cults

[9-10ths_Penguin]

when a religion becomes a cult? what seperates religion from cults?

in my opinion, a cult is an organization that teaches harmful teachings.

“A religion is a cult that survived the death of its founder.”
- can’t remember who said it, but I think I agree. That’s the dividing line for me, anyhow: when a cult is held together by something more than just the charisma it will of its founder and figures out how to manage leadership succession, it stops being a cult and becomes a religion.

Regardless, I personally don’t find the term “cult” to be useful most of the time. Too much baggage and it puts too much focus on whether a group is religious in nature and not enough on the harm.

Instead, I try to use terms “dangerous group” or “unsafe group,” since the problems that manifest in cults can also be present in groups that don’t put themselves forward as religious groups (e.g. self-help groups or multi-level marketing systems).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't that pretty much be religion in general? I can't think of a single solitary religion that can prove its claims to non-believers based on evidence.

I’m surprised to hear a religious person say this... but if you really believe this, why wouldn’t you see religion as harmful?

Demanding evidence to support claims protects us from all sorts of harm. Something that encourages people to accept claims without evidence opens the door to this harm... no?

 

[Katzpur]

I’m surprised to hear a religious person say this... but if you really believe this, why wouldn’t you see religion as harmful?

Okay, let's back up a minute. Someone stated that, in his opinion, "any religion that advocates belief without genuine evidence is harmful." I addressed that statement by asking a question: "Wouldn't that pretty much be religion in general?" I may be religious, but I certainly do recognize that all religions advocate belief without so-called "genuine evidence." I never said I believed this to be harmful. I believe in God but I am unable to prove his existence to you through scientific evidence. For you to suggest that this belief is harmful to either me or anybody else is utter nonsense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, let's back up a minute. Someone stated that, in his opinion, "any religion that advocates belief without genuine evidence is harmful." I addressed that statement by asking a question: "Wouldn't that pretty much be religion in general?" I may be religious, but I certainly do recognize that all religions advocate belief without so-called "genuine evidence." I never said I believed this to be harmful.

I know. I’m asking you why you aren’t taking that next step.

I believe in God but I am unable to prove his existence to you through scientific evidence. For you to suggest that this belief is harmful to either me or anybody else is utter nonsense.

I think that, as a general approach, accepting claims without evidence often leads to harm.

You’ve said “scientific evidence” twice now; I get the sense that you’re making some sort of distinction between “scientific” evidence and other sorts of evidence. I don’t make this distinction: science is just rigorous logical inference from evidence, so if a piece of evidence isn’t good enough to qualify as “scientific,” then it isn’t fit to be used for logical inference at all.

As Steven Novella put it:

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Tiny diversion from the topic but I've always considered Disney, specifically Disneyworld, a cult of circumstance.
Disneyworld is so huge that it has its own zipcode and poweplant, and there's nothing around. Which means most Disneyworld employees have to live close by, in small towns mostly made up of other Disney employees and a few grocery stores and small shops. When Disney employees aren't at their 60 hour work week jobs, there's not much to do but hang out with your fellows with the little money you'e accumulated.
And when you have to spend years fully immersed in force cheer and pretending your life is magical, it bleeds over. I've seen employees who thought it would just be a fun job become Disney OBSESSED until they invariably burn out and move away. Then their symptoms are symptoms of grief and loss and anger, not unlike leaving a cult.

 

[Katzpur]

I know. I’m asking you why you aren’t taking that next step.

And the next step is what? Try to prove God exists or leave my religion?

I think that, as a general approach, accepting claims without evidence often leads to harm.

Suit yourself. I'd say it depends entirely on the specific claim and on the individual.

You’ve said “scientific evidence” twice now; I get the sense that you’re making some sort of distinction between “scientific” evidence and other sorts of evidence. I don’t make this distinction: science is just rigorous logical inference from evidence, so if a piece of evidence isn’t good enough to qualify as “scientific,” then it isn’t fit to be used for logical inference at all.

As Steven Novella put it:

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

Well, good for you and good for Steven Novella. I don't believe scientific evidence is capable (at least not at this time) to prove certain things. Science can prove things now that it wasn't able to prove a century ago. I suspect there may be a lot of "facts" out there that will be dismissed by people like you and yet accepted by your great-great grandkids. I'm not saying God is one of those things, but who knows?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And the next step is what? Try to prove God exists or leave my religion?

No, I meant the next step in the chain of argument: acknowledge that accepting claims without evidence tends to be harmful.

Suit yourself. I'd say it depends entirely on the specific claim and on the individual.

Without evidence, how are you telling the difference between claims that will be harmful if you accept them without evidence and ones that won't be?

Well, good for you and good for Steven Novella. I don't believe scientific evidence is capable (at least not at this time) to prove certain things. Science can prove things now that it wasn't able to prove a century ago. I suspect there may be a lot of "facts" out there that will be dismissed by people like you and yet accepted by your great-great grandkids. I'm not saying God is one of those things, but who knows?

The question of what we'll know in the future is irrelevant to what I'm talking about, because we can only use things we know right now to justify the positions we take right now.

You talk about religions that aren't supported by scientific evidence. What I want to know is what rational justification an adherent of one of these religions can point to for why they believe what they do.

My position is that if we can't make the case for a factual claim with evidence that's within the scope of science, then the case for the claim can't be made rationally.

However, I assume you aren't trying to argue that all religion is irrational, so I want to know what pathway you have to accept a religion rationally that doesn't rely on "scientific" evidence.

And I don't think that the mere fact that a religion hasn't been disproven is enough to say that we're justified to believe in it. I've never met anyone who would be satisfied with having the central tenets of their life only meet the low bar of "I have no reason to presume my beliefs are true or likely true, but I can't rule out the possibility that they'll be proven true at some point based on future evidence I've never seen or even imagined."

 

[Katzpur]

No, I meant the next step in the chain of argument: acknowledge that accepting claims without evidence tends to be harmful.

Oh, I see. Well, I am willing to listen to all your claims of how my belief in a Higher Power is harming me or anyone else. Knock yourself out.

Without evidence, how are you telling the difference between claims that will be harmful if you accept them without evidence and ones that won't be?

I don't see how evidence that what I believe is "true" or "right" or "accurate" should even be a factor in determining whether those beliefs are harmful or not. I firmly believe that the things I have learned in a religious setting have made me a better -- not worse -- person than I would have been without them. That's the only "evidence" I have that they are worth believing -- regardless of whether, in the end, they turn out to be right or wrong.

The question of what we'll know in the future is irrelevant to what I'm talking about, because we can only use things we know right now to justify the positions we take right now.

You may only be able to use things you know right now to justify the positions you take right now, but I can and will use the things I believe right now to justify the positions I take right now.

You talk about religions that aren't supported by scientific evidence. What I want to know is what rational justification an adherent of one of these religions can point to for why they believe what they do.

I don't think that most claims made by any religion can be supported by scientific evidence. I'm talking about claims that there is a God, that He created us and this universe, that he cares about us and our concerns, that they way we lead our lives matters to Him, that are accountable to Him for our choices, and that there is an afterlife. None of those things can be supported by scientific evidence, but I believe them because they make sense to me. I could go into all of the reasons why they do, but to what end?

My position is that if we can't make the case for a factual claim with evidence that's within the scope of science, then the case for the claim can't be made rationally.

Perhaps not. I'm fine with your thinking I'm not a rational being. I just don't like your thinking that this means I might be a dangerous being, when there is also no evidence to support that idea!

However, I assume you aren't trying to argue that all religion is irrational, so I want to know what pathway you have to accept a religion rationally that doesn't rely on "scientific" evidence.

Does it make me a better person than I would be otherwise? Does it make sense of suffering and provide comfort in times of trial? Does it give direction and meaning to the choices I make?

And I don't think that the mere fact that a religion hasn't been disproven is enough to say that we're justified to believe in it. I've never met anyone who would be satisfied with having the central tenets of their life only meet the low bar of "I have no reason to presume my beliefs are true or likely true, but I can't rule out the possibility that they'll be proven true at some point based on future evidence I've never seen or even imagined."

Well, perhaps the last comment I made will shed some light on my perspective.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No, I meant the next step in the chain of argument: acknowledge that accepting claims without evidence tends to be harmful.


Without evidence, how are you telling the difference between claims that will be harmful if you accept them without evidence and ones that won't be?




The question of what we'll know in the future is irrelevant to what I'm talking about, because we can only use things we know right now to justify the positions we take right now.

You talk about religions that aren't supported by scientific evidence. What I want to know is what rational justification an adherent of one of these religions can point to for why they believe what they do.

My position is that if we can't make the case for a factual claim with evidence that's within the scope of science, then the case for the claim can't be made rationally.

However, I assume you aren't trying to argue that all religion is irrational, so I want to know what pathway you have to accept a religion rationally that doesn't rely on "scientific" evidence.

And I don't think that the mere fact that a religion hasn't been disproven is enough to say that we're justified to believe in it. I've never met anyone who would be satisfied with having the central tenets of their life only meet the low bar of "I have no reason to presume my beliefs are true or likely true, but I can't rule out the possibility that they'll be proven true at some point based on future evidence I've never seen or even imagined."

Science has come on in leaps and bounds during my near 83 year life time.
However there is still a massive amount of things that we do not know nor able to prove or disprove.
A large majority of these do no harm to us at all by simply taking them on faith.
If something seems to work, or a concept seems to fit, we accept that while we may not be able to prove why and do not know exactly what is going on we accept it pragmatically into our lives.
Some people are almost scientifically illeterate and accept almost everything on faith.

Religion works the same way.
No religion depends on scientific proof. But in many respects it explains much about the those things we fear, and what is the driving force for good, and ethics, it give a frame work and reason for how to live our lives and how to respect and live alongside each other and nature.
Religion accepts that there is a driving force ouside our selves that is better than ourselves.
It is pragmatic in the same way that all things that are unprovable scientifically are also.
Religion can be said to work. The fact that we can not prove it is no reason to abandon it.
Any more than abandoning a scientic problem because we can't yet prove it, makes sense.

 

[whirlingmerc]

when a religion becomes a cult? what seperates religion from cults?

in my opinion, a cult is an organization that teaches harmful teachings.

cult means devotion
so... depends on the usage
can be used posttively
can be used negatively

 

[Orbit]

when a religion becomes a cult? what seperates religion from cults?

in my opinion, a cult is an organization that teaches harmful teachings.

Sociologists of religion have a formal definition for cult. It's a small group with a charismatic leader that encourages members to cut ties with non-members and often controls every aspect of a member's life.

 

[Katzpur]

Sociologists of religion have a formal definition for cult. It's a small group with a charismatic leader that encourages members to cut ties with non-members and often controls every aspect of a member's life.

That's probably the best definition of "cult" I've seen.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

when a religion becomes a cult? what seperates religion from cults?

in my opinion, a cult is an organization that teaches harmful teachings.

By the basic definition, a cult is a religious movement founded around a human figure. Making most religions, if not all- cults.

 

[savagewind]

Sociologists of religion have a formal definition for cult. It's a small group with a charismatic leader that encourages members to cut ties with non-members and often controls every aspect of a member's life.

Jesus is as charismatic as is possible.
John 17:14 John 15:19 James 4:4
Matthew 5:48

OK. So Christianity is certainly no small group, but I think that the people who really are with Jesus is a very, very, very, very small group.

 

[savagewind]

.....compared to the whole world.

 

[pearl]

By the basic definition, a cult is a religious movement founded around a human figure. Making most religions, if not all- cults.

I don't think that applies to the Jewish religion.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I don't think that applies to the Jewish religion.

It does if you consider Moses the charismatic figure it was founded around, but that's getting rather semantic. Anyhow, I wouldn't want to imply that a cult is by default negative. That's a very modern development of the term. In ancient times, cults were the religion of the people.

 

[Vinayaka]

That's a very modern development of the term. In ancient times, cults were the religion of the people.

Some of us are still proud members of those cults. I'm quite content to belong to the cult of Murugan.

Cult of Skanda-Murukan in ancient Tamil Nadu

 

[pearl]

It does if you consider Moses the charismatic figure it was founded around, but that's getting rather semantic.

Moses was a great teacher, but it is God and his Torah, I believe, that are worshiped and venerated.

Anyhow, I wouldn't want to imply that a cult is by default negative. That's a very modern development of the term. In ancient times, cults were the religion of the people.

True, there were many tribal cults prior to the Exodus event.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Some of us are still proud members of those cults. I'm quite content to belong to the cult of Murugan.

Cult of Skanda-Murukan in ancient Tamil Nadu

Why yes, exactly!