Why Are There No New Major Religions?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Speaking here of Millah Abraham, a new movement in Indonesia,

“Often cults are seen as aberrations, or a psychological phenomenon. Psychologists would see cult leaders as having delusions of grandeur. But I see them as something different—as baby religions,” said Susan Palmer, a sociologist and scholar of new religions at Concordia University in Montreal. “I think people are unaware how many of them there are, how constant they are.”

And like many other new religious movements, Millah Abraham is dreaming big, with hopes to supersede Christianity and Islam as the dominant Abrahamic faith. Millah Abraham’s followers believe that every Abrahamic faith, from Judaism onward, is fated to lose its way, becoming corrupt and power-hungry, until eventually it is succeeded by a new prophet who will restore the original Abrahamic relationship to God.

To read more of this very interesting article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/new-religions/533745/

NOTE: When I say "very interesting", this is my personal opinion and should not be confused with anything else.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Scientology is a new, major-ish sort-of religion.

Mormonism is a relatively recent invention; they claim to be Christian but a lot of mainstream Christians think they are heretics. Bahai isn't really all that major, but it's fairly new. It takes awhile (like a thousand years or more) for a religion or belief system to become "major." Let's hope Scientology doesn't get any bigger.

[guillaumeb]

2. Agreed.

Christianity was a newer religion, an offshoot of Judaism, in 50CE, and it took many centuries for it to grow into its current size.

[VMA131Marine]

27. Only 40,000 scientologists worldwide in 2011

And that was down by about 50% from 2001. I would call Scientology a cult at this point. It's a very wealthy cult, but a cult nonetheless.

[guillaumeb]

3. From well into a long article:

But the religion scholars I spoke with said that perhaps the biggest reason that new faiths like Scientology, Raëlism or Millah Abraham have failed to take off is the lack of state sponsorship. A major turning point for classical Christianity was when Constantine the Great decided to halt the persecution of Christians in the Empire, instead embracing elements of the faith.

[AJT]

4. Mormonism grew past the cult stage.

[guillaumeb]

6. I agree. eom

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. And one of the reasons for that is that the LDS church

has had a lot of influence on the state government of Utah, and consequently a good deal of support from it - further verifying the point made in the article that the major religions became major in large because of government support, and in most cases government entanglement.

[Oubaas]

5. Because...

There are no new major religions because the Supreme Being looked down and saw what we did with the first batch, threw up, and said, "That's it! No more religions for those idiots, EVER!"

[guillaumeb]

7. I should have figured that one out. Now,

which religious beliefs most closely correspond to the nature of the Creator?

[Oubaas]

13. Whichever...

Whichever ones result in us realizing that we're all in the same boat, and that we're not ever going to get home unless we stop pulling in different directions and beating each other with the oars, and which inspire us to start rowing together on the same heading for home. There are as many paths to Truth as there are hearts. It just depends on which one works for a particular person.

[guillaumeb]

14. If only this philosophy was considered politically sane as well.

That on this one planet we are all linked together.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Because everyone knows it's bullshit and they're just going through the motions because

tradition is a powerful social more.

[guillaumeb]

9. If only they had asked you.

Are there any other subjects of contention that you can clarify for us?

But, speaking of your "everyone knows' contention, everyone obviously does not know or agree what you believe to be true. Only a minority believe as you do.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Unlikely.

[guillaumeb]

12. That they would ask? I agree. eom

[NeoGreen]

15. Every religion that has ever been or is adhered to now is "new"...

...relative to the age of the universe.

Pale Blue Dot
“Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”
― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

[trotsky]

16. Related:

https://xkcd.com/1235/

[guillaumeb]

17. I would argue that the "flying saucers" component is still open.

As to religion, the fact that the vast majority of humans apparently feel a need, or desire if you will, for religion, speaks to something that cannot be photographed, or measured, or classified.

[NeoGreen]

18. or exist (nt)

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. It speaks to the universe being a pretty shitty place to be alive.

So shitty that we need to tell ourselves fairy tales just to get through the day.

People need to feel safe and secure. People need to feel important, loved, respected. This is a source of anxiety for self-aware organisms such as ourselves because the universe is so obviously indifferent to these needs. They take to religion because is assuages these anxieties without actually satisfying the needs.

[guillaumeb]

20. A "shitty place to be alaive"?

No, the only place where we are alive. Every day is a gift. How we use that gift is another matter.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. Exactly the kind of fairy tales I'm talking about.

No, the only place where we are alive

"Only" and "shitty" are not mutually exclusive terms. Tim Horton's is the only place to get a coffee on my way to work, and yet it is without a doubt a shittiest coffee shop this side of the Mississippi (yes, Canadians, I went there).

Every day is a gift.

A perplexing statement for a number of reasons. The first of which, of course, is the issue of relevance. Yes, life is precious to the living. My point is that the universe is indifferent to our valuation of continued existence. It is chaotic, unpredictable, and often catastrophic. Everything you hold dear can be taken away without warning at almost any time. Ergo, the state of the universe when taken in consideration with the basic needs and desires of the living makes it a shitty place to live.

The second problem is that "every day" is obviously not "a gift" for everyone. Take laying in a hospital bed in a persistent vegetative state, for example. Or when narcotics no longer relieve the pain associated with late stage cancer. Or when in the throes of a degenerative brain disease you forget the faces of your children. I could do this all day, but the fact of the matter is there are conditions of being that invariably override survival instinct.

How we use that gift is another matter.

No kidding.

[guillaumeb]

24. If we use that gift to see the positive, and this does not mean ignoring the negative,

yes, each day is a gift for each person to use to the best of her/his ability.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. How incredibly patronizing.

[NeoGreen]

28. Seems as if we're back to this:

How many times do we have to explain the full nature of their "god" to them until they get it?

[guillaumeb]

30. Of you?

Perhaps you have a different philosophy that serves you better.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Of anyone dealing with serious issues.

[trotsky]

29. Perhaps if there is ever a day...

when the "vast majority of humans" aren't indoctrinated with religious belief before they are able to think critically for themselves, we can consider the validity of your claim.

Until then, it's just your unsupported personal opinion. And an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[guillaumeb]

31. So religion prevents people from thinking critically?

A claim that you believe perhaps, but your personal unsupported opinion is not the same as proof.

[NeoGreen]

32. Search for it and you will get...

...
https://www.google.com/search?q=religion+prevents+people+from+thinking+critically&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

#1
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-critical-thinkers-lose-faith-god/

How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God
Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises
By Daisy Grewal on May 1, 2012

Why are some people more religious than others? Answers to this question often focus on the role of culture or upbringing. While these influences are important, new research suggests that whether we believe may also have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles.

Gervais and Norenzayan’s research is based on the idea that we possess two different ways of thinking that are distinct yet related. Understanding these two ways, which are often referred to as System 1 and System 2, may be important for understanding our tendency towards having religious faith. System 1 thinking relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb while System 2 relies on analytic thinking and tends to be slower and require more effort. Solving logical and analytical problems may require that we override our System 1 thinking processes in order to engage System 2. Psychologists have developed a number of clever techniques that encourage us to do this. Using some of these techniques, Gervais and Norenzayan examined whether engaging System 2 leads people away from believing in God and religion.

snip

These studies demonstrate yet another way in which our thinking tendencies, many of which may be innate, have contributed to religious faith. It may also help explain why the vast majority of Americans tend to believe in God. Since System 2 thinking requires a lot of effort, the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when possible. Evidence suggests that the majority of us are more prone to believing than being skeptical.

snip

Gervais and Norenzayan point out that analytic thinking is just one reason out of many why people may or may not hold religious beliefs. In addition, these findings do not say anything about the inherent value or truth of religious beliefs—they simply speak to the psychology of when and why we are prone to believe. Most importantly, they provide evidence that rather than being static, our beliefs can change drastically from situation to situation, without us knowing exactly why.

Emphasis added.

Thinking critically takes effort.

[guillaumeb]

33. And do all people fall neatly into one method or the other?

Are the two methods mutually exclusive?

The "one reason out of many" is interesting.

[NeoGreen]

34. What are you suggesting?

Either you think critically or you don't.

It is "critically" or "some other method".

I guess a third option would be not to think at all, but couldn't that just be listed with "some other method(s)"?

[guillaumeb]

35. Or,

people use both methods.

[NeoGreen]

36. "non-critical thinking" is not...

...critical thinking.

[guillaumeb]

40. But it represents an approach.

People can be professionally competent in their field, and totally incompetent outside that field. Think Ben Carson. Thus both approaches can be used by the same person.

[trotsky]

39. You need to re-read my post.

You woefully misinterpreted it.

[guillaumeb]

42. In the spirit of dialogue, and an admission that I might have misinterpreted what you intended,

here is that part of your post:

Perhaps if there is ever a day...
when the "vast majority of humans" aren't indoctrinated with religious belief before they are able to think critically for themselves, we can consider the validity of your claim.

Given that the vast majority of humans claim to hold religious beliefs, and given that there is evidence that this tendency was also true of very early humans, that day might never come for the simple reason that a tendency for belief might be wired into humans.

Your thoughts?

[trotsky]

43. Key words: "tendency for belief"

What we are hard-wired for is pattern recognition, and assignment of agency.

Religious belief is one way these tendencies can manifest themselves. This in no way indicates validity of those beliefs, which is the leap you are trying to make.

Or as Michael Shermer put it,

We believe in the supernatural because we believe in the natural and we cannot discriminate between the two. We create gods because we are natural-born supernaturalists, driven by our tendency to find meaningful patterns and impart to them intentional agency. The gods will always be with us because they are hard-wired into our brains.

[Angry Dragon]

21. ran out of gods??

[guillaumeb]

22. I award you the thread winner award.

Redeemable for the Chinese made Trump merchandise of your choice.

[Angry Dragon]

26. Thank you for that great honor

however, the prize makes me feel like I lost

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Is "the original Abrahamic relationship to God" a willingness to sacrifice your children?

Or have they made up a new fable?

[guillaumeb]

41. The original Abrahamic relationship, in my own view,

is one of recognition of his (Abraham's) relationship to God. How he conceived of that relationship and how he perceived that God saw that relationship.