Please Define "Religion"

[Koldo]

That's your problem. Those are the definitions relative to the topic of social morality.

They are not. They are your definitions.
If you want to claim those are the definitions pertinent to objective morality, you need to show how we can conclude that they are proper definitions for objective morality. You can't just skip this part.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, they are not mine. I did not create them, they are in the dictionary and even linked for your convenience.

Is this going to be the course now? Squabbling over definitions as though я говорил по-русски?

 

[MikeF]

Reason can't do morality alone. It is in combination with feelings.

Well, if we use evidence and we can't observe neither good nor bad, then it is false that we can use evidence on it, because we can't use evidence as to determine good or bad.

You have used the words good and bad. Certainly they have some meaning to you. Surely you consider some things good and other things bad.

If good and bad are not evident, detectable, then how do you know if it is present? How can you apply these adjectives?

 

[Koldo]

No, they are not mine. I did not create them, they are in the dictionary and even linked for your convenience.

Is this going to be the course now? Squabbling over definitions as though я говорю по русски?

I didn't mean you have created them. I meant you are merely bringing them up, rather than them being as a matter of fact the proper definitions. And as I have said, dictionaries are not prescriptive on how one must use a word, but merely descriptive of how people use the word. While informative, dictionary definitions are not authoritative on philosophical debates like this.

If you want to claim the dictionary definition you have presented pertains to objective morality, then you need to make an argument that reaches this conclusion. Not merely expect others to accept it... Particularly, because what is 'good','evil','right' and 'wrong' are the crux of the issue at hand.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF Religion and politics are peas from the same pod,the aim is power and control,the difference is politics doesn’t say you’ll be punished for eternity if you don’t tow the party line.

Ahhh, so we begin to tease out other criteria that distinguishes a belief set as belonging to the category Religion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I meant you are merely bringing them up, rather than them being as a matter of fact the proper definitions.

Okay, if we can't even establish basic language, then this is really going to go nowhere at all, and I have absolutely no interest in that.

Free taste quantity time person justify.

 

[Koldo]

Okay, if we can't even establish basic language, then this is really going to go nowhere at all, and I have absolutely no interest in that.

Free taste quantity time person justify.

There is nothing basic about definitions when it comes down to objective morality. That's actually THE colossal task
when it comes down to it.

When we are talking about morality, we are talking about we should do and what we should not do. Let's then call that which we should do as 'right' or 'good', and what we should not do as 'wrong' or 'evil'. Great so far. Now, how do we figure out what we should understand by those terms if we assume that those things are facts of existence that exist irrespective of what anyone thinks or feels (objective morality)?

So, here's the dictionary which presents how people in general understand those terms, regardless of whether the way they use those terms matches with the 'facts of existence that exist irrespective of what anyone thinks or feels', and it defines those terms as.... Wait, what's the value exactly in presenting how people in general understand those terms if their understanding might have absolutely nothing to do with the 'facts of existence that exist irrespective of what anyone thinks or feels' ?

Do you get what I am saying?
I think you didn't quite get, so far, what an objective morality would entail.
The most useful approach for daily life is: Let's see what values we can agree with and then proceed to work towards the goal where those values are best preserved, where they better flourish. And then call whatever helps towards that goal as 'good' and whatever hinders it as 'evil'. It simply skips the entire 'objective morality' debate. At the end of the day, objective morality doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter if there are facts of existence concerning the moral laws that exist irrespective of what anyone thinks or feels, because what actually matter is what we feel and think.

 

[syo]

Please provide your understanding of what the word "religion" means.

The lifestyle that deals with universal laws.

 

[rational experiences]

If God is religion from word Religare to bind.

Then O mass swirling spinning any type anywhere in nothing....space zero isn't any law a man of science owns.

Those laws are gods said rational men thinkers.

O mass in G spiral spin O DD split by I core heat still spinning still cooling OO in one place.

Cooling idea..how and why.

Doesn't make held mass lots of zeros. Not lots said a rational thinker.

My brother the machine man didn't invent nothing laws of zero infinity.

He however removed mass of earth back to nothing. Outcome position theory nothing ness.

My brother realised machine man believed he was inventing zero law infinity as a man with a machine. Inside reaction. Training he gave to machines design to cause reaction by his control.

Man now has an intimate relationship by mind with his machine. Why he is possessed in thought claiming I'm part machine. Proof of his possession.

As he's possessed in his mind by stars brain burn prickling. First man's reason why he converted earth mass.

The pre mass not earths planet mass that converted back to a dust particle above. Suns mass fake thesis.

Told taught knew were warned he's possessed thinking he invented the particle by what he was mind changed by.

Wandering star by passes earth was his was the teaching. Holy life.

Humans then are meant to ask how can a human be a star in space. What has a wandering star got to do with bio life already living the human who sees the star.

Exactly said our spiritual teacher it's why life survived on earth. You're meant to conclude that advice as a thinker human if you are rational.

If you didn't you were proven an evil thinker.

How my brother tested conscious holiness. Of his brothers.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
Fearing to define religion because one fears prejudice against religion does not seem intellectually honest to me.
There is a difference between religions, or religious concepts, an those that are not. That is why the category was born and we have academic departments dedicated solely to this topic.​

It's not fear to define, but the observation that we can't define in a manner that demarcates religions from secular belief systems.

And I disagree. Culture contains both religion and the secular. The ratio of the two can vary, meaning which institutions or social constructs are influence or controlled by religion can vary. For example, ship building in a modern Western country may be an entirely secular activity with no religious observance or practice involved except for a benediction or invocation at the ship's christening. Contrast this with pre-modern Polynesian cultures where religion played a significant role at every stage of canoe building.

This ratio of religion and secular can be considered both a characteristic of religion and a characteristic of culture.

It's also not about "prejudice" but creating a category that confuses more than it enlightens. We can use the term as a shorthand for convenience, but if we are trying to identify a trans-cultural category in which we have "religious" and "secular" spheres that can be demarcated then it fails and ends up misleading.

I really do not see this as a problem. I'm more than confident that academicians can handle this issue.

“It is a mistake to treat religion as a constant in human culture across time and space. None of the thinkers we examined in chapter 1 would deny that religion has taken a kaleidoscopic variety of forms across the centuries of human history. But each of the theories we examined in the first chapter is about religion as such. This indicates a distinction between essence and form; religion is religion in any era and any place, though it may take different outward forms.

The paragraph above seems to support my position.

“A history of the term religion makes this assumption deeply problematic. Ancient languages have no word that approximates what modern English speakers mean by religion; Wilfred Cantwell Smith cites the scholarly consensus that neither the Greeks nor the Egyptians had any equivalent term for religion, and he adds that a similar negative conclusion is found for the Aztecs and the ancient civilizations of India, China, and Japan.9
The word is derived from the ancient Latin word religio, but religio was only one of a constellation of terms surrounding social obligations in ancient Rome, and when used it signified something quite different from religion in the modern sense.
Religio referred to a powerful requirement to perform some action. Its most probable derivation is from re-ligare, to rebind or relink, that is, to reestablish a bond that has been severed. To say religio mihi est—that something is “religio for me”—meant that it was something that carried a serious obligation for a person. This included not only cultic observances—which were themselves sometimes referred to as religiones, such that there was a different religio or set of observances at each shrine—
but also civic oaths and family rituals, things that modern Westerners normally consider to be secular.10
When religio did refer to temple sacrifices, it was possible—and common among certain intellectuals—in ancient Rome to practice religio, but not believe in the existence of gods...
Religio was largely indifferent to theological doctrine and was primarily about the customs and traditions that provided the glue for the Roman social order..
Religio was a relatively minor concept for the early Christians, in part because it does not correspond to any single concept that the biblical writers considered significant.”
The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict - William Cavanaugh

While the etymology of the word religion is interesting, it is hardly germane to the conversation. What is important is how the word is used today. We, today, recognize that today as well as historically there have been a wide variety of belief sets that all have some key features and functions in society. It is reasonable and appropriate to recognize those common elements and group them under an umbrella term, in this case 'religion'.

MikeF said: ↑
The first Europeans to have contact with Mesoamerican cultures recognized religion in those societies. Why? Because they recognized elements they considered to be of Religion.​

“Yet these people themselves had no word that equates to religion. Don't you see that as problematic?

Again, this does not matter. What matters is whether the term and its definition work for us today.

“When outsiders try to define another's culture in terms of their own, then you get distortions and misunderstandings.

We human beings compare and contrast everything. It is one of the ways we learn and grow. Defining another culture in terms of one's own can be problematic, but comparing and understanding different cultures is not that. Academia today is much more sophisticated than that.

MikeF said: ↑
Religion - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, with manifestations of existence not bound by physical laws, which may include the existence of agencies not bound by physical laws, and such beliefs are held as true by Faith and do not require empirical verification.​

See you are defining it in terms of beliefs held true by faith (as per the Protestant Christianity that shapes the worldview of the Anglophone world).

Why is it specifically Protestant Christianity and not Catholic Christianity or an Islamic worldview? Translators use the word faith in English translations of the Tanakh, so does the concept predate Christianity or is it an artifact of the translators.

I certainly am not wedded to using the word faith in my definition. This is why we share and discuss, working to hone in on a useful definition.

I suppose it would be interesting to investigate which religions hold a concept of faith similar to that found in the Judeo/Christian tradition.

MikeF said: ↑
I will push back on this somewhat. Language, the words we use can change and evolve with the culture in which they are used. That this label Religion began in Christian cultures is perfectly fine. There were elements that defined what was meant by religion. In looking at other belief systems and finding they shared elements consider to be of Religion, it seems quite reasonable to me that the term would be used to encompass more than the diversity of Christian denominations.​

Yes, they evolve in the culture they are used in based on a whole range of cultural assumptions.
It would be a mistake to assume these are universal (a common mistake of Western thought that is another legacy of monotheism).

What about the term 'theism'. Do you apply all your arguments against defining the term 'religion' as arguments against defining or using the term 'theism'. Is it culturally insensitive to assume the term god or gods means the same thing in different cultures?

Would a worshiper of Marduk in ancient Babylon be consider a theist as a Methodist Christian of today is? Did the ancient Babylonians use the term theism, and if not, should we not apply the term to an ancient Babylonian on those grounds?

 

[rational experiences]

Civilisation. Incorrect human status. Bad human behaviours.

Intelligence. Natural bio supportive heavens. Two humans adults have sex and life human continues. You eat drink survive die.

Intelligence.

Civilisation cult group behaviours intelligence fake doesn't heed their own advice. As behaviour is a strategy owned by rich science history only.

Do not advise natural human truths. As intellectual pursuits.

Human memory atmospheric recorded is a known humans inherited cause of using machines before versus biology.

Proven today by man's new technologies that use images voice sound recordings. Machines of men.

Lied about it being ancient cosmic laws. It was via man's machine invention himself technology.

Already owns the proof men of old were using machine technology humans designed.

Told us our holy parents in life with nature were not theists

Why I know your behavioural studies are just a choice of civilisations false structures.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Along with psychics, chemistry and biology it is a part of science and a natural law like gravity.

If morality is that fluid, then it is not a natural law.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If morality is that fluid, then it is not a natural law.

Correct, morality is a human activity with time, space and culture for different contexts. There is some regularity, but also variation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have used the words good and bad. Certainly they have some meaning to you. Surely you consider some things good and other things bad.

If good and bad are not evident, detectable, then how do you know if it is present? How can you apply these adjectives?

Okay, the problem is the definition of empiricism.
Here is a short explanation:
"Francis Bacon John Locke David Hume In philosophy, empiricism is an epistemological theory that holds that knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views within epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism."

Notice the following, it is one of 3 different way to understand knowledge. So what if all 3 have limits and in effect knowledge is a combination of all 3?
So here it is with how words work in practice: All words have a referent in that any sign connects to a brain/computer, have a meaning and is about something. There are 3 factors to words. Not just one.
So here is how I know for the base meaning of know. I know when I do something subjective, because I can explain how it is subjective. I don't just say it is subjective, I explain how it is subjective.

So here is how I know something is subjective versus objective:
When I check all of my experiences and behavior I check if the word refers back to a process in my brain for which I can understand if someone uses their brain differently.
Here is an example of a brain test that amounts to the same.
You give a lot of humans pictures/videos/talk to watch/hear and you scan their brains, you then observe what centers in the brain activate and then you figure out if they use more than the visual centers. You can even do that with blind people, when you give them speech and observe how they use different centers relevant to the speech.

So here it is for empiricism as indeed false for the following: knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
It is none of these 2, because it is a combination of internal and external experience and that model has been falsified by science.
There are 3 main variants of science, natural/hard, social and mental. You need to study the latter 2 for how subjectivity works and learn that not all your word are about something objective. You then have to learn that subjectivity is diverse for humans and not universally the same for all humans.

So here it is for good and bad as those words connect to the world. They end in human brains as an individual process that has nothing to doing with external experience. They are always connected to the emotional center of human brains in some sense.

So here is how I know and justify that I love my wife. I feel differently about her than other humans and I act differently in regards to her than other humans, because I feel differently about her. But I can't observe as through external sensation that I love her. I feel it and that is real, physical in the brain and subjective.

 

[Augustus]

I do not think I can accept this definition of myth. If a story or narrative is true, then it is not a myth.

Let's use the term mythos then to remove the negative connotations.

Something being broadly true can easily form part of a mythos. We select, curate and frame aspects of the truth to construct a narrative.

For example:

"BLM rioters killed dozens, burned and looted cities and caused billions in damages while ruining the lives of many people from black and minority communities. This does not bode well for the future."

"It was inspirational to see hundreds of thousands of people of all races, the overwhelming majority peaceful and well behaved, coming together to fight the evil of racism and call for social justice and a more tolerant and fair society. This points to a brighter future."

Both of those are more or less true, yet are framed very differently to be fully consistent with opposing ideological systems. We perceive and frame parts of reality and construct narratives that suit our purpose and that of the group we identify with.

There is no neutral observation of reality, how we perceive it is based on the mythos we consciously and implicitly hold.

I would agree that we have inherited many social constructs that were born, based, or justified in myths. That does not mean that we cannot recognize them for what they are, set aside the myth, and treat them as useful social constructs, as agreements between people. Nor does it mean we cannot set them aside entirely, if we choose.

In that same regard, it is perfectly legitimate to recognize the benefits of ethical and moral constructs that were originally intertwined and justified by myth, set aside the myth and still incorporate them as social construct based on the shared perception and agreement of their value and utility. This is what I see being done in the Secular Humanism movement.

The problem is people tend not to recognise the myths they have internalised and are reliant upon

The conceit of the Secular Humanist position is to believe that SH is what you get when you strip away the myths and 'see the world as it is' based on the neutral application of reason. Pithily summed up by Michael Oakeshott as the rationalist 'finds it hard to believe that anyone who thinks honestly and clearly could think differently to himself'.

This was almost the default position among educated irreligious people in the West in the late 20th C: as people get more educated they discard myths and become Western style humanists. This is the inevitable march of progress.

While it was perhaps understandable to hold such a view in the late 20th C, I'd say to hold it today is akin to a creationist holding on to belief in a young earth.

For me, an intellectually honest form of secular humanism would accept it is grounded in numerous cultural contingencies that emerged in a specifically Western Christian context, and stripping away the god bit doesn't negate the reliance on this mythos. This means it is not simply the neutral application of reason that remains when one strips away myth and sees the world as it is.

If they want to create a more secular humanist world, they have to provide a more powerful mythos while accepting they are constructing a narrative to support a subjective preference that only seems 'self-evident' because of their cultural conditioning. Others who have not internalised the myths of Western society will not view the world this way.

Society and culture evolve. We are not bound to the myths and perceptions of our ancient ancestors. Beyond that, not every abstraction we create is to be considered myth, or fictional. The rules and requirements for a sport or a board game are not myth, simply a shared agreement to an abstract construct created by human beings, for human beings, and accepted as such.

In a game you are not competing with others who are trying to impose their own rules on the game and replace yours.

We can grow beyond myth, and it is ok to do so.

A society without myth, were it possible, would be entirely transactional.

Human life is sacred as we are all made in god's image (religious mythos)

We all have inalienable rights based on our common humanity and obligation to make the world better for future generations. (secular mythos)

Human life has no intrinsic value. We simply pretend it does as it is utilitarian. (myth free version)


The only reason anyone would do something would be the rational evaluation of self-interest. Such a society would be fragile and would not endure the inevitable crises that emerge. A purely utilitarian approach only survives as long as people accept its utility in the face of competing narratives.

In addition, we need common narratives to unite diverse people. These may be religion, patriotism, political ideologies, etc. but they can't work as purely utilitarian transactions.

The paragraph above seems to support my position.

Not when you read the next sentence too:

...religion is religion in any era and any place, though it may take different outward forms. A history of the term religion makes this assumption deeply problematic.

Again, this does not matter. What matters is whether the term and its definition work for us today.

The term as used today is based on a Christian view of religion that assumes all societies had something roughly akin to this.

It assumes a secular and a religious divide, again something that developed in a specifically Christian context.

This is the approach taken by colonialists towards indigenous belief systems, it was a square pegs and round holes approach then too that led to many misunderstandings.

For me it's a mistake to view other societies as basically primitive versions of the West which is what we are implicitly doing by assuming our categories neatly map on to theirs.

While the etymology of the word religion is interesting, it is hardly germane to the conversation.

It is more than germane, it is the crux of the issue.

IF historical "religions" don't map neatly on to our view of religion, and that they often contain things we would consider "secular", then it makes it much harder to support the idea that "religion" is somehow intrinsically different to secular belief systems.

Is it culturally insensitive to assume the term god or gods means the same thing in different cultures?

More than being culturally insensitive, it's just wrong. It's pretty clear that gods are very different in different cultures, and it can be hard to identify if some belief systems should be considered theistic or not.

It is reasonable and appropriate to recognize those common elements and group them under an umbrella term, in this case 'religion'.

The problem is we cannot define these "common elements" in a manner that differentiates them from secular beliefs.

Why is it specifically Protestant Christianity and not Catholic Christianity or an Islamic worldview?

Islam wasn't a major influence on the West, and Protestantism is especially responsible for the idea that belief is what matters.

Protestantism is also the primary influence on the Anglophone world, and was a major influence on the development of individualistic Western liberalism (not the only influence though).

What about the term 'theism'. Do you apply all your arguments against defining the term 'religion' as arguments against defining or using the term 'theism'.

It's not an overly useful term, but there are fewer problems with identifying theism and separating it from atheism than there are with identifying religion and separating it from the secular.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I feel like I'm becoming a bother with this so I'm not going to pursue it much further. You're saying that community is required. I disagree. Do you have any other reasons why I should adopt your point of view?

Well, if you don't like focusing on the "community" aspect of religion, there are a couple of other ways of looking at it:

Approach #2: a class of organization that gets, and whose members get, preferential tax treatment, but where the organization doesn't meet the normal criteria to be classified as a political party or secular charity/not-for-profit.

There's also the old - but subtly wise, IMO - like that a religion is a cult that survived the death of its founder.

 

[dybmh]

Well, if you don't like focusing on the "community" aspect of religion, there are a couple of other ways of looking at it:

I guess I'm looking for reasons why, in your view, a religion requires community.

 

[rational experiences]

The reason you bio theory about a human. Relating to fake man's greed want beliefs.

Stating microbial beginnings. Your own human.

You then contradict your human self by single celled micro organisms not human. In science human only. Hence science says man is trying to destroy existence in theory...his own.

Law in life natural presence is any type non calculable.

As men says infinity a law is why any one of anything exists now. If Infinity increases its state maybe new single micro organisms might emerge.

Science man is not a self developed human family being. Mutual equal functioning father. He works for corporate evil. Nothing like our first father.

He pretends he's a God who had invented all things in any presence. A man's behaviour.

By only his say so the man human.

Based on his origin purpose what I want.

What I want became amassed unnatural human accumulation of products and purposes unnatural.

So man now agrees why I'm a God as a man by his man's accumulative greed.

Why greed leads by exact patterned human behaviour to lifes destruction.

As the pattern you wanted stopped was your own conscious behaviour.

So you tried to impose why you are a woman as a man in a very sick human outcome.

It's why human consciousness finds it difficult to accept homosexuality as it became an entrenched self serving satanic science themed man is God status in men.

A man via two bodies two consciousness in one.

Why you decided on a mind contact mind control program about human women's consciousness knowing the man scientist belief a theist. Wanted a woman's body himself and now a woman's mind by AI intention.....machine only.

Machine he says I want to own gain infinity like the human woman.

As my sister is virtually a man in her mind to now know science. Via homosexuality causes changed memories feedback.

You think maths science womb God infinity as a man theist scientist. Mother of God highest holiest a fake woman thought by men.

You claim the last outcome is total man's body plus conscious swap by Infinity womb the ultimate scientists reality. Transmitter sciences.

Lying.

Claiming finally in greed you'll have the ownership of the whole mass power Infinity owns as possessed science man mind.

Is why scientific theists as greedy rich men are hated in consciousness as you are hateful thinkers by social cult history of men activity only.

In Infinity O earth existed ended no human.

In Infinity heavens mass existed ended...no human.

Law in creation.

 

[paarsurrey]

MikeF said: ↑
Fearing to define religion because one fears prejudice against religion does not seem intellectually honest to me.
There is a difference between religions, or religious concepts, an those that are not. That is why the category was born and we have academic departments dedicated solely to this topic.​

And I disagree. Culture contains both religion and the secular. The ratio of the two can vary, meaning which institutions or social constructs are influence or controlled by religion can vary. For example, ship building in a modern Western country may be an entirely secular activity with no religious observance or practice involved except for a benediction or invocation at the ship's christening. Contrast this with pre-modern Polynesian cultures where religion played a significant role at every stage of canoe building.

This ratio of religion and secular can be considered both a characteristic of religion and a characteristic of culture.



I really do not see this as a problem. I'm more than confident that academicians can handle this issue.



The paragraph above seems to support my position.



While the etymology of the word religion is interesting, it is hardly germane to the conversation. What is important is how the word is used today. We, today, recognize that today as well as historically there have been a wide variety of belief sets that all have some key features and functions in society. It is reasonable and appropriate to recognize those common elements and group them under an umbrella term, in this case 'religion'.

MikeF said: ↑
The first Europeans to have contact with Mesoamerican cultures recognized religion in those societies. Why? Because they recognized elements they considered to be of Religion.​

Again, this does not matter. What matters is whether the term and its definition work for us today.



We human beings compare and contrast everything. It is one of the ways we learn and grow. Defining another culture in terms of one's own can be problematic, but comparing and understanding different cultures is not that. Academia today is much more sophisticated than that.

MikeF said: ↑
Religion - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, with manifestations of existence not bound by physical laws, which may include the existence of agencies not bound by physical laws, and such beliefs are held as true by Faith and do not require empirical verification.​

Why is it specifically Protestant Christianity and not Catholic Christianity or an Islamic worldview? Translators use the word faith in English translations of the Tanakh, so does the concept predate Christianity or is it an artifact of the translators.

I certainly am not wedded to using the word faith in my definition. This is why we share and discuss, working to hone in on a useful definition.

I suppose it would be interesting to investigate which religions hold a concept of faith similar to that found in the Judeo/Christian tradition.

MikeF said: ↑
I will push back on this somewhat. Language, the words we use can change and evolve with the culture in which they are used. That this label Religion began in Christian cultures is perfectly fine. There were elements that defined what was meant by religion. In looking at other belief systems and finding they shared elements consider to be of Religion, it seems quite reasonable to me that the term would be used to encompass more than the diversity of Christian denominations.​

What about the term 'theism'. Do you apply all your arguments against defining the term 'religion' as arguments against defining or using the term 'theism'. Is it culturally insensitive to assume the term god or gods means the same thing in different cultures?

Would a worshiper of Marduk in ancient Babylon be consider a theist as a Methodist Christian of today is? Did the ancient Babylonians use the term theism, and if not, should we not apply the term to an ancient Babylonian on those grounds?

" What about the term 'theism'. "

Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Skepticism etc and the like are the terms of Philosophy, not of the truthful Religions; instead we us Believers and Non-believers, please. Right?

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess I'm looking for reasons why, in your view, a religion requires community.

Not requires community; a religion is a community.

As for why... it's just inherent to the term. You might as well be asking me to justify why a crowd needs multiple people.