Opinion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument

[John Dule]

I'm sick of hearing it, but until the theists manage a cogent counterargument I guess we'll have to keep repeating it.

[John Dule]

I'm sick of hearing it, but until the theists manage a cogent counterargument I guess we'll have to keep repeating it.

What is there to argue? Even those who believe in it, don’t believe in it.

... What?

[John Dule]

I'm sick of hearing it, but until the theists manage a cogent counterargument I guess we'll have to keep repeating it.

What is there to argue? Even those who believe in it, don’t believe in it.

... What?

No one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, including Pastafarians. So there’s nothing to argue with.

Do you seriously think that is the point of the analogy?

[John Dule]

I'm sick of hearing it, but until the theists manage a cogent counterargument I guess we'll have to keep repeating it.

What is there to argue? Even those who believe in it, don’t believe in it.

... What?

No one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, including Pastafarians. So there’s nothing to argue with.

Do you seriously think that is the point of the analogy?

No, I think it illustrates that those who use the analogy miss the point of religion.

What is that point? That falsehoods become valid if enough of the population subscribes to them?

[John Dule]

Huh, my guess was pretty close.

[John Dule]

Close. You’re actually thinking of my post four posts above this one.

The “point” of a religion has no bearing on whether or not its truth claims are true.

As everyone here knows, Hume suggested that every apparent law of the universe might be illusory, because we have no concrete reason to believe that cause and effect exist at all. But it doesn’t matter - human experience is impossible without believing in cause and effect, and this is a far more compelling evidence than anyone’s armchair philosophizing. Similarly, real religion - not the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - unlocks an aspect of human experience than believers find otherwise inaccessible. This is also an evidence in its own right.

Nobody thinks we should believe in the laws of causality because they "unlock an aspect of human experience." They are useful only insofar as they can be used to make predictions about the future. If the laws of causality were to fail to make such a prediction, then that would be cause for reassessing them.

Religion cannot and has never been able to make accurate predictions, which is one of many reasons why it is clearly disconnected from reality in a way that causal laws are not.

[John Dule]

Religion cannot and has never been able to make accurate predictions, which is one of many reasons why it is clearly disconnected from reality in a way that causal laws are not.

On the contrary, religious people can predict that if they obey the prescriptions of their faith, they will have a clearer mind and a more robust disposition towards life than they would if they didn’t. People are religious for the same reason they believe in cause and effect - it works.

Sure. I bet the Branch Davidians, Manson Family, and People's Temple missionaries were quite confident in their futures. For a time.

[John Dule]

Religion cannot and has never been able to make accurate predictions, which is one of many reasons why it is clearly disconnected from reality in a way that causal laws are not.

On the contrary, religious people can predict that if they obey the prescriptions of their faith, they will have a clearer mind and a more robust disposition towards life than they would if they didn’t. People are religious for the same reason they believe in cause and effect - it works.

Sure. I bet the Branch Davidians, Manson Family, and People's Temple missionaries were quite confident in their futures. For a time.

I’m sure that they were too. But they were regarded by almost everyone at the time as a cult, and their futures have clearly not come to pass. This demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of people are quite capable of differentiating between a real religion and a cult. If the existence of the latter disproves the former, then every rejected hypothesis disproves the scientific method.

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

[John Dule]

I think the thing that's always bugged me about the FSM argument as an argument against religion is that using it as such is actually a strawman argument, and the entirely purpose of the argument is to trump theologically-illiterate Young Earth Creationists, not religion entirely. It addresses a very narrow vision of the nature of God not held by most of learned Christianity and is pretty ridiculous in any serious setting. That is has some merit against the YEC position is a testament to YEC theology also being ridiculous in any serious setting.

The FSM argument posits there exists an undetectable omniscient being who created the universe (who happens to be made of pasta), and because you can't disprove this claim, it is no less likely than any other theological claim. This is really the conflation of two separate arguments: 1) Does God exist and can this be demonstrated? 2) What is the nature of God? The argument assumes that, conditional on God existing, the nature of God can not be demonstrated and thus could be anything; it presupposes a naive prior distribution without justification. It inherently assumes that the nature of existence does not reflect the nature of the God who created it; it assumes that, despite existing, God has never revealed any relevant information concerning their own nature to humanity as never has such purported revelation supported God's nature reflecting such as the FSM; and it assumes that bad faith claim to God's nature is as valid as that of a good faith claim.

Behind this, however, is a deeper flaw which is a clear (and common) misunderstanding of what religion (at least Christianity) means by God. The FSM is a claim to the existence of a being who occupies space and time but is simply undetectable, not unlike a mythical god of old. If we had but the proper supreme tool we could detect this being, but we simply lack the capacity. This is not what Christianity claims by God; God is not a being, not even the supreme being, but is being itself. "The unconditioned ground of existence is that whose very nature is to be," "the non-contingent ground of contingency"-- that is, the First Cause, both temporally and ontologically, whose nature is inextricably linked with what follows from it, namely creation. Science can no more "prove" or "disprove" God than it can prove its own founding tenets; no tool, no matter how great, which is contingent can address the non-contingent.

The FSM isn't even in the same ballpark as what Christianity means by God. Next to God, the FSM is child's play.

A better thought experiment, perhaps, would be that modern theological claims are no less likely than those made in ancient times by (for instance) the Greeks. Those religious claims were:

1) Made in good faith
2) Supposedly revealed to humanity in some manner by a higher power
3) Descriptive of gods whose nature aligned with the nature of the world we experience (more so than the Christian god, indeed)

If these are your standards for whether a belief system is credible, then that is still a phenomenally low bar. Indeed, the only well-founded argument against Greek mythology is that nobody believes it today-- in other words, the credibility you assign to a cult is directly proportional to the number of followers it possesses.

In any case, I agree that the FSM is a silly and reductive argument. I would certainly never use it. But it's useful insofar as it illustrates to theists how they sound to the rest of us.

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

I guess what I’m asking is what your definition of cult is.

A group of people united by the elevation/veneration of a person, object, or idea at the expense of all others. The pejorative use of the word implies insularity and irrationality, and while this is also true, the term encompasses everything from Trumpism to Christianity.

[John Dule]

Every religion begins its life as a cult. The only functional difference between the two is the number of members and the age of the organization. So no, one does not disprove the other. They are the same.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re using a fairly neutral definition of cult, i.e., any small, countercultural group founded around the supernatural claims of a charismatic leader. It’s hard to see how such a definition could possibly apply to, say, Daoism, Hinduism, or Judaism, each of which is formed of a host of different traditions, many if not most of which extend into the mythic past. Of course, by “every religion” you do not mean “every religion”; you mean Christianity. Yet by all available accounts, Christianity was highly disorganized during the short ministry of its founder, only taking on organization after he was executed by the government. If you can show me another cult that followed this model, I would be very interested in seeing it. I can’t think of any.

A cult does not have to be organized around a central charismatic figure. Hence the term "cult of personality," which differentiates a subgroup of cults.

I’m confused, is the cult of personality supposed to be an example of a non-charismatic cult, or are you referring to something else?

If all cults were centered around individual personalities, then the term "cult of personality" would be redundant, yes?

I guess what I’m asking is what your definition of cult is.

A group of people united by the elevation/veneration of a person, object, or idea at the expense of all others. The pejorative use of the word implies insularity and irrationality, and while this is also true, the term encompasses everything from Trumpism to Christianity.

In other words, any group of people who share an ultimate concern. Which if it applies to Trump supporters, also applies to libertarians, utilitarians, and corporations.

I can't speak for any of those people. I can only speak for myself-- and I can genuinely say that I don't venerate anything at the expense of all else, nor do I believe anything that I would not change my mind about if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. "Faith" is a vice.

[John Dule]

I can't speak for any of those people. I can only speak for myself-- and I can genuinely say that I don't venerate anything at the expense of all else

Neither do religious people. Christians do seek to become children of God at the expense of sin and Buddhists do seek to become enlightened at the expense of suffering, but from their perspective, they’re better of without those things anyway. If you don’t have any part of your life for you which you would make sacrifices in some other part of your life - well, you will one day.

Note that I said "at the expense of all else." Do Christians not worship Jesus above everything else? If not, I don't think they could properly be called Christians, yes?

nor do I believe anything that I would not change my mind about if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. "Faith" is a vice.

Most religious people would also change their minds “if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary” (you may have heard people talk about “converting” from one religion to another; this is what they’re referring to). The point of faith is that human beings seldom have perfect information, yet are called to make choices anyway. Faith is about what values you chose to adhere to in the face of uncertainty.

Faith is not a requirement to have moral conviction or values. It is an inherently irrational belief in something that is not substantiated by evidence. It is possible to have values without believing that they are supported by a supernatural being.

[John Dule]

Of course. And I’m trying to explain to you that such judgement calls are a necessary part of life. On a small scale, I value cheesecake at the expense of all other desserts; on a much larger scale, many people have valued their families, their honor, and their fatherlands above their own lives. Religious people, because they believe that life has an overarching purpose, are willing to subordinate everything to that purpose. That is completely logical.

[...]

It is possible to have values without believing they are supported by a supernatural being. But if you do what you think is right without knowing that it is right - which none of us ever do - then you are acting on faith, whether your beliefs involve the supernatural or not. The word “faith” is not as one-dimensional as you think it is.

FAITH: noun

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The reason why I claim that faith is a moral failing is because neither of these two definitions are desirable qualities in a person. In the first case, it is wrong to have complete trust or confidence in something-- to the point that you will dismiss any evidence to the contrary out of hand. The second case is merely a subset of the first.

An inability to adapt to new evidence routinely leads people to ruin. Faith is by definition baseless.

In any case, this is somewhat of a distraction from my initial claim that the only meaningful distinction between a cult and a religion is the size/age of the organization. Do you disagree with that?

[John Dule]

You may have heard it said before that someone was "unfaithful" to their partner.

Yeah, and Cubs fans prior to 2016 said that they were "keeping the faith." The word is used colloquially outside of religious contexts, but when Christians use it they mean something weightier, as I'm sure you'd agree.

What is meant by this obviously isn't that they stopped putting "complete trust" in them; it's that they failed to live up to the standards of behavior that anyone in their position would be expected to uphold. Similarly, a person must enter into their beliefs, religious or otherwise, rationally and of their own free will; such is human nature. Where faith is involved is whether people choose to fulfill the rules that someone with their beliefs ought to follow. Certainly this can be taken too far, and the results are dramatic and devastating. But what I submit to your consideration is that the opposite is far more widespread - people not doing what they know they ought to do (even if only in their heart of hearts), and thus making life miserable for themselves and those around them. This is what a lack of faith looks like, and because it's so much more common than an excess of faith, I suggest that it is actually the more insidious problem for mankind.

So your definition of "faith" is just... doing what you ought to do? That is an extremely vague interpretation that doesn't engage with the generally accepted definition of the word. You're essentially saying that we are suffering from a "lack of faith," by which "faith" means doing the right thing. So we're suffering from a lack of people doing the right thing? That's the most milquetoast uncontroversial statement you could possibly make, and it's predicated on the idea that "faith" means something separate from the way it is used in religious veneration.

Anyway, we clearly suffer from an overabundance of faith. Belief systems (like Christianity) that vilify skepticism and doubt encourage black-and-white self-righteous thinking. 

Yes, I do fear that if your definitions are unable to affect a difference between the Quakers and the Manson Family, they are of limited practical application.

Oh? So what differentiates a "cult" from a "religion" is rooted in how benign/harmful their practices and teachings are?

[John Dule]

Yeah, and Cubs fans prior to 2016 said that they were "keeping the faith." The word is used colloquially outside of religious contexts, but when Christians use it they mean something weightier, as I'm sure you'd agree.

It certainly requires far more faith to remain loyal to your God after the death of a loved one than it does to remain loyal to your baseball team after a one hundred year losing streak. But if you reflect for a few moments, you might be able to see why I consider those differences of degree, not kind.

On the contrary, there is indeed a distinction in kind. Cubs fans could base their hope on a series of facts and logical deductions. An example:

Premise 1: Major League Baseball will continue to be played in the future, as there is currently no reason to believe it will suddenly stop being popular.
Premise 2: The Cubs will continue to exist as a Chicago team so long as fans continue to support them, providing the organization with revenue and resisting attempts to move/shut down the franchise.
Premise 3: The quality of teams varies between years, which means that all teams will have the potential to win the World Series if given enough opportunities.

When you draw conclusions from these facts, you can safely say that the Cubs have a chance to win a future World Series. Again, the religious definition of "faith" is not predicated on evidence-based claims or factual premises such as these. It is inherently unquestioning and unsupported by evidence. Indeed, those who demand "proof" of god before they are willing to believe are often maligned by Christians, as they do not have "faith." Faith is entirely independent from factual claims or evidence.

You are conflating two distinct things: ascertaining the difference between the true and the false, which requires reason, and remaining loyal to the true and shunning the false, which requires faith. This is something you learn from experience so I don't expect to be able to convince you of it, but it is often more expedient to do what one knows to be wrong than to do what one knows to be right, even though the right is more beneficial in the long run. If you keep this proposition in mind as you go about your life I'm sure you will eventually find it to be true.

More vagaries and platitudes. I cannot respond to this unless you make an effort to actually engage with the commonly accepted definitions of the word "faith," which can be found here. To reiterate, when the word "faith" is used in a religious context, it is literally defined as "belief absent proof." You are trying to redefine the word for your own purposes.

Again, nobody disagrees that "it is good to do what you should do, but sometimes it is easier to do what you shouldn't." That isn't exactly groundbreaking philosophy. However, "doing what you should do" does not require religious faith, which is not the same as simply "keeping a promise" or "showing loyalty."

What's more, you're also conflating skepticism in matters of religion with skepticism generally. I assume that you, like me, take a rather dim view of the Chinese Communist Party, yet theirs is a faith founded and promoted entirely by staunch atheists. I see no reason to believe that the average Chinese communist is more enlightened than the average Christian just because they are an atheist. What I can say is that the CCP offers a vision of society which is both harmful to everyone living in that society, and extremely dangerous for any individual to oppose. It is far more rational for the ordinary Chinese person to go along with that system than to oppose it, even if they don't believe in it. Those who stand up to said system must have an exceedingly high amount of faith in human freedom.

I never made the claim that all atheists are "more enlightened" than all Christians, so I feel no need to reply to this. I'm going to try to keep this on-topic (that topic being the distinction, if any, between religions and cults). I'll simply note that there is no society that is "harmful to everyone living in it," which goes for communist societies as well as Christian ones. If literally nobody stood to benefit from the status quo in a society, then that status quo would not be maintained. Obviously, some people benefit from the proliferation of Christianity, as some others also do from Chinese fascism. But I nevertheless oppose both of those systems.

Oh? So what differentiates a "cult" from a "religion" is rooted in how benign/harmful their practices and teachings are?

This is one of the differences people are thinking of when they differentiate them. Another is that cults imply a kind of gross reciprocity. Thus in the cult of the Roman Emperor, one pays homage to Caesar while making one's sacrifices, and in exchange, he doesn't have you crucified. In genuine religion, one's sacrifices are noticeably more abstract - "unrighteousness", "sin", "desire", "attachment" - and they are offered to a being who doesn't strictly speaking need them, because he/she/it predates the created world. The benefits of such sacrifices flow out from you to everything you touch, because they are good for your character.

You are inventing your distinctions out of thin air. The idea that you can delineate "religion" from "cult" by the nature of the sacrifices involved is nonsense. Are you saying that the Greeks, who sacrificed lambs to their gods, were "cultists," and not religious? Were the religions of the Aztecs and Mayans also "cults?" Again: There is no meaningful distinction to be had between religions and cults aside from widespread societal acceptance, age, and organizational size. Obviously disemboweling virgins atop a pyramid is quite dissimilar from modern Christian practices. But if you consider the motivations involved in both of these traditions (and the scant evidence in support of their beliefs), you might be able to see why I consider those differences of degree, not kind.

[John Dule]

You’ll note that I’ve already attempted to have my last word on the issue of faith. You keep raising it because you seem scandalized by the idea that a word could have more than one meaning, or that its vulgar use could depart from its historical or academic use. I’m going to summarize what I’ve said so far and trust that you will let sleeping dogs lie.

I am happy to continue the conversation. Feel free to step away at any time, but I will respond if responded to.

The idea that religion has nothing to do with reason is shockingly ignorant (you will note that “ignorant”, like certain other words, has multiple meanings; it can mean unlearned, it can mean asinine, and it can mean both unlearned and asinine). Every religion rests on a wide array of evidences. Some people are religious because they have felt religion improve their own lives; that is a kind of evidence. Some people are religious because they are following holy men or women that they know; that is a kind of evidence. Some people are religious because they have been convinced by theological arguments; that is a kind of evidence. You might find all of these evidences uncompelling. So be it. The reason faith is mentioned so much in the context of religion (and by “religion”, once again, we mean “Christianity”) is because it deals with something so esoteric, and so tempting to turn a blind eye to (even when we can see the negative consequences of doing so in our own lives). Once again, the difference between being faithful in religious matters and being faithful in secular matters is one of “degree, not kind”.

On the contrary, I have said before that religion is the product of a type of rationality-- albeit a rather perverse one. There are many aspects to religion that include cultural traditions and interacting with a community of fellow believers; obviously there are reasons why people choose to do this, and they often derive some benefits from them. However, the belief element of religion-- a belief in a supernatural or omniscient power/entity-- requires what is called a "leap of faith," or "believing in or accepting something outside the boundaries of reason."

It's interesting that you would deny this, because most Christians I've talked to (including people like Scott, whose belief is beyond reproach) freely admit that they did not arrive at their faith through the logical analysis of an array of facts. Those who demand proof of god are chastised ("ye of little faith"). Perhaps this is best summarized here:

Matthew 4:7: “If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command His angels concerning You, and they will lift You up in their hands, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’ ” Jesus replied, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

The idea that god must prove himself by providing evidence of his existence is anathema to Christian teaching. God demands belief even in the absence of evidence-- this is the definition of "faith" in the religious sense.

In a way, sure. “Greek polytheism” is a general term, but more specifically, there was a cult of Apollo at Delphi, there was a cult of Zeus at Dodona, etc. Note also that mystery cults and cargo cults are called cults, not religions. Again, if you are unable to distinguish between someone cutting out the still-beating heart of a virgin and offering it to the Sun, and someone reading the Bible in their room before bed, I’m afraid that you’re too blinded by prejudice to accurately assess reality.

Obviously there's a distinction, but as I said (to paraphrase your earlier comment), the difference is in extremity, not type. In the case of the Greeks, "religion" and "cult" can be used to describe different aspects of their faith. The distinction you are making, however, is still rooted in:

1) The size of the congregation,
2) The age of the belief system, and
3) The degree to which their practices are accepted by broader society.

On the other hand, cults and religions share all other characteristics, including:

1) A group of people brought together in the common worship of a person, idea, or object.
2) The elevation of that person, idea, or object above all else, denying any evidence to the contrary.
3) A shared belief in supernatural occurrences, which is enforced both by preachers and fellow worshippers.
4) A shared notion that this body of worshippers possesses something that others do not (the ultimate truth, the blessing of the one real god, etc).
5) A reflexive reaction against doubt and an emphasis on the virtue of "faith" without evidence.

I could go on. The exact practices that these cults/religions choose to implement may vary widely, but they ultimately share these commonalities. I didn't conflate their practices (as you seem to think), but I do conflate the motivations behind those practices, as well as the structures of their organizations. Indeed, carving out human hearts is horrifying. But in the modern world, people continue to perform male and female circumcision for religious reasons. This isn't comparable to the barbarism of virgin sacrifices, but it is certainly in the same overarching category, and one does not have to be blinded by anti-Christian """prejudice""" (lol) to see that.

[John Dule]

Pagans manifestly did not elevate their deities "above all else"; they supplicated them as a means to an end, and as is always the case, the end is higher than the means. They certainly didn't believe that they possessed "ultimate truth" or "the one true god"; the Athenians may have executed Socrates for disrespecting the city's gods, but they could not have cared less whether the Celts or the Egyptians worshiped Pallas Athena. Nor did they "put emphasis on the virtue of faith without evidence"; Greek cult healing sanctuaries were filled with the testimonials of sick people who had come and been made healthy, and Croesus, before he made war with the Persians, consulted the oracle at Delphi specifically because it was the only one whose omniscience he had seen evidence for.

Is evangelism a requirement for any group that believes it worships the one true god? Judaism is notoriously insular and non-evangelical, yet Jews surely believe that their god is true. I don't think the fact that the Greeks "didn't care less" about the practices of the Celts/Egyptians implies that they didn't have full faith in their own beliefs.

Through all of this, however, you still have not clearly defined what you believe to be the distinction between a cult and a religion. You started by saying that the difference was rooted in the nature of the sacrifices being made (a spurious claim that is not supported by conventional definitions of the terms). You then zeroed in on the difference between human sacrifice and modern religious practices-- again, while the practices themselves of course differ, I have not yet seen a meaningful distinction made between them aside from the degree of barbarism involved. Again, I must ask: What exactly is the difference between a religion and a cult, aside from the three distinctions I made in my previous post? There have been plenty of things we called "cults" which were relatively benign, whereas some "religions" (such as the religion of the Aztecs) incorporated horrific human suffering. Can you lay out a clear dividing line between cults and religions, or are they indeed a difference of "degree, not type?"

To put it simply, your, yes, prejudice has led you to draw an equivalency between things that are really worlds apart. That is why you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a valid critique.

You are not a victim of prejudice. You are a victim of people challenging your beliefs. Know the difference!

[John Dule]

Through all of this, however, you still have not clearly defined what you believe to be the distinction between a cult and a religion. You started by saying that the difference was rooted in the nature of the sacrifices being made (a spurious claim that is not supported by conventional definitions of the terms). You then zeroed in on the difference between human sacrifice and modern religious practices-- again, while the practices themselves of course differ, I have not yet seen a meaningful distinction made between them aside from the degree of barbarism involved. Again, I must ask: What exactly is the difference between a religion and a cult, aside from the three distinctions I made in my previous post? There have been plenty of things we called "cults" which were relatively benign, whereas some "religions" (such as the religion of the Aztecs) incorporated horrific human suffering. Can you lay out a clear dividing line between cults and religions, or are they indeed a difference of "degree, not type?"

Ironically, I think you have already touched on one of the differences in your misguided attempt to conflate the two: it is the belief in ultimate reality or transcendent truth, the attainment of which is the perfection of human nature and the goal of human life. Hopefully you can see the difference between becoming enlightened while meditating under a fig tree, and sacrificing your daughter to Artemis so that your war goes well. One hopes for success within the confines of mundane reality, while the other seeks to surpass mundane reality and become something else entirely. I don’t think this gets us all the way there, as under this definition alone I think Neoplatonism would qualify as a religion, but it’s a good starting point. It at least gets us out of the realm of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's quite myopic for you to presume that cult members do not believe that their faith is transcendent/representative of reality. Are we to understand that the People's Temple members did not see their faith as the ultimate truth? Similarly, innumerable cultish organizations have named "the perfection of human nature" as their goal; Scientology is the easiest example, as it claims to mold each of its members into the best possible version of themselves. Does it accomplish this goal? I would say no-- but then again, I would say no for every religious organization. Once again, I find your distinction extremely tenuous, and rooted mostly in your own subjective value judgements.

Sure, there is a superficial difference between "seeking enlightenment" and praying for success in warfare. But this distinction nonetheless fails to separate cults from religions-- especially Christianity, a religion in which believers routinely pray for material success in this life. Any interview with a football player after a winning game ("I just wanna thank god for watching over me") will prove this. No, Christians aren't sacrificing virgins, but they are clearly still seeking success in this life (something you oddly seem to frown upon). You cannot draw a clear delineation between belief systems that seek transcendent truth and belief systems that seek material well-being-- both of these tendencies are present in every cult/religion, and indeed in Christianity as well. This is your third attempt to create a meaningful distinction between cults and religions, and once again it does not succeed.

I was never talking about victimhood, I was talking about you being unable to assess reality clearly as a result of your preconceived contempt. I do not follow the critical race theory definition of prejudice, as you’re doing here.

Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase: It is not "prejudicial" to reject claims and theories of a belief system that one does not subscribe to. I am no more "prejudiced" against Christianity than I am "prejudiced" against communism.

[John Dule]

You'll note that we had moved from talking about modern cults to talking about ancient ones. I think we can agree that I have successfully drawn a distinction - with your help! - between the worship of Apollo (and the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and post-Axial religions, and so we must rule out the hypothesis that modern religions are simply more established versions of ancient cults.

Far from it. Your distinction-- that ancient religions somehow didn't claim to possess a transcendent truth-- is unfounded. Are we to assume that the ancient Greeks didn't believe that their gods were any more "real" than the gods of the Persians? Are you claiming that they did not elevate their deities to a status above the deities of other cultures? This is simply not true.

Yes, religious people do pray for success in this life, and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, as long as they remember that their religion teaches the real treasure is not temporal (hence "No man can serve two masters"). When Hosea said that God desires mercy, not sacrifice, he was noting a real distinction between his faith and the faith of his contemporaries.

And once again, the distinction to which you refer is not a clear delineation. Many religions believe in reincarnation. Are we to understand that these are cults, as they do not teach that the "real treasure" is to be found in the next life? Does their emphasis on karma-- the consequences of our actions in the material world-- place them on a rung below Christianity? It sounds to me as though you are taking the tenets of Christianity (your religion of choice) and then using those tenets to fashion definitions of what constitutes a "religion," rather than approaching this debate from a neutral standpoint.

What remains to be distinguished are modern religions and modern cults (I hope you don't mind my definition being multi-faceted; your own definition of cult/religion had five parts). Modern cults do claim to bring their adherents into contact with the ultimate reality, so I would just ask if it is possible to "know them by their fruits". And when I compare what I know about Scientology, the Manson Family, or Heaven's Gate to what I know about the effect religion has had on people in my own life, I have a hard time connecting the two. Granted maybe this distinction is subjective. Maybe all you know about religion is what we've seen in the news about its worst representatives. Maybe you don't know anyone whose life has been positively transformed by their faith. You do live in Gomorrah. I can't fault you for that.

Oh my. "Know them by their fruits" is one way to say "If the results are bad, it is a cult, but if they are good then it is a religion." Do you understand how deeply biased this is? Not only are you predicating your definition of "religion" on its consequences in the material world (wait, I thought the real treasure was not temporal?), but you are neatly excluding every negative effect of religious belief from your definition of "religion." Of course you think religion is good! After all, you define religion as "faith that leads to good things!"

But anyway, let's take your argument at face value and simply judge the difference between religion and cult by their effects. Do we call Islam a cult because of its propensity for terrorist activities? Was 9/11 not a "fruit" of Islam? How about the Christian persecutions of Jews in Europe, which caused widespread state-sponsored theft and human suffering? And by the same token, should we treat Scientology as a "religion" if it happens to improve some people's lives? This is yet another distinction that doesn't hold water. The truth is that every cult/religion has both good and bad effects in various people's lives. The fruits of Christianity, for instance, are varied. Even you must agree that some are rotten.

[John Dule]

Far from it. Your distinction-- that ancient religions somehow didn't claim to possess a transcendent truth-- is unfounded. Are we to assume that the ancient Greeks didn't believe that their gods were any more "real" than the gods of the Persians? Are you claiming that they did not elevate their deities to a status above the deities of other cultures? This is simply not true.

Most pagans in classical antiquity were very respectful towards the gods of other nations. It's why religious syncretism was so widespread in that time period. Their gods were simply their gods, and to the extent that they disrespected the gods of others it was tied up in ethnic chauvinism more than anything else.

You are using the fact that pagans were respectful towards other religions as evidence that they didn't "fully" believe that their gods were real. Does this mean that in order for someone to truly believe in their own faith, they must disrespect the gods of others? How do you apply this to the millions of Christians who would say that they "respect" the beliefs of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists?

And once again, the distinction to which you refer is not a clear delineation. Many religions believe in reincarnation. Are we to understand that these are cults, as they do not teach that the "real treasure" is to be found in the next life? Does their emphasis on karma-- the consequences of our actions in the material world-- place them on a rung below Christianity? It sounds to me as though you are taking the tenets of Christianity (your religion of choice) and then using those tenets to fashion definitions of what constitutes a "religion," rather than approaching this debate from a neutral standpoint.

Actually, I am the only one in this debate who has shown familiarity with religions besides Christianity. For example, I know that reincarnation is a fixture of multiple Asian religions. I also know that in India, karmic reincarnation - being bound forever and ever to the material plane - was seen as one of the key cosmic problems, and breaking the cycle through the realization of transcendent reality is the goal of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The development of this idea is seen by scholars as the point at which Indian religion broke free of archaic Indo-European mythologizing and came into its own.

Yes, but there is nevertheless an emphasis on the material consequences of our actions. Given that you condemned cults for "seeking success in the material world," it follows that you ought to condemn any belief-- including those within Christianity-- that seek to improve material well-being by focusing on the tangible rather than the intangible. Is prayer for success in battle a "cultish" tendency? You condemned the Greeks for doing it-- why then should Christians be allowed to do it?

You attempted to sidestep this by saying that-- so long as the main point of the religion is a more transcendent truth-- these superstitions about material well-being don't matter. But you also tried to separate out "cultish" mentalities from "religious" mentalities even under the umbrella of the same belief system. So when Christians pray for personal wealth or success, or Hindus perform certain rituals out of a fear of karma, are those actions being motivated by the "cultish" side of religion?

When people of faith increase the amount of suffering in the world, they are acting out of cultishness; when they increase the amount of goodness in the world, they are acting out of genuine religious feeling. How "suffering" and "goodness" are defined is up for debate, and certainly will be debated in many cases. But at the extremes, there is an objective difference between Mahatma Gandhi and the men who perpetrated 9/11. Surely you see that.

And now we arrive at the most bad-faith (no pun intended) argument of them all: "Cultishness is when people do bad things, and religion is when people do good things." Sorry, but a Potter Stewart-esque "I know it when I see it" definition is not going to cut it here. Yes, there is a difference between the beliefs of Gandhi and the beliefs of the 9/11 hijackers. But that difference is not the delineation between "religion" and "cult." It is simply a difference of how individuals choose to channel their personal religious beliefs. To attempt to neatly create a definition of "religion" that excludes Islamic fundamentalists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and any other number of extremists is simply a fool's errand. It reeks of deep bias-- a refusal to accept the obvious fact that faith often leads people astray.

[John Dule]

You are using the fact that pagans were respectful towards other religions as evidence that they didn't "fully" believe that their gods were real. Does this mean that in order for someone to truly believe in their own faith, they must disrespect the gods of others? How do you apply this to the millions of Christians who would say that they "respect" the beliefs of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists?

It’s not that they didn’t believe their gods were fully really, it’s that they didn’t necessarily believe their gods were more real than the gods of others. Again, it’s why syncretism was so widespread and cults moved around so much. It’s because their attitude was more performative than convictional.

So out of curiosity, what does it mean to "respect" the beliefs of others? If I were a Christian, would it be wrong for me to "respect" the Hindu gods, or would I be required to view them with disdain and treat them as objectively false? Would I be expected to evangelize my beliefs to all non-believers, as not doing so would imply that my Christianity is no more valid than their heathen beliefs? If, as a Christian, I travelled to a foreign land and participated in a religious ceremony of another faith (even in the most passive way imaginable), would that mean that I was betraying the Christian god?

I condemned the Greeks for believing that someone might have to sacrifice his daughter so that his war would go well. I think we can agree that a god who has to be propitiated in such a way is not worth worshipping. Now it isn’t that religious people believe the material plane is worthless, it’s that they don’t value it as the highest good. Obviously everyone would rather have a pleasant life than an unpleasant one, but religious people are willing to forgo the pleasant things sometimes for the sake of spiritual growth. This is one of the things that differentiates real religion from self-worship.

Sure, I condemn the Greeks for engaging in human sacrifices. I also condemn Jews and Christians for cutting the genitals of their male offspring for religious reasons. I wish we could agree that a god who has to be propitiated in this way is not worth worshipping, but apparently not. Once again, the line between "cult" and "religion" is a matter of degree, not type.

And setting this aside, it is wrong to assume that we can neatly separate people into two camps: "Those who value spiritual growth above materialism" and "Those who don't." All religious people may agree that the material world is of less value, but do they act accordingly? And if they do not act accordingly, does that imply that they do not hold their faith with actual conviction? There is a conflict between these tendencies among faiths, as you say, but also within faiths (and even within individuals). Saying that "All real religious people understand that the material world matters less" is both unprovable and a No True Scotsman argument.

I do accept that people’s faith can lead them astray, if the principles they are faithful to are misguided. In fact, that is exactly my point - that faith can either be well placed or misguided, and we can tell the difference between the two. You acknowledge the difference yourself - that’s why you use the word “cult” in your username and not “religion”. I don’t see how we have anything left to discuss.

But whether or not faith is misguided is a wholly subjective value judgement. I consider your faith irreconcilably misguided and baseless-- the same way you surely feel about the Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists of the world. When there is no objective standard to which you can hold different faiths (because they are intrinsically not rooted in evidence-based claims), you cannot make any reasonable determination about whether or not they are misguided. This is why cults and religions are the same, and why Christianity is no more or less "misguided" than Scientology. Any judgements you make about these faiths are either subjective (based on your personal experience with them) or materialistic (based on the real-world outcomes of their tenets). But the overarching validity of their claims cannot be compared because they cannot be proven.

I believe this was attempt #5 to create a clear delineation between "religion" and "cult," and once again I remain unconvinced.

[John Dule]

So out of curiosity, what does it mean to "respect" the beliefs of others? If I were a Christian, would it be wrong for me to "respect" the Hindu gods, or would I be required to view them with disdain and treat them as objectively false? Would I be expected to evangelize my beliefs to all non-believers, as not doing so would imply that my Christianity is no more valid than their heathen beliefs? If, as a Christian, I travelled to a foreign land and participated in a religious ceremony of another faith (even in the most passive way imaginable), would that mean that I was betraying the Christian god?

You don't need to treat the beliefs of others with contempt, but you do need to know that at some point your beliefs and the beliefs of others become mutually exclusive, which as far as I know is not how the cults of classical antiquity viewed each other. Of course most Christians view things this way and that's the reason for its proselytizing tradition, as well as the proselytizing traditions in other religions (yes I'm aware that Judaism is an example of a non-proselytizing religion, and if I'm being honest I don't know how it deals with non-believers, except to say that they still need to follow the Noahide laws). Finally there is nothing objectionable about observing another religions ceremonies, but if you were to for instance pray to their god, you would be making a mockery of their faith and your own.

Genuinely curious: Where are you getting the claim that the religions of antiquity didn't view other religious traditions as diametrically opposed to their own? This seems like a very broad claim to make, and while it seems somewhat intuitive in certain cases (some pagans believed different gods ruled over different parts of the world), it probably varies between traditions and individual worshippers. I can't imagine that the Egyptians, for example, considered outside belief systems as "equally valid" to their own-- especially given that their beliefs were reinforced by the physical existence of the Pharaoh, who claimed to be of divine lineage. And regardless, the use of this as the delineation between "cult" and "religion" is once again not substantiated by any accepted definitions of the terms. Innumerable articles refer to the Greek "religion," which is made up of smaller "cults"-- in this sense, the word "cult" is used to refer to a small/insular group of practitioners. I cannot find any sources that call the Greeks a "cult" because they didn't view the gods of others as mutually exclusive with their own.

Sure, I condemn the Greeks for engaging in human sacrifices. I also condemn Jews and Christians for cutting the genitals of their male offspring for religious reasons. I wish we could agree that a god who has to be propitiated in this way is not worth worshipping, but apparently not. Once again, the line between "cult" and "religion" is a matter of degree, not type.

For the record, the New Testament explicitly tells Christians not to circumcise. American Christians do it for cultural reasons, not religious ones. Setting that aside, I respect the fact that circumcision arouses strong feelings in people, but comparing it to human sacrifice is frankly hysterical.

When I compare circumcision to human sacrifice, I am not saying that they are both bad to the same degree. I am simply saying that they are in the general category of "A violation of another person's bodily autonomy for religious (or cultural) reasons." Both of these practices are bad, but one is obviously far worse.

And setting this aside, it is wrong to assume that we can neatly separate people into two camps: "Those who value spiritual growth above materialism" and "Those who don't." All religious people may agree that the material world is of less value, but do they act accordingly? And if they do not act accordingly, does that imply that they do not hold their faith with actual conviction? There is a conflict between these tendencies among faiths, as you say, but also within faiths (and even within individuals).

Once again, you're making one of my points for me. Cultishness and authentic religious feeling have existed side by side throughout human history, and they exist side by side in every individual. There are members of authentic religions who have strong cultish tendencies, and I would even say that there have been (obviously seriously misguided) cult members who joined out of legitimate religious sentiment. The difference between religious traditions and cults is whether the organization itself supports the one or the other.

Aha! You appear to have forgotten the key to our disagreement. I have never denied that religions can have both negative and positive impacts on people. The issue here is that you are trying to carve the negative aspects out of religion and place them in their own category-- "cultishness." This distinction is not substantiated by any definition of "cult," and it still leaves the definition open to extremely subjective value judgements that will not help us in this debate. It is also an underhanded way of redefining religion to include solely good traits.

Saying that "All real religious people understand that the material world matters less" is both unprovable and a No True Scotsman argument.

Not at all. First of all, every religious tradition that I can think of takes it as axiomatic that there is an overarching principle or reality beyond the mundane world to which their tradition aims. Secondly, distinguishing between real religions and cults does involve a value judgement, but that doesn't make it any less objective. Distinguishing between peaceful political activism and terrorism is an objective act that involves a value judgment, but I would hope you don't have any problem with that.

The use of violence can be objectively determined. Judgements about whether or not a religion has had a "positive" impact, however, cannot.

But whether or not faith is misguided is a wholly subjective value judgement. I consider your faith irreconcilably misguided and baseless-- the same way you surely feel about the Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists of the world.

I do consider those faiths ultimately misguided, but I also think that they are legitimate and worth taking seriously, which is a judgement I do not extend to, say, Scientology, just as we refuse to grant that respect to al-Qaeda. That's the kind of distinction I'm trying to draw.

Yes, and going off of my previous response, the distinctions are not the same. Al-Qaeda uses violence to achieve its political goals-- that is a fact. Your argument is that when a belief system harms people, it is acting out of cultishness and not genuine religiosity. But this fails on multiple levels.

1) You say we can "know [cults] by their fruits," but you have not managed to give objective criteria for what "harm" entails.
2) If Islam (a religion) has factions that operate as "cults" (ISIS), it should stand to reason that Scientology (a "cult" in your opinion) might have aspects to it that function in religious ways. That is, a cult may improve people's lives in a religious manner, just as a religion may harm people in a cultish manner.
3) You have not managed to cite any existing definition of "cult" or "religion" that incorporates any of the ideas you've proposed in this thread.

I believe this was attempt #5 to create a clear delineation between "religion" and "cult," and once again I remain unconvinced.

And I think the distinction is just as obvious as it was three pages ago. But since this is the second post in a row in which you accidentally agreed with me, I do feel like we're making progress.

Again: Obviously we agree that these organizations can both help and harm people. We do not agree, however, that this is what separates cults from religions. You are trying to redefine these terms in order to conveniently ignore the aspects of religion that do not fit your narrative of faith as an inherent virtue.

[John Dule]

Genuinely curious: Where are you getting the claim that the religions of antiquity didn't view other religious traditions as diametrically opposed to their own?

This has been the consensus since I first started learning about the topic, and I've never seen anything to contradict it, so I've always just assumed that it was accurate. It's why, for example, there are so many contradictory stories in Greek mythology, but no one ever attempted to iron out, or viewed them as problematic - at least until Plato, whose thinking marks the transition from mythology to theology.

The fact that there are contradictions within a faith does not mean that it doesn't view itself as truthful. Greek religion was comprised of many different faith communities that were separated by geography, which contributed to the faith's inner divisions. Not unlike, say, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Russian Orthodoxy, Hungarian Orthodoxy, Bulgarian Orthodoxy... hmm...

And for what it's worth, I'm willing to entertain the idea that Egyptian religion had elements in it which I would call "real" religion (i. e., a contemplative spiritual tradition), but Pharaoh worship just seems like the kind of ethnic chauvinism that in my view separates antique cults from later (and in some cases earlier) religious traditions.

That "ethnic chauvinism" was certainly present in Islam as well, and the Arab conquests that followed it. The same goes for the Hindu identity in India, which remains to this day heavily intertwined with ethnic identity. Again, you are trying to create a definition of religion that excludes literally thousands of genuine historical religious cults and practices, and you're not going to succeed in doing so neatly. This is a gradient scale, not an easily definable line. I understand the human need to place things in easily categorizable groups, but it just doesn't work in this case. There is no set of criteria for "cult" and "religion" that will exclude and include all the specific things you'd like them to.

Perhaps if you don't trust your own judgement. I know people whose lives are objectively better, and so too are the lives of those around them, because they became more serious about their faith. I have no problem making that call.

Again, there are people who have improved their lives using the methods taught to them by Scientologists. I would argue (as would you, I imagine) that those methods are maladaptive, however. The only difference is that I apply this standard equally to all cults, whereas you carve out a niche for "religions" in which you excuse the same behavior.

Perhaps I haven't been clear about what I'm trying to show. What I'm trying to say is that there are within various faith traditions different strands of the "spiritual experience", an emptying of the self before God, which can and should be distinguished from those who manipulate the language of religion in order to benefit themselves.

The only reason why you consider some of these practices "genuine" and others "manipulative" is because of your personal biases regarding these belief systems. This mostly has to do with how accepted these traditions are in general society. Because Christian language is considered "normal" in your culture, you feel no qualms about saying the phrase "emptying of the self before God"-- a statement which, to me, sounds just as disturbing, vague, and creepy as anything one might read in a Scientology or People's Temple pamphlet. There is no way for you to understand how unsettling it is for a non-Christian to read something like that, especially coming from someone who otherwise seems fairly reasonable. This is quite simply because you were raised within a certain tradition that I was not. I hesitate to say that this makes my views on this matter more objective, but so long as Christians like yourself refuse to examine your own faith with the critical eye you apply to other aspects of the human experience (because you have been told that doubt is a vice), I will find it difficult to accept your perspective as unbiased.

And I'm saying that it should be obvious to anyone in possession of reason - not "reason" as in "reduction", but "reason" as in being able to know the true and the false when you see it - who belong to the former category and who belong to the latter.

As to the claim that I'm redefining terms, it seems that we've switched positions since we were debating the definition of faith. Almost all people have no problem distinguishing between a religion and a cult, and everyday language usage - including, again, the everyday language you're using in your username - reflects that.

This is your sixth attempt to delineate "religion" from "cult," and this time you have chosen the Wittgenstein argument that use alone is the determinant of what words mean. Sure-- but in this case you have made an error in your assumptions nonetheless, because my username is directed at Christians.