I'm glad you escaped, and thanks for sharing.
And lately it's been getting really bad having to re-tell the reasons for the PTSD diagnosis to doctors who go "oh, well, a lot of people _say _they have PTSD"
(Not to mention: a lot of people get really touchy with the idea that religion can be “traumatic” at all.)
There is one comment on the board calling out the article's negatively towards magical thinking as bigotry. To folks that are recovering from religious trauma, it's straight up lived experience.
Truthfully? I find it very difficult to see religion as anything other than traumatic, because what I went through was so bad and different than what most people think of when they think of “religion.” I don’t know if I have any real objectivity in the matter.
I do feel that there is something interesting in that line of thought, however. Perhaps it has to do with the intensely personal nature of religious conviction, and the existential subject matter it deals with?
All and all, communities in general can create trauma. Its odd to me that many religions tend to be especially good at it.
On the other hand, some religions I respect greatly for their desire to improve the lives of their adherents. Reform Judaism and their commitment to tzedakah and tikkun olam, Sikhism, liberal Christianity, and so forth.
Religion is a mechanism to transfer culture (though not exclusively so). When it cuts out its feedback mechanisms in its governance structure, it inevitably becomes toxic.
1000x. I think religion gets traumatic when it is all about dressing up guilt and shame for behavior control. That is when it gets traumatic.
Parents using shame to get specific behaviors from their kids (or prevent certain behaviors) are turning a very powerful tool against their kids, and it hurts everyone.
I'm no-contact with _both_ my parents, over this issue, and they're not even able to perceive that they used shame, constantly, against all three of their children, and continue to do so.
Almost 10 years out, my spouse and I still make inside jokes for the insider speech and content. However, the exit process is one that seems exclusively designed to prevent dignity from being maintained.
I’m glad you and your wife were able to get out, too. :)
Of course, context is everything and language is fluid, but think pieces that inadvertently soften words can also downgrade important intentions as a side-effect.
Though of course it can lead to misuderstandings and severe conflicts when someone who suffers gravely from one such condition and now in addition they have to add more qualifiers and verbosity to try to express their needs.
Is it the same thing that prevents people from leaving their house, because they get stuck at the door checking whether they really locked it? No, of course, but it's also not a thing with absolutely no commonality. I sometimes get stuck deciding how to re-organize things, try it this way, or maybe next month I try it that way ... then eventually but relatively quickly I get upset about it and then accept this imperfection of the world, and that's it. Is it OCD? No, and I don't use the term, but it's more OCD-like than what probably ~80-90% of the population does. And yes, of course it used to be that the clinical term was used for only the ~1% extreme end of the spectrum. (But then useful terms spread and now their use is more common and broader, and yes, it absolutely makes it less precise, dilutes their original meaning, etc. But "so ist das Leben", that's language for ya.)
And, in general, words' gravity is very context dependent. Cursing is almost like a requirement in some situations in the military, while it's absolutely forbidden in others. Or misusing religious words in a very religious setting, etc.
This has ever been the case.
As one example, you can look at the cyclic nature of words used to describe someone who, according to current terms, has an "intellectual disability":
Idiot
Moron
Imbecile
Retarded
These words and others have, at various times, been used in a specific clinical context. As those words seeped out of the clinical setting into the general public's awareness they started being used in more generic, looser, non clinical settings, often as insults. When that happened-- often when the associated stigma gained so much weight that it was difficult to use as a unloaded clinical term-- new terms started to be used. "Retarded" is the most recent to reach its EOL. Phonemic complexity seems to make this process a little more difficult: Intellectual Disability may be too much of a mouthful to easily become a quick insult.
The evolution & etymology of these terms is actually a bit more complex than this, but it gives a rough sketch of the phenomenon. It's just the natural cycle of language use.
The danger of the "everything is a ..." mindset is it allows utopian and virtue ideology to lead and control people.
https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-...
1. The leader is the ultimate authority
2. The group suppresses skepticism
3. The group delegitimizes former members
4. The group is paranoid about the outside world
5. The group relies on shame cycles
6. The leader is above the law
7. The group uses “thought reform” methods
8. The group is elitist
9. There is no financial transparency
10. The group performs secret rites
Also, not all cults are religious. Some are tied to economic activity (MLMs are very culty, for example), and dysfunctional families often take on a cult-like atmosphere, with a charismatic and controlling parent backed by enablers as they abuse a scapegoat and dominate the family.
The world's beliefs are many and varied. There are plenty of religious groups that provide a foundation for a healthy life instead of insisting they are the only means to achieving it.
You'll be hardpressed to apply this list of grievances to the average Buddhist community, for instance. Sikhs, Jains, Baha'i, Quakers -- many more come to mind.
#2 and #3 are pretty extreme. If you have social contact with a Covenant-Breaker you are likely to lose your voting rights.
#4 is of course somewhat true because most Baha'is know someone who has been imprisoned or killed (in Iran) for being Baha'i, or at least know someone who knows someone. You'd have to be pretty irrational not to be somewhat paranoid under those circumstances.
I'm not sure what is meant by #5, but shame of course has a prominent place in the Baha'i faith, as in any religion.
Going through the list, though, I think that to a significant extent it's just a rough definition of "religion" or "culture", plus elements of leadership. Is Thomas Jefferson "above the law"? Is Muhammad? Of course they are, you can't prosecute them. Is the US Government? Yes, it has "sovereign immunity". You'd be hard-pressed to find any culture that didn't consider itself superior to the outgroup, yet vulnerable to attacks from it, or that didn't enforce some degree of ideological conformity, or that didn't shame deviations from its norms.
What I like about this article is that the author suffers from the very phenomenon they are describing, demonstrating how ubiquitous and hard to detect in oneself it is.
Now, let's take Catholicism, probably the major faith most often accused of cult-like behaviour. It certainly has some of the most political structure and (pardon the pun) orthodoxy of the major religions. But Catholicism is also extremely open. There are no fees to join. There are no mandatory payments. There are no doctrinal secrets. They're entirely open about everything they believe, up front. You don't get whacked with some dark secret ten years in. They also don't really attempt to control most, let alone all, domains of of members' lives. They go about careers, etc. as they see fit. They're also tolerant of internal criticism and dissent; you've got some Cardinals in favour of gay marriage, and some of the loudest voices about the systematic sex abuse problem (one of the biggest reasons one might call them a cult) are coming from adherent Catholics, who aren't automatically excommunicated or given other traditionally cult-like handling for their dissent.
Such difference seems very significant to me. And I'm an atheist and decidedly anti-religious, for what it's worth.
Really?
"The Catholic position on contraception was formally explained and expressed by Pope Paul VI's Humanae vitae in 1968. Artificial contraception is considered intrinsically evil, but methods of natural family planning may be used, as they do not usurp the natural way of conception."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_birth_contr...
Thank you for your honesty. As a Catholic it's interesting to hear the perspective of an atheist on this topic.
Christianity rejects at a philosophical level any sort of dependence on 'secret information'. The teachings of the Catholic Church should stand up to scrutiny and there is nothing to hide.
Now we're well into the map vs territory. In the attempt to define a cult (something which we intuit) we end up fixated on the boundary between what is a cult and what is not a cult, and try to create a taxonomic rule-based classification.
The mistake is then to assume that that rule-based classification defines what a cult is (rather than attempts to describe what is a cult) and you end up saying that something (like MLMs) are a "cult" even though they are not! I mean, you can make an analogy to a cult, or show cult-like properties, but absent a religious motivation (where "religious" itself is a similarly nebulous concept) it's not a cult.
If your rule-based model defines something which is not a cult (subjectively) as a cult (objectively), then your definitions are bad, period, and you should stop using them. Instead, embrace fuzziness and subjectivity and look for the interesting properties of "cult", and learn what it teaches us about language and society.
"Cult" carries a ton of baggage. You say "hey, that MLM you want to join satisfies 4/10 properties of a cult -- it's a cult!" and the baggage is "Jonestown was a cult and they all died. Heaven's gate was a cult and they all died. Branch Davidian was a cult and they all died." It's a rhetorical sleight of hand, nothing more, and it will not convince anyone or create an interesting discussion; it'll just come down to some argument about whether Catholicism is a cult.
In order to actually get anything useful, you have to show how the cult-like properties either inevitably lead to the negative consequences (which is nigh impossible; some of these definitions apply to little league teams) or talk about the specific negative or questionable behaviors of the organization itself.
The list of signs of a cult above is a useful rubric for determining if an organizational is harmful. And as others have noted the technical term “high-demand organization” has grown specifically to leave behind the religious implications of “cult”, though language moves slow and many will still use that term day to day.
Are there any organizations you’ve been involved in that have been called a cult?
I do not agree about the list. That list is there to win semantic arguments about whether something is a cult or not. Nothing to do with harm; you can argue that some of the criteria, like "shame cycles" are prima facie harmful, but most are harmless attributes. Apply it to a kid's soccer team to see this.
I have never been involved in a cult. But sure, calling things a cult is cheap. I'm Jewish, I have been a Ron Paul supporter, card-carrying ACLU member. All of those things have been called cults.
I agree that people use "cult" too quickly. But that doesn't mean that a list like that isn't helpful.
Plus if your kids soccer team "delegitimizes former members", "is paranoid about the outside world" and "relies on shame cycles" then … big oof! These are not typical behaviors.
(Part of your argument I think is that these ideas are subjective. If you're in a jewish group that has a meeting about rising anti-semitism are you "paranoid". Hell no. But could someone call you "paranoid"? Sure. Working through that subjectiveness is actually where the meat of this issue is.)
The real question someone is asking when they ask "am I in a cult" is not about whether you can mark your religion as "cult" on your taxes. The question is "am I in danger of harm", and it is better to ask yourself that question directly -- is there sexual or physical abuse among the members; is there a financial obligation; does the group engage in abusive punishments or penalties. If it does those things who cares if it's a cult or not; get the hell out!
For the soccer team analogy a simple colloquial reading is fine -- "delegitimizes former members" : "quitters" -- "paranoid about the outside world" : "refs are crooked" -- "shame cycles" : well, that one is pretty bad, but it is not unusual for people to get significant personal gratification and the respect of your teammates for excellent performance, and to feel shame for failures.
Sure, subjectivity is part of it too. But if you're looking for diagnostic criteria in that list, you have to implicitly add "in a cult-like manner" to all of the criteria, and rely on the common subjective understanding of what a "cult" is to determine if they apply.
Definitions when applied prescriptively have to be looked at from an operational perspective -- _why_ does it matter that this instance belongs to that category?
NXIVM was absolutely a cult, despite a focus on self-improvement/ philosophy rather than religion. They had a supreme leader, they cut off the members from the outside, there was a clean ingroup/outgroup and they freaking branded their members. Sure, in most ways it was "just" an MLM but it was also absolutely a cult and it absolutely ruined people's lives in an identical way.
Scientology was a cult even before the point it took on the trappings of religion for tax purposes. It was originally NOT a religion - it was just more pseudo-scientific MLM nonsense. It was still a cult.
Sex cults are also definitely cults, even though the focus is on sex and the leader in general rather than religion.
Sure, it did bad things. If a member were a Christian, did it force them to denounce God or renounce their hope of salvation, or to otherwise accept heretical beliefs? I am not Christian; these are not things important to me, but they are part of the operational definition of a classical cult, which NXIVM is not, in that sense.
Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute. Even the wikipedia article on NXIVM, for example, calls it a "personality cult", a term specifically invented to refer to a cult-like organization organized around a persona rather than a religious precept.
Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine. I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost. EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.
Could you possibly link to this singular, authoritative (and non-contested) "operational definition of a classical cult"?
> Why use the label cult? As a rhetorical device, that's fine, but don't present it to me as an absolute.
Only your absolute definition is allowed? Is there a governing body for such things?
> Language is free -- what I think subjectively is a cult and what you do are different, and usage will evolve as time goes on, and that's fine.
This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective?
> I'm in general in favor of holding to a narrower definition because otherwise the semantic mismatch in discussing cults can get very broad, to the point where we're just talking about two different things and the connection from cult -> occult -> hidden knowledge has been completely lost.
Is it possible that this could be happening right here in this thread?
> EDIT: And not stated here, but my main thrust, is that expanding the meaning because of poorly scoped definitions is the worst possible way to go about it because it's motivated by pseudo-logic rather than by organic usage.
Now we're back to "the (singular) meaning"?
Sir: do you recall where you acquired your facts? Did those who provided them to you include any supporting proofs?
I do not have an absolute definition! That's my whole point! Nor do I deny yours, but only point out that the label, by itself, adds no value to the discussion, unless there's a common framework. Surely you can acknowledge that a significant number of people would require a religious belief; that's what makes the accusation against NIXVM particularly outre, because they are cult-like without a religious element, and saying they are a cult is a way to associate them with something generally found distateful.
> This is a bit inconsistent with the rest of your comment - what constitutes a cult is now subjective?
YES! A MILLION TIMES YES! On the border of the taxonomy, things get very wishy-washy -- but finding someone who says that Heaven's Gate or Jonestown are not cults would be enormously difficult. The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more.
I don't get to "decide" the meaning of "cult" and neither do you! It's a word in a living language in the milieu of a society with a shared cultural heritage that carries history and connotation stretching back to before we were born. It is ultimately uninteresting to debate whether NIVMX is a cult or not because it does not make more acceptable or condemnatory their practices.
If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology. But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.
Unless you're being deliberately ironic for effect and it's going over my head, are you not saying religion is an absolute requirement for a cult?
> The usage of "cult" only works because we have a shared cultural experience with the notion of cult. and invoking that when referring to things like NXIVM is a rhetorical device, nothing more.
Another shared cultural experience is delusions of omniscience.
> If you could make a strong statement; "they exhibited the following cult-like attributes, and in consequence, like every organization with those attributes, they also exhibited these behaviors" then you're on to something; you're doing observational sociology.
Until our culture can take the distinction between reality and perception of it seriously, such observational sociology will operate on a platform of delusion.
That said, starting with this and dealing with the psychological issues later seems like a very reasonable strategy.
> But here all you're really saying is "they are super double bad", which is, okay, fine, but you can just call them fascists or communists or something else that people hate and it has the same impact.
A problem: this did not actually occur (this is an extremely common behavior that ideally would be persuaded out of people somehow....but I suspect you are averse to even discussing it).
Its was probably written by an adult.
Feel free to disagree and engage in the discussion rather than using reductive cheap shots.
- sharp distinction between in-group and out-group (covers 3, 4, 8)
- high degree of social control (covers 5, 6, 7, 10)
- truth is a social construct (covers 1, 2, 7, probably 9 as well)
I think that if you try to compress the information too much, it becomes too abstract and meaningless. Your local library also distinguishes between members and non-members, but it doesn't imply that they slander the former members, or are paranoid about people who buy their own books. Social control can be achieved by different ways; for some reason it seems important that cults use shame as a specific psychological tool. Many cults would strongly object against the words that "truth is a social construct", despite the fact that they use it exactly that way.
There is a social mechanism that seems unusually successful at hacking human brains. It has probably been reinvented many times independently by various abusive people, but some people also copy some behaviors from their previous groups. Lists like this are attempts to describe the mechanism. The individual points are not independent things, but parts of a complex whole, reinforcing each other. For example, it is easier for the group to shame you, after they have convinced you that all your achievements outside the group are worthless. And it is easier to convince you that everything outside the group is worthless, if they falsely exaggerate the value of the group, and then apply black-and-white thinking (our group is miraculous, the world outside is not, therefore the world outside is worthless). Black-and-white thinking comes easier if they convince you that the teachings are super important, so it is important to get them absolutely right. Etc.
LDS is accused of being a cult. But they’re generally nice neighbors. Is it still a cult if it gets big enough? Islam would’ve once been a cult as well as Christianity.
At the very least it seems any religion is a cult. We can argue then about whether something is religious or not.
To draw an analogy, if a street gang gets big enough and controls enough territory, is it a government?
The obvious follow up question is that if these phenomena only differ in size of membership, what makes one "legitimate" and the other not? Is there such a thing as a legitimate government and a legitimate religion, or are they all just another level of street gangs and cults?
For governments anyway we have an answer. Sure at some level the organization of hard force in the form of police is subject to the same practical considerations and constraints as the organization of hard force in the form of a gang, and will thus take a superficially similar form, but a gang does not give you a day in court nor does it set up a system of fair and impartial trials nor does it let you vote on its rules. A gang is fundamentally self serving. It exists for the enrichment of itself at the expense of those outside of it. A democracy, in contrast, directly contradicts the premise "the leader is above the law." So there is such a thing as a "legitimate government".
Existence and uniqueness of "legitimate religion" is left as an exercise for the reader.
(btw Trumpism is absolutely a cult. Just look at it, they had to invent the word "Trumpism" to describe the phenomena because it did not fit any other defined political philosophy and the only constant non-contradictory belief it has is loyalty to Trump himself. Seriously, try defining Trumpism in some way other than "agreeing with what Trump says no matter what." Its impossible. That's a cult.)
For example, you could have a case like China which up until recently had rulers that stepped down every 5 years. I'd call that a textbook example of the rulers themselves being subject to the rules, and indeed regular peaceful transfers of power is something rarely ever seen outside of Democracies. In spite of having some amount of rule of law, China doesn't quite match the way I've defined legitimacy, because the laws of China themselves are ultimately derived from "because the party said so". So the legitimacy of the laws rest on the legitimacy of the communist party. Where does that legitimacy come from? The short answer is "Chinese standard of living better keep trending upwards forever."
> 1. The leader is the ultimate authority
No leader because it's decentralized.
> 2. The group suppresses skepticism
Check. People are afraid to say what they think for fear of the group. Dissent is not tolerated.
> 3. The group delegitimizes former members
Check. They attack heretics relentlessly. Members are encouraged to disconnect from their parents, family, friends if they don't get on board.
> 4. The group is paranoid about the outside world
Check. They embed themselves in echo chambers and regulate speech. They use the language of safetyism to justify it. "This isn't safe". Words are violence. Disagreement is anti-*
> 5. The group relies on shame cycles
Check. They wield shame at scale on social media. Dissenters are ostracized and sometimes their employer is targeted. When that happens employers usually submit and quickly fire the dissenter to remove the heat.
> 6. The leader is above the law
Doesn't apply.
> 7. The group uses “thought reform” methods
Check. "Educate yourself", "Read the room", "If you're not with us, you're against us". They gaslight. They deny reality. They accuse others of what they are doing.
> 8. The group is elitist
Check. They are convinced they are on the right side of history. If you don't agree, you are evil and immoral. They are good and moral.
> 9. There is no financial transparency
Doesn't apply since it's a decentralized ideology.
> 10. The group performs secret rites
They have rituals but are performed in the open. One of them includes everyone stating their identification and characteristics like skin color(!). It's a ritual and loyalty test with the purpose to communicate everyone's position in the intersectional hierarchy.
If we're talking about extremely insular, high-commitment groups that tend to punish people who leave, we might as well leave behind a word that is just as often used by monotheists to refer to heretics. "Cult" and "occult" are from "hidden" anyway, as in you'd better hide if you're a heretic.
I don't know if QAnon has the radical separation aspect where you can't be friends with former members if you leave. But QAnon is certainly something bad. Does it have aspects of a cult, to you? Is there such a thing as varying degrees, even if it's not a real cult until it reaches the threshold?
Can QAnon be a cult in a more strict sense of the term? I have a hard time believing in the existence of a cult that exists over the internet where most or all of its members are internet handles; how exactly does one punish "slimeDogAvarest281" for betraying the cult? Or per cainxinth's point, how does on perform "secret rites" over the internet?
I think that gets back to grandparent's point that not everything is a cult and you diminish the term using it so freely. "There's a group that believes things I don't like and think is silly" is not a cult. I don't think you understand the sheer degree of social pressure cults can bring to bear, and I don't think that sort of pressure can be transmitted over a channel the so-called cult member can just shut off and disappear and nobody knows how to follow them. Or, to put it another way, when the exit is as easy as the entrance, it really can't be a cult. I think critical to the cult aspect is that you can't just leave. Did Scott Adams chase you down and tell his followers to harass you? No, of course not. How could he? Neither he nor anyone else even so much as noticed you. That's not a cult by any definition.
I'm not saying this makes a cult, I'll take your point there. But I am wondering if it's an aspect of a real cult, i.e. if these can be called "cult tactics". And if so, if there's at least value in making the qualified comparison. QAnon is still detrimental, introspection still worthwhile to avoid such things, etc. Nobody will chase me down, but it can still be detrimental (even if not a cult) if I still actually believe in it (which I imagine many cult members do and which also helps keep them in the cult).
And to be clear, Scott Adams wasn't detrimental other than making me feel stupid. QAnon is worse.
Ostracism and doxxing work well. The latter opens up opportunities for SWATing.
> how does on perform "secret rites" over the internet?
In Qanon the "secret rite" is going down the YouTube rabbit hole and writing endless diatribes for other cult members to consume.
No, that lacks the characteristics of all "secret rites". If you're "writing diatribes" and posting them publicly, that's not secret, for one big problem.
I can't exactly write an essay here about what secret rites are and what a key structural component they are, but you can get a good sense about them from reading about hazing, then amping it up to the next degree: https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/national... (It was actually hard to find something that actually talks about why it occurs and is a stable pattern in human subcultures, rather than just decrying it without explanation. I don't like it and don't agree with it; in hindsight, I accidentally broke the hazing chain in my high school band because I refused to propagate it. It was an accident, though, because I didn't understand the purpose. Now I do, and both know even more effectively how I'd break the chain and how to attain similar goals in an organization in positive and healthy ways deliberately, instead of accidentally.) "Writing endless diatribes" is nothing like hazing and accomplishes none of the same goals.
The usual way -- ostracization. If your main socialization is via the cult, then leaving means losing your friends. The stupidity of the cult means you have pushed away most other people.
I wasn't in a "cult" because I was once, a long time ago, in an Ultima fan community, but then was "ostracized" because I left. I just left. There were no consequences beyond the fact that I left. The problem with cults is that they don't "ostracize" you by virtue of failing to chase you down if you leave, they are cults because they do chase you down if you leave. Again, I have a hard time believing in "cults" when the "cult" in question literally doesn't even notice you. That's not a cult.
Or said less opaquely, most people have never truly experienced being ostracized in the way that a cult can. Most people have social ties outside of a group, and maintain those, even if their primary social ties are cut (as you’ve alluded to).
(I know we are arguing the same side of this point, I just wanted to emphasize it)
Yesterday was Sunday. I have a kid, meaning I have little time and I'm frequently tired. I was driving around town and I saw throngs of people out to attend Sunday mass. And it got me thinking. These people spend multiple hours every Sunday going to worship something they have no evidence exists. The only reason most of them do so is because their parents told them this thing exists. And their parents only do so because they were told my their parents, etc. And this practice has continued on for thousands of years, all because people regard a particular ancient book as true, despite being able to articulate why. And there I was, tired and longing for just a few hours of solace.
I wouldn't call myself an atheist. But blindly following a ceremony your entire life, indoctrinating your kids, etc. definitely feels cult-like to me. Maybe not the worst cult ever, though.
On the contrary in the case of HN it fits most criteria perfectly
1. Elevation of someone to diety status (Graham, <startup founder of the week>)
2. Shunning outsiders (mocking redditors, another cult)
3. Enforced group think through shame rituals ("As a..." response posts, downvoting).
4. Belief that the HN system is superior to all other systems
HN, like nearly ALL modern startups, would qualify as cults. Remove the downvoting enforced groupthink and maybe I'd be inclined to agree with you. Until then, I refuse to. Upvote/downvote culture enforces the exact behavior required to punish and shame people with differing opinions into conforming. It's a sinister assault on human psychology and all sites doing this (HN included) should feel deeply ashamed. For being an alleged "libertarian/liberal" oasis in the middle of a barren internet desert, this place is far more like Jonestown than, for example, the philosophy department of a top 10 university despite seemingly every poster here believing truly they have 9e40 IQ and are one self help book away from unlocking literal gigabrain magic.
Hilarious, really. It goes along with the almost metastatic, terminal, pseudo-intellectualism this site is known for.
I tend enjoy downvotes that have no reason because they validate a touched nerve, but some will give a reason as to why they downvoted and open a dialogue. Thats a gold feature of HN I think.
People go to church once a week to try to align themselves with the most good they can. They take a hard look at their failing ask forgiveness and try to do better next week.
Contrast that with people than never try to do that, never have a time to reflect on deeper things, have no community that tried to help each other to do good.
All culture sit on a religious traditions, by throwing it away we don’t know what we loose, we are like the doctor of the 1800 that removed organs they didn’t know what they did.
As our culture go further and further away from christianity it is slowly disintegrating. We can no longer trust people and institutions, families don’t last, socials connections are eroding. I don’t think it can go on much longer until it crumble.
Now is there a ’God’ up there, I don’t know. But that’s not were the value of those things lie.
But yes, there is also a tendency to try to explain everything and reject what doesn’t fit in the explanation ex: homosexuality.
> See it as a kind of philosophy embedded in a story (mythology)
This is tricky. You are sort of making an acknowledgement of the power of Christianity to shape culture without requiring a firm belief in its supernatural truth claims. I just don't think you can recover the one without the other. The fruits of a Christian culture were grown over many generations by people who knew that God is real and present in their lives. I for one find it quite difficult to sacrifice for a mere symbol or just a good long term cultural outcome.
> Now is there a ’God’ up there, I don’t know?
Why are you skeptical? As an atheist (or in between atheist) who can present such a clear eyed and charitable view of Christian communities, where do your current doubts stem from?
I discovered to my surprise the logic, usefulness and truth in our stories through Jordan Peterson biblical lectures. But now through the explanation of Jonathan Pageau and some reading of the bible it seem I can go a bit further.
I am trying to communicate what I now understand to other fellow atheist that there is value in our foundational stories, I see that it’s the foundation of our culture and that as christianity fade our culture is crumbling.
I don’t know exactly what I believe at this point, I am trying to move forward, use the bible as a guide, it’s hard to communicate my way of seeing to atheist or religious people. Saying that those are story is a reduction of the truth. I don’t have better words to communicate exactly how I think.
I can see the same pattern with scientific thinking, we have a model (plants use sun human eat things) and we confuse our mental model for reality until we discover that our pattern is reductive (we use UV to make vitamin D and infrared to keep inflammation under control (recent discovery))
So I think those who believe completely are also immunized against a kind of scientific totalitarianism, the idea that we know completely, it’s very seductive as it save us to expend mental energy.
I am also seeing more way to understand the bible, the catholic way: simplified, don’t read the bible, we will do it for you, protestant: communities with each their own flavor but against a central authority and now orthodox who seem to see it more as a patterns, as path to emulate, to become god ourself or at least try, than actual physical truth, truth on another level.
What do you think, what is your perspective?
I understand the view you are articulating with the phrase 'reduction of truth'. I can't be 100% sure from such a short description but I think that view aligns closely to my own.
More and more I find my perspective tracking with these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAcZaBhEuE0
As you wrestle with the deeper questions about God and Christianity, you mine as well wrestle with the most well educated proponents of that view. The Dominican Friars who put those videos together certainly check that box.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Some attend to keep peace in their families. Or because it is a social group with which they have a long history. Or because the emotional support of a pastor helps them. Some attend because it would break their parent’s hearts if they didn’t.
For most religions, one can be crazily all in, or just showing up for the donuts afterward. You can’t tell just by looking.
One might complain about how that is inauthentic or just putting on a show, but even that is too simple.
Human motivation is deeply complex and oversimplifying it doesn’t do justice to our humanity.
“I can’t leave the cult, my family will disown me.”
“I can’t leave the cult, everyone I know and care about is in the cult.”
“I can’t leave the cult. I need the leaders emotional support.”
It
I think the main reason we don’t considered religions a cult has nothing to do with the behavior or the participants or their reasons for attendance. We generally consider cults to be small, which is incongruous with mainstream religion.
And the detail about varying levels of belief.
Emotional support from a caring ear is hardly cult like. “I have friends there” is hardly cult like.
Your hyperbole works well as a rhetorical strategy, but eliminates all the nuance I was trying to add. Just like as if I had said, “an occasional cookie doesn’t make one fat” and you had replied, “Chowing down on cookies and ice cream actually does make you fat”.
It might be true, but it is no responsive to the argument.
As I write this I’m be route to a family gathering that excites me not at all, but it will make certain members of my family happy. That’s not cult like, it’s making compromises to get along in the world.
You're only trying to add "nuance" because you're intimately familiar with organized religion. When you look at other cults, you say to yourself "obviously that's a cult because they're all zealots." But is that likely to be true? Probably not. Humans always have a wide variety of motivations for the things they do. I'm sure many people have joined cults because they're lonely or hungry.
As for your example with the homeless shelter, it would be a cult if you and the other members were part of the homeless shelter based off of a shared philosophy that was given to you from birth that involved practicing arcane rituals worshiping an ancient deity.
And rereading your very first response, I should have caught this earlier:
My arguments I haven’t once made the claim that these bigger religions aren’t cults; I haven’t made any claim in that department.
My claim are about why people attend. More specifically, that there is a wide variety of reasons that aren’t because they aren’t believers.
Adding this seems to betray your intent. While worship of a deity might be a practice of some cults, not every cult worships a deity. Conversely, not every religion that worships a deity could be a called a cult. You including it makes it the defining factor in your example above, beyond the standard common features present in many communities and organizations of people.
I think you did exactly that in the prior comment. You opined that if from birth the people serving or socializing in the homeless organization incorporated some sort of supernatural element it would be a cult. It feels to me like there is a prejudice against religion with your comments. Bear in mind, I am not criticizing an opposition to religion, just that religion on its face != cult. Narrowing it down to a single element dilutes the definition of a cult.
There is a far cry of difference between the Peoples Temple and the Branch Dravidian’s from the local Lutheran and Methodist churches down the street. The two former being commonly understood as a cult, where the two latter would not be commonly understood to be a cult. But all four had that “ancient deity” worship component, but two of them were unequivocally dangerous where two are essentially harmless organizations.
I mean this in the most honest and genuine way. What if you are simply incorrect in your perception of why a Catholic would attend mass? I bet if you found a knowledgable Christian and asked him why he attends you would find a very different set of reasons.
> I saw throngs of people out to attend Sunday mass.
Maybe I was one of them. In fact I go every Sunday without exception. But I don't recognize myself or my reasons in your characterization of why people go.
If you really want them to make up their own mind, give them the tools to evaluate ideas, don’t stack the deck because you’re afraid they’ll come to a different conclusion than you. Of course you won’t do that because you believe in God, so you’re afraid that they won’t believe in God unless indoctrinated as a child. That’s what you meant by “if I let them "make up their own mind", they'll fall for whatever persuasive argument they first encounter.” Right? The alternative to believing in God is not believing. So you’re afraid they won’t believe in God if presented with a compelling argument unless they’ve already been indoctrinated.
That how humans works. We need meaning and a group of people to share it with.
Be it progressivism, maga, HN, Catholic, etc.
If it’s a good one it’s not completely detached from reality and doesn’t shunt outsiders and outsides ideas too much.
But, I grew up in an actual cult. The comments here to the effect of “everything’s a cult” and “startups are cults” and “HN is a cult” - oh gosh. Nothing could be further from the truth. HN is not a cult, folks.
I’m glad people can make those jokes though, because I immediately know they didn’t experience what I did. They have never experienced the ongoing heartbreak of losing your entire world when you leave - your family, your friends, your job, your social life, your religion, your everything. People who get out don’t tend to make light of it.
In any case: know that there are actual cults in operation, and they do tremendous harm. The “everything’s a cult” stuff allows them to operate more freely these days.