Theists, if a charlatan existed...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

 

[danieldemol]

In a false religion we may see
-the rejection of science
-coercive behaviour

 

[Trailblazer]

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

I agree that this is what we would see in a charlatan who wanted to create a false religion.

What else would we see in a false religion?

We have to look at motives whenever someone does something like this. What would be the motive for creating a false religion that people would follow?

A charlatan creating a false religion would have certain personal characteristics. He would be selfish and he would create a religion that was self-aggrandizing. He would want people to worship him rather than God and he would probably want to get something for himself; like fame, fortune, or even sex (many false prophets have been sex abusers). He would probably want to live high on the hog, in a palatial mansion, not live with meager means.

The charlatan would not be content with a few followers; he would want many followers, because he would see this as a reflection of his success, in an arrogant egotistical manner.

The charlatan would not encourage people to investigate his religion before they believed in it, but rather he would tell them to believe it on faith alone. He would tell them not to look at any other religions and he would tell them all other religions are false and that his religion was the “only way.”

The charlatan would not do anything that required any personal sacrifices and he would squelch anyone who opposed him and not tolerate any abuse. He would use violence and force if necessary in order to deal with anyone who opposed his religion.

Any scriptures of this religion would be self-aggrandizing and they would not promote worshiping a God but rather promote worship of the charlatan.

 

[Howard Is]

There would be shaming, perhaps even persecution, of non-believers.
Conversely, the faithful would be lauded as so superior to non-believers as to be in a class above the dross of ignorant humanity.

Marriage to non-believers would be forbidden.

Descriptions of non-believers would be insulting. They would have a name which implied degeneracy, or even evil,

Apostates would be reviled, and banished from interaction with believers,

Doubt regarding the prophet, or guru, would be considered a sign of moral rectitude, or even demonic possession.

Believers would be taught that any good qualities they may have are a boon from the teachings and influence of the Grand Poobah, and any negative qualities would be seen as evidence of their need to submit.

Study, or interest in, any other teaching would be viewed as ‘backsliding’.

 

[Heyo]

Sorry if I don't answer the question but I have a more interesting one (at least for me
We know how cultists behave and others have given examples enough. But what if the "charlatan" was just delusional? He wouldn't do it for personal gain and all the signs of the typical cultist wouldn't apply. He could be genuinely beneficial and humble and even appear to be wise - and be even more convincing because of that. He would, of course, reject any tests because "the religion is built on faith, not on proof or evidence".
How can we know that such a person is really a messenger or just delusional?

 

[epronovost]

A charlatan's religion requires from the faithful to pay a tithe of substantial size.

 

[Howard Is]

The thought occurred to me that the techniques we are attributing to religious charlatans are true of all charismatic psychopaths, including politicians and corporate CEOs.
The style and details may vary, but the dynamics are much the same.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry if I don't answer the question but I have a more interesting one (at least for me
We know how cultists behave and others have given examples enough. But what if the "charlatan" was just delusional? He wouldn't do it for personal gain and all the signs of the typical cultist wouldn't apply. He could be genuinely beneficial and humble and even appear to be wise - and be even more convincing because of that. He would, of course, reject any tests because "the religion is built on faith, not on proof or evidence".
How can we know that such a person is really a messenger or just delusional?

That is an excellent question, how can we ever know anyone got messages from God?

We cannot ever prove that, all we can do is investigate the life of the messenger, carefully examine his character, look at what he did on his mission, read what he wrote. Could a delusional man do all of that, write all of that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.
- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

Pretty basic, repeated all the times in all history.
Some even go to the extent of proclaiming themselves as God, and in proof of that ooze ash out of their palms or gold chains that are given to the devotees. And there are fools who believe that.
Later when they have been fooled into giving their hard-earned money to such people, they would seek help from police. In India, we have hundreds of examples of this. Many of such Godmen are serving their sentences in jail.

 

[Howard Is]

Pretty basic, repeated all the times in all history.

Yes, basic, and constantly repeated.
So keep on bangin’ away at it

 

[epronovost]

Could a delusional man do all of that, write all of that?

What is precisely out of the reach of a delusionnal man who believes wholeheartedly in his folly but not out of reach of a man who gained actual divine revelation? Then of course we have the problem of testimonies which can be outwright forged, exagerated or distorted.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is precisely out of the reach of a delusional man who believes wholeheartedly in his folly but not out of reach of a man who gained actual divine revelation? Then of course we have the problem of testimonies which can be outright forged, exaggerated or distorted.

And you term yourself as an atheist! No divine, no divine revelation. It is as simple as that. For the delusional person, there are medics and medications. For the charlatan, the police.

But the problem in India is that police and politicians nurture charlatans for money, sex and votes. Many are influential with the people.

 

[Trailblazer]

What is precisely out of the reach of a delusional man who believes wholeheartedly in his folly but not out of reach of a man who gained actual divine revelation?

Do you mean they could both do the same things, so how could we ever tell the difference?

Then of course we have the problem of testimonies which can be outwright forged, exagerated or distorted.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean their scriptures could be outright forged, exaggerated or distorted?

 

[LuisDantas]

What else would we see in a false religion?

Dogma, expressed in vague, often blatantly contradictory terms that suit themselves to a variety of understandings even as they refuse to commit to clarification or clear expression. At its most pure, this trait manifests as repeated invocation of words and phrases that are never quite explained in practical terms, because their role is to promote a sense of mutual commitment as opposed to any true teachings, understanding and actualizations.

A clearly defined central authority that adherents are expected to defer to as a matter of course. That is to be expected of false religions, because true, functional religions promote discernment and wisdom and therefore will naturally evolve beyond the need to such an authority; it is simply more efficient to develop well distributed hubs of religious wisdom and to shape their language and cultural references according to circunstances.

Significant predictions about some form of supernatural afterlife. Afterlifes are awfully speculative and not constructive from a religious standpoint; they are way too fertile a ground for many threats to religious wisdom and morality, as adherents may be tempted to aim for an afterlife as opposed to religious practice proper.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is an excellent question, how can we ever know anyone got messages from God?

We cannot ever prove that, all we can do is investigate the life of the messenger, carefully examine his character, look at what he did on his mission, read what he wrote. Could a delusional man do all of that, write all of that?

Yes.

That is actually very common. There are many destructive yet, far as can be determined, sincere charismatic leaders around. Even if we restrict ourselves to the current time.

Ultimately, the messenger is irrelevant, immaterial, and the merits of any given doctrine should be gauged and stand on their own.

 

[tayla]

what if the "charlatan" was just delusional? He wouldn't do it for personal gain and all the signs of the typical cultist wouldn't apply. He could be genuinely beneficial and humble and even appear to be wise - and be even more convincing because of that. He would, of course, reject any tests because "the religion is built on faith, not on proof or evidence".
How can we know that such a person is really a messenger or just delusional?

Yes, I suspect some founders of religions were. Especially those having hallucinations or visions which they interpreted as from God.

 

[tayla]

The thought occurred to me that the techniques we are attributing to religious charlatans are true of all charismatic psychopaths, including politicians and corporate CEOs.
The style and details may vary, but the dynamics are much the same.

Yes. And sadly there are many believers. They are destroying our world.

 

[Erebus]

Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

That certainly seems about right.

What else would we see in a false religion?

If somebody starts a religion that they know to be based on nonsense then you can make a couple of assumptions about that person: They want something out of it (money, power, adoration, etc) and they want as many people as possible to stay with the religion for as long as possible. With that in mind, here are a few possibilities.

1. There will likely be an emphasis on the benefits of giving to the religious organisation. That could be something as straightforward as money, wherein bigger donations are said to result in greater blessings and/or provide access to more of the religion's esoteric knowledge. In more extreme cases, it can involve people abandoning their own lives entirely to live under the supervision of the charlatan and any henchmen they might have.

2. Bringing other people into the religion will likely be strongly encouraged or even compulsory. At its most benign, this might involve going door to door. At its most sinister, it might mean that believers are expected to cut ties with friends and family should they fail to convert them.

3. The religion will likely take a hard-line stance on other beliefs. This is the only true religion and there's no room for argument. The charlatan is unlikely to want adherents to believe they have choices.

4. It's likely that outsiders will be viewed as in some way corrupting. There will be a few special souls who see the truth but the rest will want to harm the believers with their lies. The general population do not want believers to be happy and contact with them should be very limited (other than when it comes to conversion attempts of course).

5. There will likely be a rigid hierarchical structure with the charlatan firmly at the top. After that, there may be a group of people "in the know" who the charlatan can delegate to. Believers will be able to climb ranks and, more importantly, drop down again. They're extremely unlikely to reach the top though and the figurehead of the religion may even retain their top position after their death.

6. If the religion gets big enough, there will be lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have to look at motives whenever someone does something like this. What would be the motive for creating a false religion that people would follow?

In other threads, you've argued quite passionately that one person can't ever know another person's motives. Have you changed your mind on this point?

A charlatan creating a false religion would have certain personal characteristics. He would be selfish and he would create a religion that was self-aggrandizing.

Why would that necessarily be the case? It seems like you're jumping to a conclusion here.

I don't think that what you're saying works with pious frauds - which we know happen sometimes - so if only for that reason, we know that what you're saying isn't true in general.

He would want people to worship him rather than God and he would probably want to get something for himself; like fame, fortune, or even sex (many false prophets have been sex abusers).

How would "wanting sex" manifest itself? You mean like taking multiple wives?

He would probably want to live high on the hog, in a palatial mansion, not live with meager means.

Again: it seems like you're jumping to conclusions here.

And regardless of the charlatan's motives, we should assume that he wants his religion to be upheld as true and not condemned as a fraud, so we should presume that he would take steps to hide the false nature of his religion. I don't think we should expect that he would necessarily behave in a way that would conflict with what he wants people to believe about him.

There are people (men, usually) who go for decades living double lives. They have two families and neither family knows about the other one. We should expect that the most competent charlatans are capable of at least this level of skill at deception.

And again: remember pious frauds. Someone who creates a false religion out of a desire to be of service to humanity (a misplaced motivation, but still sincere) wouldn't necessarily be interested in self-aggrandizement or personal wealth at all.

The charlatan would not be content with a few followers; he would want many followers, because he would see this as a reflection of his success, in an arrogant egotistical manner.

Again: jumping to conclusions.

And ego could be reflected in other ways. For instance, an egotistical charlatan who failed at growing his religion beyond a certain size probably wouldn't advertise his failure. Instead, whatever his personal feelings, he'd probably proclaim that the religion had grown exactly as he wanted and its size was precisely what he had in mind.

The charlatan would not encourage people to investigate his religion before they believed in it, but rather he would tell them to believe it on faith alone. He would tell them not to look at any other religions and he would tell them all other religions are false and that his religion was the “only way.”

... unless he thought his false religion was solid enough to stand up to some scrutiny.

It's a pretty common tactic in medical quackery for the quack to at least tell people to investigate the claims. Creating an illusion of transparency is a great con tactic if you can swing it.

The charlatan would not do anything that required any personal sacrifices and he would squelch anyone who opposed him and not tolerate any abuse. He would use violence and force if necessary in order to deal with anyone who opposed his religion.

Any scriptures of this religion would be self-aggrandizing and they would not promote worshiping a God but rather promote worship of the charlatan.

Again: jumping to conclusions.

A charlatan would likely want to keep his religion attractive to converts. Doing stuff that would get him described in the press as a dictator or a cult leader would be going against his goal.

 

[PureX]

Sorry if I don't answer the question but I have a more interesting one (at least for me
We know how cultists behave and others have given examples enough. But what if the "charlatan" was just delusional? He wouldn't do it for personal gain and all the signs of the typical cultist wouldn't apply. He could be genuinely beneficial and humble and even appear to be wise - and be even more convincing because of that. He would, of course, reject any tests because "the religion is built on faith, not on proof or evidence".
How can we know that such a person is really a messenger or just delusional?

We can't. And these conditions may not be mutually exclusive. And in this instance, why would it matter? All that matters is what the person does in relation to his fellow humans. Why he does it is his own business. Same for all of us.