Split thread: All self-identified groupings are the same as a religion

[T'ai Chi]

That is true as I am sure there will be people attending that represent a wide range of different religions - such as Roman Catholicism, Methodist, Buddhist and so on. I see nowhere in this thread that anyone has suggested by "religious people" the comments were being limited to one particular religion.

Or any members of any group exhibiting a similar belief structure and having leaders.

The pic of wide-eyed forumites wearing identical shirts and holding a framed pic of Randi comes to mind.
(nothing wrong with that)

[Darat]

Or any members of any group exhibiting a similar belief structure and having leaders.



Can you support your assertion that the people attending TAM (the non-religious) represent a self-identified group that has a similar belief structure to a religion?

[T'ai Chi]

Gotta love your dishonesty. In the title you say "same", when I've only said "similar".

I'll buy you a clue for Christmas.

[joobz]

Gotta love your dishonesty. In the title you say "same", when I've only said "similar".

I'll buy you a clue for Christmas.
what is meant by "similar"?

[Lisa Simpson]

So...the PTA is a religion?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Or any members of any group exhibiting a similar belief structure and having leaders.

I know there is no point in responding to trolls. But that definition is so broad as to encompass every ad hoc and structured organization that has ever existed from mobs to the parliament of Iceland.

The pic of wide-eyed forumites wearing identical shirts and holding a framed pic of Randi comes to mind.
(nothing wrong with that)

Yes there is.

[Hokulele]

Gotta love your dishonesty. In the title you say "same", when I've only said "similar".

I'll buy you a clue for Christmas.


This is the quote that sparked the discussion leading to this thread.

If "religious believers" (ie. "religious") attended, they'd see members of another belief structure in their environment, with their own lingo, rituals, shared beliefs, and leaders of the pack.


The phrase "another belief structure" does imply you view them as being the same and not just similar. But to get back on track here, if you do not think they are the same, what do you see as the main differences?

[qayak]

Actually, I have seen the same type of behaviour in many groups and tend to agree with Tai . . . Wow! Did I just say that?

I would say that not all self identifying groups are like this. I think there are some specific controls that have to be present and not all groups have them.

As an example of groups following the religious formula, I would point to most martial arts groups, whether they be traditional or ecclectic. They have the same control mechanisms as a religion and operate in much the same way.

However, I think this is more group dynamics than "religious" group dynamics. It just shows that religions are man made and subject to the evolutionary foibles of the human species.

[Hokulele]

...

I would say that not all self identifying groups are like this. I think there are some specific controls that have to be present and not all groups have them.

...


My last question to Ta'i Chi was genuine. What are the differences between self-identified groups that are similar to organized religion and those that aren't? I haven't studied anything on group dynamics and am curious.

[Tearout]

...All self-identified groupings are the same as a religion ...

Or any members of any group exhibiting a similar belief structure and having leaders...

and, by extension, should be eligable for tax free status. :D

[qayak]

My last question to Ta'i Chi was genuine. What are the differences between self-identified groups that are similar to organized religion and those that aren't? I haven't studied anything on group dynamics and am curious.

Very complicated question for the written medium. I think the differences in the group are in the formality of set up and in the members they attract.

Groups similar to religions tend to be very formal groups with tight controls. They have a de facto leader who has a direct line to some long dead leader. Depending on their size, they may have leaders at several different levels in order to keep the larger group tightly together.

In my martial arts example, if you look at shotokan karate, they are set up in exactly this manner. In fact, the similarities to the catholic church are striking. They have a strict set of rules as to how their dojos operate. They have dojo leaders who in turn answer to area leaders, national leaders and finally, the world leaders, located in Japan. Each student must pay fees. Those fees are distributed through the hierarchy and are not just for the karate training in the local dojo. they are to ensure that the organization continues. Edicts come from the top down, never the other way around. When a dojo gets too big, it splits, either positively or negatively. In either case, the affiliation up the chain of command continues even if the relationship across to other dojos doesn't.

In groups not set up like this, the leader tends to be someone whose philosophy the majority agrees with. People are not under any obligation. Their support is completely voluntary and on their own terms. So, you may get many people posing for a picture with James Randi but you will get many others int he group who will not do that and would leave the group if it were a requirement. The leaders of these informal groups tend to vary from time to time. You can see this in the skeptic movement na dit doesn't require the death of one leader to allow for a new one. In fact, the leadership is not really limited in size. There are many "leaders" of the skeptic movement and many others who do not lead but are followed regardless. You would never see that in the catholic church. You would never see another person taking equal billing with the pope and yet you see many "leaders" of the skeptic movement giving talks together and embracing the ideas of others.

Now, I think there is a lot of variation in what type of person joins what type of group. So, once again, I speak in generalities regarding the membership of these groups. In general, people who want to "believe" belong to the formal, controlling group while those who think more for themselves tend towards the less formal group.

Personally, there are a lot of things I do not do because of the group I am obligated to associate with while doing the activity. I didn't join a martial art until I found one that suited my personality. I gravitate toward activities that allow me personal freedom. I used to think it was the thrill of the sport that I liked but I have come to realize that it is the freedom from the control of others I really like. I kayak, mostly solo because the trend has become to join paddling clubs which have rules and regulations supposedly in the name of safety but are, in fact, set up much the same as religions. I rock climbed for the same reasons. It is me in control of everything that I like.

In the skeptic movement, there is no one trying to control me. There is no one saying I must do this, or that in order to belong. The only limit is my definition of skeptic and how rigorously I practice it. In fact, as an activity, skepticism is the most rewarding thing I do. It is also the cheapest.

That is probably another good indicator of the type of group one belongs to, how much money in generates for the extended hierarchy. I wonder how much money Michael Shermer makes directly from my membership in the skeptic community? After all, he is seen by many as a leader while I am but one of the lowly flock.

[ponderingturtle]

Very complicated question for the written medium. I think the differences in the group are in the formality of set up and in the members they attract.

Groups similar to religions tend to be very formal groups with tight controls. They have a de facto leader who has a direct line to some long dead leader. Depending on their size, they may have leaders at several different levels in order to keep the larger group tightly together.

In my martial arts example, if you look at shotokan karate, they are set up in exactly this manner. In fact, the similarities to the catholic church are striking. They have a strict set of rules as to how their dojos operate. They have dojo leaders who in turn answer to area leaders, national leaders and finally, the world leaders, located in Japan. Each student must pay fees. Those fees are distributed through the hierarchy and are not just for the karate training in the local dojo. they are to ensure that the organization continues. Edicts come from the top down, never the other way around. When a dojo gets too big, it splits, either positively or negatively. In either case, the affiliation up the chain of command continues even if the relationship across to other dojos doesn't.

In groups not set up like this, the leader tends to be someone whose philosophy the majority agrees with. People are not under any obligation. Their support is completely voluntary and on their own terms. So, you may get many people posing for a picture with James Randi but you will get many others int he group who will not do that and would leave the group if it were a requirement. The leaders of these informal groups tend to vary from time to time. You can see this in the skeptic movement na dit doesn't require the death of one leader to allow for a new one. In fact, the leadership is not really limited in size. There are many "leaders" of the skeptic movement and many others who do not lead but are followed regardless. You would never see that in the catholic church. You would never see another person taking equal billing with the pope and yet you see many "leaders" of the skeptic movement giving talks together and embracing the ideas of others.


So wait now not all religions are religions because they don't nessacarily have that sort of hierarchical structure?

To put it in more specific terms, quaker meetings are not a religion.

You seem to be generalizing certain traits of social structures and saying that they are the defining aspect of religion. This is entirely wrong because it fails to meet what the vast majority of people mean when they say religion.

I think a better way to define relgion is a social grouping of people who share a specific set of supernatural philosophical principles.

[Hokulele]

Very complicated question for the written medium. I think the differences in the group are in the formality of set up and in the members they attract.

Groups similar to religions tend to be very formal groups with tight controls. They have a de facto leader who has a direct line to some long dead leader. Depending on their size, they may have leaders at several different levels in order to keep the larger group tightly together.

<snipped examples for brevity>


Thanks. That is kind of what I was thinking, but wasn't sure how strong of an answer it is. I am still interested in hearing what distinctions Ta'i Chi would make.

[rocketdodger]

I would venture to say that while there are a great number of skeptics who are not part of any skeptical organization (like myself) and frankly are offended by an assertion that we have our own "leaders of the pack," there are very few, if any, similar individuals on the religious side.

That alone should be enough to differentiate the two types.

[qayak]

So wait now not all religions are religions because they don't nessacarily have that sort of hierarchical structure?

To put it in more specific terms, quaker meetings are not a religion.

You seem to be generalizing certain traits of social structures and saying that they are the defining aspect of religion. This is entirely wrong because it fails to meet what the vast majority of people mean when they say religion.

I think a better way to define relgion is a social grouping of people who share a specific set of supernatural philosophical principles.

I think I already covered this when I said that it is a matter of group dynamics and not "religious" group dynamics.

However, religions, especially the larger, better known ones, tend to follow a certain model. Of course, there is a reason for that as explained by group dynamics. It is th emodle that best allows large groups toi survive and thrive.

Ironically, it maybe the very thing skeptics dislike that prevent the movement from becoming organized and therefore, widespread.

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps Tai Cheese can describe this common belief structure that TAM attendees share.

[skepHick]

I would venture to say that while there are a great number of skeptics who are not part of any skeptical organization (like myself) and frankly are offended by an assertion that we have our own "leaders of the pack," there are very few, if any, similar individuals on the religious side.

That alone should be enough to differentiate the two types.

If you like, I'll PM you the details for the next meeting of The Organized Skeptical Movement TM. You should come, it's very interesting.

Oh and psssst...the dog barks when the wind howls, pass it on.

[qayak]

I would venture to say that while there are a great number of skeptics who are not part of any skeptical organization (like myself) and frankly are offended by an assertion that we have our own "leaders of the pack," there are very few, if any, similar individuals on the religious side.

That alone should be enough to differentiate the two types.

I agree. This is also seen in other groups. Look at shotokan karate. They have a head in Japan, much like the head of the catholic church in the Vatican and, like the catholics, they believe this head is the only authority capable of interpreting the words of their long dead founder (god), Gichin Funakoshi. All other styles (denominations) of karate are lesser because they do not even follow Funakoshi. They are not true followers.

There is a reason shotokan has such a large organization and tae kwon do uses this same formula for its huge orgs.. It is big business for the people at the top and it is supported by a membership of "believers."

[rocketdodger]

There is a reason shotokan has such a large organization and tae kwon do uses this same formula for its huge orgs.. It is big business for the people at the top and it is supported by a membership of "believers."

I this respect, I am an ex-theist (from TKD). I used to argue with MMA and self-defense people about things like the virtue of head kicks, etc, without any grounding in reality. They would present tested evidence, etc, and I would just brush it off because it didn't fit my TKD beliefs.

Now that I think about it, all of that was remarkably similar to the debates between the religious and skeptics.

This illustrates something I have been thinking about recently -- is there a generic term for such organizations? It would be helpful in debates to use it instead of "religion" because that would deflect the inevitable godwin and Mao-win arguments that the religious rely on.

[Foster Zygote]

Or any members of any group exhibiting a similar belief structure and having leaders.

The pic of wide-eyed forumites wearing identical shirts and holding a framed pic of Randi comes to mind.
(nothing wrong with that)

MMA is a religion? Would that make T'ai Chi a religious bigot?

[CFLarsen]

MMA is a religion? Would that make T'ai Chi a religious bigot?

The answer has three letters. Beginning with "Y" and ending in "s".

[thaiboxerken]

By Tai Chi's definition, scientists are part of the "Science" religion.

[Foster Zygote]

I never realized that I was in so many religions...

The JREF forum.

The Sports Car Club of America.

The International Plastic Modeler's Society.

Every band I've ever played in.

My Home-owner's Association.

[thaiboxerken]

SCCA? Do you compete in Solo, proSolo or Solo II?

[mijopaalmc]

I just thought this might be relevant in so far as it shows that there are several skeptical organizations that have common goals:

Well, until quite recently in this thread the reference was toward a skeptical movement, singular. No one's denying there are groups of skeptics about, grouping together for everything from having regular piss-ups to card nights. Many skeptics are members of a variety of groups, the basis of which can include just about any human endeavor under the sun.

To "unite" these disparate groups under any sort of ideological umbrella, as you are appearing to do, is ridiculous.

M.

I'm sorry that you think that way, but just because you think things are a certain way doesn't make them so. I have tried to demonstrate to you through empirical evidence of what skeptics say about themselves in their own words that there is a set of beliefs and goals that transcends individual skeptical organizations. I don't know why you continue to reject it.

Probably one aspect that unites all of the groups together, at least philosophically, is their desire to effect change through education:

Through education, research, publishing, and social services, it seeks to present affirmative alternatives based on scientific naturalism.

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public. It also promotes science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues. To carry out these objectives the Committee[.]

To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills.

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

To educate the public about the principles and necessity of skepticism and critical thinking in our society.
[...]
To promote higher standards of education, especially in the areas of science and critical thinking skills.

The Society is dedicated to educating the public about controversial claims. We maintain a speaker’s bureau, a telephone referral service, and this website so that schools, the press, and the general public can access our information. We tirelessly lend our scientific viewpoint to media coverage of a wide range of issues. Check out our list of media appearances.


While Australian Skeptics does not have an explicitly educational provision in their mission statement, it do provide educational or informational resources like the other skeptical organizations cited:
Publishing a periodical, the Skeptic and distributing relevant information.
Publishing articles, monographs and books that examine claims of the paranormal.
Maintaining a library.
Preparing a bibliography of relevant published material.

Prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims
Convenes conferences and meetings
Publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal

To provide an access point for media for skeptical responses to questionable claims.

[P]roviding reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

To gather and disseminate information of interest to skeptics.

To further our own learning, as well as the public’s, the Skeptics Society conducts investigations and research into controversial claims. We then make our articles available in our online reading room.

Now this doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that there is a centralized hierarchical structure like that of the Catholic Church or the Communist Party, but I do think that there is a bit more organization to skepticism that many skeptics like to admit.

[V23]

Man, this is a tough question . . .

How do you define a religion? I practice Aikido, and while being a skeptic in most aspects of my life, in the paradigm of Aikido, I have to suspend my skeptic attitude and accept a few things blindly.

In many aspects, Aikido is very much a form of a religious belief. We believe in a supernatural power called "Ki", we have a set of morals and ethics, and we practice for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment.

But is it a religion? The short answer is, yes. Strangely enough though most people don’t look at groups like aikido and other spiritual based forms of martial arts as religion, and for that matter allot of other groups also fit the bill.

AA, or Alcoholics Anonymous, is by their literature, NOT a religious organization, BUT any careful scrutiny of the group leads one to the conclusion that their requirement to believe in a higher power, (i.e. God), to find a cure for their alcoholism, does lead one to believe that they really are a religious organization.

I think that any organization could be viewed as religious, IF they assume a non-provable belief, and require their membership to adhere to it.

Or really, for that matter, any organization that allows its members to do it without forcing them to do it, leads one to the conclusion that the individual member is following their own form of a "faith construct".

The point is, any organization could be viewed as a religious group, IF that individual member chooses to treat it as such.

(God knows I have seen that very same thing out of the skeptics as well . . . ) :rolleyes:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Or any members of any group exhibiting a similar belief structure and having leaders.

The pic of wide-eyed forumites wearing identical shirts and holding a framed pic of Randi comes to mind.
(nothing wrong with that)

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledum, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

[Foster Zygote]

SCCA? Do you compete in Solo, proSolo or Solo II?

Solo. But I haven't raced in a few years. I don't presently have a suitable track car. But my next auto purchase will definitely be something autocross worthy.

[thaiboxerken]

Solo. But I haven't raced in a few years. I don't presently have a suitable track car. But my next auto purchase will definitely be something autocross worthy.

How does the Bishop of SCCA feel about this?

I'm not a member myself, but my dad was 7th in Solo II E-stock for 3 yrs in a row. I'd probably get into it if I didn't travel so much and could actually show up at events regularly. Nothing is as exhilarating as getting a car onto 3 or 4 wheels, legally.

[danielk]

I think the focus on organizational structure is completely beside the point. There are large differences between religious groups in that regard. Formal authority is only a small part of the picture in my view. Since when do Catholics, especially American Catholics, care what the pope says if they happen to not like it? Also, it goes both ways, the authorities have to accommodate their flock, too. Look at all the concessions Christianity has made to pagans or indigenous people. Loads of religious groups operate in the US which all call themselves Christian and yet are organizationally independent.

I'd argue it's more fruitful to look for similarities in the content of religious teachings, for psychological similarities between religious believers, and for shared group-dynamic effects.

Er, OK, that's a bit much for me to do alone, and I'm not an expert in any of the relevant fields. I hope that's a good enough excuse to leave the actual fact finding session to you. :p

Well, for starters, I think these elements might be important:

Central dogma.

Religion: God exists and has such and such properties. Usually more than just that, and rarely supported by evidence. Check.
Science: Naturalist assumption? May appear like a dogma, but it isn't really: It's only binding while on the job (i.e. doing science) to make it work, but doesn't bind individuals outside of their work.
Skepticism: Science is the only reliable way to gain knowledge. A belief that may or may not be true, but is supported by the great success of the scientific method.

Faith:

Religion: Most religions I'm aware of require faith, and at least with regard to their central dogmas they teach the superiority of faith over reason. Essentially used to initiate a circular reasoning loop. Check.
Science: Doesn't require any faith beyond a minimum confidence that what you're doing is useful and that the world will still be around tomorrow.
Skepticism: Maybe a faith in science? Not really. A confidence that the science thing will pan out, yes, but based on reason and observation of the success of science.

Group actions, i.e. when the group acts in a way a single individual of that group would be much less likely to act in alone. Not a subject I'm particularly knowledgeable of.

Religion: Many examples of mob action. Here's also where authority comes in, but I think it's more than just following orders. Basically, what I'm getting at is the tendency for a group to enter a state of collective trance in which they are able to perform hideous acts they would never perform as individuals. However, such collective states of mind need not necessarily be violent. Mass prayers led by evangelists appear to incite a similar trance. Check.
Politics: The above also works with nationalism. See the Third Reich for reference. Watch "Triumph des Willens". Need I say more? Same goes for socialism respectively communism as it was practiced in countries defined by these ideologies. Check.
Skepticism: Nah, not even close. There is a sense of belonging to a group, due to shared ideals regarding the acquisition of knowledge, but any sports game shows way more collectivism than that. Individualism and openness are valued.


Well, just a couple of ideas to toss around. Now it's your turn to make a definition out of my incoherent results of brainstorming. :p

[slingblade]

Who farted?

[bignickel]

Got it backwards.

All religions are the same as self-identified groupings.

[Furi]

Cool, I nominate Furry as the new Christianity, well we have the oppression the bizarre blurring of reality, fantasy and the perversions and grooming, not to mention decent fanfic*, and I know a cuddly little skwyrl that can be a sacrifice, "In your face jeebus, Furi kitty is gonna get his yiff on"


If by any self identified groups do you mean any group of people acting in unison or towards a common goal is similar to a religion, as it is also similar to the definition of a riotous assembly,

*Bible - Worst Fanfic EVER! plot holes, inconsistancies, and that stupid hollywood ending