats are useful only after some other people decide to take their swords out of their sheath and get into the battle with religious devotion.Credo consolans as Shermer says. Oh well.

 

[Atlas]

Cleo, thanks for your response.

By way of full disclosure I will admit to atheist leanings. However, my life is filled with spiritual feeling. I've flailed about in different forms of Christianity and found Buddhist thought offered some very satisfactory insights as well. I left nothing behind when I changed my thinking. Nothing, except the dogma and the authoritarian proclamations. That is to say, at one point in my life, faith, God, and religion were inspirational and enhanced my view of my existence in terms of hope and eternity. There was an intellectual penalty I couldn't escape but that was a tradeoff for the upside. Besides, others didn't necessarily pay that penalty.

That said, I find topics like this fascinating and often difficult to discuss without giving offense. I try to guard against it but sometimes it shows. Call me on it and I'll usually apologize. I gain from being able to discuss these things freely, not defensively, and I want others to feel that way too.

That being said, I'll comment on a few of the issues you raised.

Originally posted by Cleopatra In this forum I have read that eating the corpse of dead people is ok, eating your dead dog is ok, necrophilia is not bad if you exclude the problem of hygene and of course incest is an old fashioned religious concept of social structure.

So, who is really progressed. The atheists who claim that there is no such a thing as incest or the Pope that has accepted evolution and he still gives hope to million of people.

You picked up an unintended inference from my thought. I was merely pointing out that humans attach great weight to whatever they perceive to be their Life Giver. Whether that is the Buffalo, the Ocean, or God. Yes, I was alluding to a kind of equivalence, but at this point I was speaking about them conceptually, and how they were concepts that had an ability to sustain a culture.

On your points: The Church has changed it's positions to be accepting of scientific explanations in preference to some of it's fundamental "truths". The Ptolemaic Celestial Spheres have been replaced with a Copernican and allowing for an Einsteinian Cosmology, and evolution is treated more factually that Adam and Eve. I appreciated that growing up as a Catholic. Some of my Christian companions of other faiths had "weird" ideas though.

Originally posted by Cleopatra So does the President of USA. He and the citizens of his country behave as if they are God. How can we talk about secular states when the concept of the nation is worshipped like a God? How can you talk about secular states when flag burning in many modern secular states is a crime? Not to say that today's USA President is the son of a previous President. Has anybody said anything about Pharaohs?

First, my reference to the Pharaoh was an extension of my first point that people will deify their perceived Life Giver. I meant to extend the idea that people can engage in a life sustaining belief pattern for centuries that is not be based on reality. Even the Pharaoh came to believe that he was, at least, part god.

On your point about Bush and American nationalism. I don't want to address it politically. But it is a real phenomenon that I have something to say about. For me, there is a Master Concept - higher even than God - that is part of the human makeup. I call it the Ideal but not in the Platonic sense. For me the Ideal is an amalgam of God, Country, Family, Freedom, Self - those things, I will say it this way, that we will die for. We all have the Master Concept: Ideal; atheist, religionist and everyone else. In some of us, Family is the large idea; in some others, Freedom; and in others, it is God. The Ideal is that concept against which we filter our world and which informs our action. Obviously I build this opinion entirely on conjecture. I hold it because it is philosophically satisfying and to me, inclusive.

Originally posted by Cleopatra So, where do we conclude? That there is no such a thing as a non-theist way of thinking? This is what I personally believe, we are all believers in something , some of us are more brave to admit it.

Agreed. I think this might, in some way, affirm my conceptual representation of the Ideal.

Originally posted by Cleopatra A very astute example. This is how modern secular states behave in terms of foreign relations: french-fries that are re-named freedom fries-- I wonder why this example came to my mind, atheists that cannot even agree on what atheism is like different sects of the same religion and I could go on like that for hours ...

Thanks. What brought it to mind? Well, I was fishing about for examples of emotionally structured belief patterns. So sports teams, rock bands, movie cults, and yes, nationalism can substitute for religious fervor in certain circumstances when perhaps Maslowe's hierarchy allows them. Can I use Maslowe in this context? I was thinking about him in regard to my previous post concerning shifting cultural "needs" of affluent societies where I spoke of Flash Mob phenomena.

Originally posted by Cleopatra What? Do you know how many people, how many nations survived in history because they believed in God? Do you know how many people manage to survive illness,to cope with losses and difficulties just by believing and this is an option that religion has given to people. Which is atheism's contribution in comforting people, in helping them overcoming difficulties in giving them hope just to continue living. Which is atheism's contribution in History? If you say nothing then I will have to ask you how atheists dare to criticize those who believe.

I seem to have hit a nerve with my comment that often, the object of a devotee's devotion is unworthy of it. You took it as a slam at your own religious belief but the context of the comment was less directed. A person doesn't reach his 5th decade without the experience of several of life's darkest offerings. I know of hopelessness and fear. Not like some, but enough to have cast about for saving grace. So it is that I have reasoned that strong emotions trump reason in the realm of belief. Strong emotions and their attachment to virtually any life sustaining concept, fruitful or not, is the mechanism of belief, in my opinion.

Atheism's contribution to history? Well, this might not be a very satisfying answer for you. First and foremost, Atheists have kids and love them just as much as anyone else. But I wish to raise this from another angle. To me there is such a thing as operational atheism that is an equivalent of hypocritical religiosity. I think that narcissistic rulers meet this definition and I think history is replete with them. The divine right of the European kings would be an example without being specific. Still, as with the Church, there is some good and some bad history that is made. Certain Popes too, were not holy men. Likewise, Science has been wielded well by Atheists and religionists alike. It is difficult at times to identify who might have leaned toward atheism because to admit to such a thing meant social ostracism. But rebellions in thought like the Renaissance contained at least some of the seeds of atheism in that they stood in opposition to respected Church doctrine. My argument here may be weak but I'm sure that, in their hearts, many of these artists and artisans agreed with this sentiment from Thomas Edison: Religion is all bunk. That is to say, they may have held faith in some regard but the idea that religion is bunk is one of the seeds of atheism. I know that's arguable. I don't intend to argue it. I hope you'll find my meaning there. I'm well aware that religion is not God.

Originally posted by Cleopatra BTW a very wise church father has equated the religious belief to a love affair and he lived centuries before Freud

Ever since a nun told me that she was married to Jesus - I had a concept of this.

Originally posted by Cleopatra No you are wrong. The priest of my neighborhood gives people a reason to live, not a reason to die.

Well, you know your priest better than I. Usually they offer explanations of the tragedies of life and celebrate the wonders like marriage and birth. They admonish often to live well. But if I remember my catechism, we were made to know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with Him in the next. Is that what you mean by a reason to live or were saying that he is an example to the community in the way he lives?

Early Judaism was strictly a religion of the living. The dead stayed dead. That notion evolved. While I admit that your priest isn't in the business of offering reasons to die, who really needs one, after all? I would like to hear about the reason to live that would be different from an atheist's.

 

[LuxFerum]

Re: Re: Comparisons between religions and cults.

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.

Not exactly. There is no sense in applying natural selection in an ideia because ideias don't have the same behavior as a living entity. Ideas don't have to be alive to be successful. They can go on extintion, and reappear centuries later. They can even coexist with another ideia completely opposed to it in the same brain.
The real question is why would someone adopt or abandon an ideia?
Which problem the new ideia will solve that the older didn't?

Some ideias are like virus, that they cannot be the dominant ideia in any environment, or they will destroy their environment. They only live as an by being a parasite in some more coherent ideia.
And like viruses that are typically not considered living organisms, those parasite theory, shouldn't be considered as a cult.

That is why we don't have more suicide bombers or JK, because those ideias will only be accepted in some very fragile and susceptible(by any reason) mind. You can try to infect an healt brain with it but you will fail.

 

[Mercutio]

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

Not exactly. There is no sense in applying natural selection in an idea because ideas don't have the same behavior as a living entity. Ideas don't have to be alive to be successful. They can go on extinction, and reappear centuries later. They can even coexist with another idea completely opposed to it in the same brain.
The real question is why would someone adopt or abandon an idea?
Which problem the new idea will solve that the older didn't?

Some ideas are like virus, that they cannot be the dominant idea in any environment, or they will destroy their environment. They only live as an by being a parasite in some more coherent idea.
And like viruses that are typically not considered living organisms, those parasite theory, shouldn't be considered as a cult.

That is why we don't have more suicide bombers or JK, because those ideas will only be accepted in some very fragile and susceptible(by any reason) mind. You can try to infect an healthy brain with it but you will fail.

I must disagree on a couple of things. First off, (my fault) although I did speak of natural selection of ideas, of course (being me) I meant behaviors. And I would argue that they can be spoken of as evolving by natural selection, since they fit the three criteria Darwin spoke of (parent-offspring similarity, variability within a population, and differential success). That the transmission is by teaching or imitation rather than genes is immaterial.

They (I will speak of ideas and behavior together here, since you use "ideas") can, of course, coexist with opposed ideas or behaviors within the same individual--because our behavior takes place under different stimulus situations, it is certainly possible, and highly adaptive, to practice different behaviors in response to the different situations (I use "response" colloquially, not in the sense of a reflex). Just as the population of one species of animal may have several different reproductive strategies that coexist, we have different behaviors (or ideas) that each may have their time in the sun. (of course, multiple strategies or behaviors existing concurrently is a very adaptive characteristic, as greater flexibility is given) Yes, these ideas or behaviors can be dormant for decades or longer...and emerge again in at least two ways--through direct transmission (that is, an old idea is preserved in a book, much as genetic material might be cryogenically saved) or through convergent evolution (an idea or behavior that works once might be independently discovered a second time).

Viri may or may not be considered living things, but they are certainly subject to natural selection!

I am troubled by your last statement. I disagree that it takes a fragile or susceptible mind to become a suicide bomber. I would say a healthy brain or mind is also sucsceptible, and that while individual differences may play a part, far more is explained by the power of the situation. We have too many examples of people giving their lives to try to kill others...from Kamikaze pilots as the closest to suicide bombers in my thoughts, to the Allied forces in WWI trench warfare sending wave after wave of men into machine-gun fire. Many of these men knew they would likely die...this is at least the distant cousin of the suicide bomber (note: I am doing exactly what Cleopatra denounced, and am separating the act from its situation. I do not pretend that these actions are morally similar, I only point out that they involve individuals trying to kill other individuals, and knowing that they will die in the attempt. My meaning is simply that extraordinary circumstances can lead to extraordinary behavior. Even among normal, healthy, strong individuals.)

When I speak of the Milgram research to my classes, I get the feeling that they do not want to know that "there but for the grace of god go I"; they would rather think that they are immune to the sort of pressures that would make someone into a suicide bomber. Perhaps they are. Milgram suggests that we cannot know. I personally would rather admit that I could be manipulated in that manner; in admitting this, I can prepare to resist. If I think myself naturally immune, why get the vaccine? Knowing the worst about human nature allows one to prepare for the worst.

 

[LuxFerum]

I must disagree on a couple of things. First off, (my fault) although I did speak of natural selection of ideas, of course (being me) I meant behaviors. And I would argue that they can be spoken of as evolving by natural selection, since they fit the three criteria Darwin spoke of (parent-offspring similarity, variability within a population, and differential success). That the transmission is by teaching or imitation rather than genes is immaterial.

From here

Natural selection can be expressed as the following general law (taken from the conclusion of The Origin of Species):


1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
3. IF there is variability of traits, and
4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive
The result is the evolution of species.


Note that this is a continuing process -- it accounts for how species change, and can account for both the extinction of one species and the creation of a new one.

1. You can't reproduce behavior or ideias, only if by that you mean pass to another generation. But that is not necessary. Like I said before those ideas don't need to be alive. You could wipe out every trace of an ideia, but that will not stop someone from having that same ideia, years later, from nothing.
2. Some new ideias have some traits from another one, but they are intrinsically the same. You can't have a mix between pacifism and whatever goes in Bin laden mind. Or whe will have to say that BL is a pacifist when he is not killing or planning to kill.
3. Ok.
4. Nope, there is enough space for all kinds of behavior and ideias, since they are not competing for something, they can coexist.
5. Another problem, ideas don't die out.
6. Ideas don't need to adapt to the environment. Sometimes because ideias have the goal to change the environment.

If you really want to analise ideias with the natural selection theory, you will have to build up a paradigm of how ideias interact with one another, how exactly one ideia overcome another one, how they appear and disapear. For living things that is simple, life and death, reproduction and competition for the resources. There isn't a clear analogy for the world of ideias.

Viri may or may not be considered living things, but they are certainly subject to natural selection!

Yes, but they will ever be just a parasite in a more developed specie, not because natural selection told him so, but for its intrinsical characteristics.

I am troubled by your last statement. I disagree that it takes a fragile or susceptible mind to become a suicide bomber. I would say a healthy brain or mind is also sucsceptible, and that while individual differences may play a part, far more is explained by the power of the situation.

I disagree. In the same way that our skin protec us from infection, a healthy brain protect us from extremistc views.
The only way to get an infection is by making holes in the skin to make it suceptible to microorganism. Same thing for the brain, you can only get fragile when you are under a very stressful situation. That is the breach that an ideia needs to infect someone.
You say that a healthy brain is sucsceptible, I say that a healt brain can be damaged and became sucsceptible.

We have too many examples of people giving their lives to try to kill others...from Kamikaze pilots as the closest to suicide bombers in my thoughts, to the Allied forces in WWI trench warfare sending wave after wave of men into machine-gun fire. Many of these men knew they would likely die...this is at least the distant cousin of the suicide bomber (note: I am doing exactly what Cleopatra denounced, and am separating the act from its situation. I do not pretend that these actions are morally similar, I only point out that they involve individuals trying to kill other individuals, and knowing that they will die in the attempt. My meaning is simply that extraordinary circumstances can lead to extraordinary behavior. Even among normal, healthy, strong individuals.)

The problem is, that we don't need extraordinary circumstances.
Sometimes those extraordinary circumstances will only exist in someones mind, or not even exist at all. I include here serial killers and people who get a gun and shot everyone in the work, school and then commit suicide. Why the same circumstances affect so differently one group of people and not another?
Was that heritage? I don't think so.

When I speak of the Milgram research to my classes, I get the feeling that they do not want to know that "there but for the grace of god go I"; they would rather think that they are immune to the sort of pressures that would make someone into a suicide bomber.

Im sorry, but the analogy of the pressure of shocking someone(not against his will), in a controlated experiment and the pressure to blow yourself up with others(against theirs will) is just silly.
I would shock the guy even if he got the right answers just for fun.

 

[Cleopatra]

Yesterday TLN told me in PaltTalk about the new book of Shermer. Hmmmm. I have observed that the new spin among atheists and agnostics is to try to persuade us that all the manifestations of religiosity are not really religious phaenomena but it's religion that adopted them because they fit well in the theory.

Right.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Given the vast generalizations inherent to a discussion of this nature, I am going to tread very carefully and only weigh in with my own system of belief, which happens to be atheistic in nature.

I don't berate anyone's beliefs, since it has a tendancy to help them deal with very stressful situations or deal with grief, etc.

I do believe that, no matter what the belief system, those beliefs should always be held in a skeptical eye.

I draw a line between faith and blind faith. What CLeo seems to possess is faith. I have a great deal of respect for that, whether I agree with it or not.

The people who worry me are the people who have faith but never question the reasons behind them. Those are the people I would designate as being cult members, regardless of what church they belong to.

I find (from my own experience) that those who will not allow their faith to be questionsed are the ones who are most easily manipulated into drinking the Kool Aid or strapping on the explosive vest.

These beliefs are not always religious in nature, either. They could stem from nationalism or other political dictates. I've even seen some sports fans who were on the verge of this type of extremism.

So, really, to me, the issue is not whether Christians can be equated with other cults, but rather, are there Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, etc) who are practitionars of their religion for the same reason cultists pratice theirs.

 

[Graham]

Hi Cleopatra, I think I will respond directly to this post, if you don’t mind, as it is a good starting point for what I want to say.

Well, even the Pope has accepted the evolution and the Greek Church has recognized it long ago. The Greek Church has established a section of Bioethics to discuss issues that pop-up from the latest developments in science.

Atheists do not even get into the trouble of discussing bio-ethics. If you don't believe me read the threads in this forum. Name hamburger eating as ethics and you will see a chorus of atheists bashing eating hamburgers on principle.

In this forum I have read that eating the corpse of dead people is ok, eating your dead dog is ok, necrophilia is not bad if you exclude the problem of hygene and of course incest is an old fashioned religious concept of social structure.

So, who is really progressed. The atheists who claim that there is no such a thing as incest or the Pope that has accepted evolution and he still gives hope to million of people.

IMO, there are a number of major problems with your reasoning in this paragraph

Beginning simply with the facts, as follows:

1) You state that “The pope has accepted evolution” as an example that religion is not disconnected from the real world.
2) You cite the example of the Greek Orthodox bioethics committee as evidence that religions are tackling real-world problems
3) You refer to “threads on this forum” as an example that atheists do not consider issues of bioethics (and, I believe, by implication that atheists are less concerned with ethical issues than religious people)

Each of these statements can be knocked out with simples facts and counter examples.

1) The Catholic Church insists that HIV can be transmitted through pores in condoms, despite this being clearly bunkum. In this instance, religion is disconnected from the real world. Further, whilst Catholic acceptance of evolution is a commendable triumph of common sense over dogma, how many other dogmatic beliefs do they continue to retain in the face of scientific evidence? Even if the answer were none, could the same be said of all the other religions in the world or even the majority of them? If only the Catholic and Orthodox churches amongst all the churches in the world accept evolution (and I’m not saying this is the case, merely exploring the value of your example) would this mean that religion is general is connected/disconnected from the real world?
2) The Greek Orthodox bioethics committee is a commendable endeavour. Again, however, the Greek Orthodox faith is but one among many, many others. Further, what proportion of those others have similar committees? What conclusions do these committees reach and on what basis? Are the issues decided on the basis of science or compatibility with dogma? If there was an issue that challenged a central tenant of Orthodox faith but was clearly scientifically correct, what conclusion would the committee reach, do you think?
3) This last statement is clearly rubbish (sorry). First of all, a fair proportion of posters here are not atheists but deists, Christians, muslims and/or you-name-its. Therefore any discussion in this forum has to be considered as much the responsibility of the religious as the non-religious. Secondly, this forum is supposed to be dedicated to critical thinking. The application of critical, logical thinking to issues such as incest often produces results that do not jive with our preconceptions. For instance, whilst I personally find the idea of incest hideous, I have followed many discussions on the subject and cannot find a logical basis for this feeling. I still wouldn’t do it, nor would I teach my children to do it but in a critical thinking forum, unsubstantiated feelings should be left at the door to be collected upon leaving. Many of the better posters here are obviously capable of doing that. Thirdly, your contention that JREF posters (since we have established that we are not all atheists) do not get into the trouble of discussing ethics is clearly false. To return to the example of incest once again, the last time Rikzilla brought this up in P&CE, the thread ran to many, many pages (I can’t find it now though – perhaps it has been pruned?). Whether you agree with how the discussion progressed or not, you cannot argue that the matter was not discussed.

Which leads me on to my main point – your comparison of “the religious” with “atheists”. This comparison is doomed to failure on two grounds, IMO:

1) Each religion (Christian/Muslim/Hindu) and each denomination (Methodist/Catholic or Sunni/Shiite) can be as different from the next as religious is from non-religious. For instance, many of the people I know from the local Methodist church would have far more in common with me (in terms of outlook, ethics, lifestyle, etc) than the would with the Hare Krishnas at the temple around the corner.

Therefore it is not only wrong to lump all believers in some form of religion together it is equally wrong to distance the atheist division from the others by a greater degree of separation simply by default.

2) Whilst religious people are bound by a common belief in something, there is no such common belief that binds all atheists.

Atheists do not believe in “no-god” because there is no god to not believe in. Belief is not required.

Many different atheists believe in many different things (concrete things like family and friends, for instance, or more conceptual things like “justice” and “honour”). Some atheists believe in these things to the point where their belief might be considered a dogma or even a religion but equally many do not. There is no requirement for atheists to also be skeptcs, there is no requirement for atheists to be anything except, by definition, non-believers.

Therefore to compare “Religious” with “Atheists” is pointless because, not only are the various religions so different from each other as to be unsuitable to form into a single set, so are the atheists!

Sorry if my reply got a little rambling, I hope my point is somewhat clear.

Graham