34 | RB
February 14, 2009 at 9:12 am

KT: I’m sure that there have been plenty of other people who believed things with no evidence who wished that their belief community got as much of a free pass as you wish for religion. I’m sure there have been astrologers who would have been more than happy to grant non-astrologers (i.e., people who can see the complete and utter lack of sense in astrology) as much leeway as you seem to grant atheists, just as long as the non-astrologers are not jerks about pointing out how ridiculous the beliefs of the astrologers are, and how the only reason these beliefs receive any respect at all is because the community of believers was sufficiently large and organized to be able to quell open criticism from nonbelievers. Unfortunately for committed astrologers, there wasn’t a sufficiently large and ardent community dedicated to their brand of unreason to accomplish what our religious communities have.

36 | RB
April 16, 2009 at 8:10 am

Calvert:

Fair bit of truth in what you said. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and perhaps some pockets of Buddhism (not sure about this last one, though), have had times in their histories – including the present – where some segment of their believing populations (or even central authorities) have engaged in comparably horrible conduct. Surely. And I fully support exposing all of such conduct. In fact, I take part in it, by spreading the word on it on this blog and in my day-to-day interactions. I admittedly talk about this sort of stuff more than most people would prefer.

I’ll make a distinction, however, between some types of cults and religious groups and others. Well, it’s not really a distinction so much as describing a the ends of a spectrum. One end being highly liberal and laid back, the other being unflinchingly rigid, hostile, dogmatic, etc. The Cult of Scientology clearly is on the latter end of the spectrum, alongside the sorts of religionists who would punish, ostracize, terrorize, harm or kill members considering defection.

One of the things so damning for religion is the difficulty with which we can distinguish common place religion with things agreed to be ridiculous or psychotic behaviour. Psychiatriatric and Clinical Psychological associations have to go making special exceptions for the cases of religion – e.g., in considering cases of potential delusion, there are exceptions that read “except in the case of religious belief”. Relatedly, a woman recently let her child starve to death because he wouldn’t say Amen – the kid was 2 or 3 years old. She and kin then prayed for a resurrection for days. The psychiatrists said that her thinking was inline with religious thinking. She and her kin were following their religious beliefs.

Even though the conventional applications of the terms “cult” and “religion” is very strongly directed by sociocultural strength of particular groups – the established and strong ones are religions, the weak small new ones are cults, there is a meaningful distinction which can be made. And this one, again, will be more so a fuzzy boundary along a spectrum. The key issues would include such things as: 1. How much does the group’s scriptures and authorities beliefs and practices regarding human rights accord/conflict with the prevailing views? 2. How much do the group’s core and emphasized beliefs regarding the nature of the physical world accord/conflict with science?

By these considerations, we would distinguish Scientology, radical Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all other religions, etc., from moderate religious people and groups (e.g., moderate Christianity, Ismaili Muslims, etc.). These latter groups tend to have views on human rights and such that are pretty inline with the mainstream, and they tend to interpret their scriptures claims on the physical universe in such a watered down, selective and overly friendly manner as to minimize the conflict so as to maximize their ability to accept the rational scientific positions without abandoning their religion.

Of course, even these watered down religious beliefs are just as unfounded as the more literal varieties. And there are cases where people who aren’t super conservative will behave cultishly – e.g., believing that the Pope is in communication with God, and that the Pope’s word, authority, and person are demi-godish.

But when it comes to some of the core things we think of when we think of cults – e.g., abusive to members, isolating, eccentric, dogmatic, fear and distrust of the outside world, nearly unconditional trust and loyalty to central authority, beliefs regarding rights and reality that are in stark and uncompromising contrast to reason and the mainstream, etc. – these distinctions are pretty handy. However, as you’ll probably mention, this means of drawing the line has obviously been influenced by the prevalence of religion, such that we accept and are accustomed to – and would be ill-advised to strongly criticize – moderate religion.

Another thing, though, that enables major moderate religions to exist around ludicrous fables is that these religions are already super powerful and culturally entrenched. People don’t drop their jaws when they hear of virgin birth the way they do when they hear of Xenu.