Religion Construction Kit

[Raphael]

[S]ome people are clearly proud of their cruelty and ruthlessness, and see the idea that one shouldn't be cruel and ruthless as contemptible weakness.

Isn't that a value judgement on your part? It looks to me like they're asserting that cruelty and ruthlessness aren't (or are not necessarily) evil traits, not that they view themselves as evil. What virtue are they asserting which cruelty and ruthlessness serve?

Probably something like "strength", "power", or "manliness".

(For example, the ideology of the colour black in Magic the Gathering has individualised freedom in the vein of the Melian Dialogue—"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"—as its dominant virtue,

Yes, that's pretty much an open dedication to evil, as far as I'm concerned.

And some people routinely use "do-gooder" as an insult for their opponents.

That's not an assertion the speaker does not wish to do good—it's a criticism of a perceived sense of moral superiority in the accused

Not at all sure that I believe you on that.

[Raphael]

Addition to my RCK nit pick post:

Page 162: When discussion Rationalism/Reform, Reaction, and Romanticism as the three ways in which religions can react to modernity, the book asserts that the Catholic Church largely chose the first of these. That might make sense for a writer from a country where Catholicism can be easily contrasted to the Evangelical version of Protestantism; it's less convincing for a reader in a country where the most prominent forms of Christianity are, on the one hand, Catholicism, and on the other hand, what would, in the USA, be called mainline Protestantism.

[Lērisama]

Addition to my RCK nit pick post:

Page 162: When discussion Rationalism/Reform, Reaction, and Romanticism as the three ways in which religions can react to modernity, the book asserts that the Catholic Church largely chose the first of these. That might make sense for a writer from a country where Catholicism can be easily contrasted to the Evangelical version of Protestantism; it's less convincing for a reader in a country where the most prominent forms of Christianity are, on the one hand, Catholicism, and on the other hand, what would, in the USA, be called mainline Protestantism.

I think it chose all three, depending on who you talk to. And non-evangelical Protestantism isn't uniform either; the Lambeth Conference¹ was delayed for four years because the (now ex-) Archbishop of Canterbury had to make sure that enough bishops would attend, due to the controversy over homosexuality.

¹ Decennial meeting of all Anglican bishops, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury

[zompist]

Yes, that's pretty much an open dedication to evil, as far as I'm concerned.

My emphasis... yes, these (fictional) people are evil in your view; that doesn't mean they're evil in theirs.

It's fine, by the way, to use our own morality. The idea isn't to "find the good in people" or advocate moral relativism. It's simply to recognize that worldviews look very different to insiders.

That might make sense for a writer from a country where Catholicism can be easily contrasted to the Evangelical version of Protestantism; it's less convincing for a reader in a country where the most prominent forms of Christianity are, on the one hand, Catholicism, and on the other hand, what would, in the USA, be called mainline Protestantism.

I'm thinking of things like the Catholic acceptance of evolution, scriptural criticism, and religious plurality; backtracking on claims of exclusive salvation; and giving up the Latin Mass. Of course there's also very hidebound factions of the Church. I can't cover everything in a 240-page book.

[Raphael]

Asking this question here because it's a religious conworlding question, and one indirectly inspired by the RCK:

The RCK section on "stickiness" made me wonder if it might be plausible for a fictional religion - perhaps an offshoot of my "Preservianism" - to include a focus on some kind of "mindfulness", or consciousness of one's thoughts, intents, and actions, leading to a rule that, whenever a follower of the religion is about to do something, no matter what, they're supposed to make a brief spoken announcement to themselves laying out what exactly they're planning to do, why they want to do it, and what they're hoping to accomplish?

There might, then, be room for religious disagreements, or perhaps even outright schisms, over the question of whether it's ok to skip the announcement, or at least keep it entirely inside your own head, if you're in a dangerous situation, such as hiding somewhere.

[Raphael]

Oh, and I might as well ask a question I have about real-life religion here: From what I've heard about Confucianism, I've got the impression that Confucianism is basically a kind of "distilled essence of cultural conservatism" - you could almost say that the conservative versions of other religions are, in a way, Confucianism in disguise. Now, does my impression make sense?

[alice]

I've now finished it; it was very interesting, and I've learned a lot.

Now, to imagine how different things would have turned out if it had existed in L. Ron Hubbard's time...

[zompist]

Now, to imagine how different things would have turned out if it had existed in L. Ron Hubbard's time...

I wouldn't give him more than a C on his conreligion. I'd really expect an s.f. writer to do better.

[zompist]

Oh, and I might as well ask a question I have about real-life religion here: From what I've heard about Confucianism, I've got the impression that Confucianism is basically a kind of "distilled essence of cultural conservatism" - you could almost say that the conservative versions of other religions are, in a way, Confucianism in disguise. Now, does my impression make sense?

Are you thinking of Confucianism, or the Chinese Empire? Confucius himself was an unemployed itinerant scholar, who used the idea of perfect ancient kings to shame and criticize the fractious and allegedly immoral kings of his own time. And the actual union of China was achieved by anti-Confucians (the legalists).

But it's probably fair to call imperial Confucianism a form of conservatism. Everything worth knowing, after all, had been codified by Confucius. China was in fact very innovative in the Táng/Sòng periods, but it's been argued that that's more because of Dàoism and Buddhism.

[Raphael]

I'm mainly thinking of the importance placed on sons obeying their fathers, subjects obeying their lords, and wives obeying their husbands.

[Ares Land]

Oh, and I might as well ask a question I have about real-life religion here: From what I've heard about Confucianism, I've got the impression that Confucianism is basically a kind of "distilled essence of cultural conservatism" - you could almost say that the conservative versions of other religions are, in a way, Confucianism in disguise. Now, does my impression make sense?

The impression I got, from reading the Analects, is that we're missing about half, maybe two-thirds of the story.

Confucius mentions the importance of ritual, and how important it is to get it right... Except, what rituals are we talking about exactly? Similarly it seems music was wrong in his day and proper in his grandfather's days -- but as far as I know both kinds are lost to us.

Now, to imagine how different things would have turned out if it had existed in L. Ron Hubbard's time...

I wouldn't give him more than a C on his conreligion. I'd really expect an s.f. writer to do better.

Maybe we should all start cults -- it looks like a profitable business!

But as far as SF religion goes, I liked Stranger in a Strange Land a lot more.

Asking this question here because it's a religious conworlding question, and one indirectly inspired by the RCK:

The RCK section on "stickiness" made me wonder if it might be plausible for a fictional religion - perhaps an offshoot of my "Preservianism" - to include a focus on some kind of "mindfulness", or consciousness of one's thoughts, intents, and actions, leading to a rule that, whenever a follower of the religion is about to do something, no matter what, they're supposed to make a brief spoken announcement to themselves laying out what exactly they're planning to do, why they want to do it, and what they're hoping to accomplish?

There might, then, be room for religious disagreements, or perhaps even outright schisms, over the question of whether it's ok to skip the announcement, or at least keep it entirely inside your own head, if you're in a dangerous situation, such as hiding somewhere.

It sounds plausible to me.

[Raphael]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand I've tried to put to work what I learned:

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?t=1550

[linguistcat]

I don't have money for it (or much of anything) but I intend to buy it ASAP, especially since coming up with religions that are similar/inspired by rl religions but not the same is ending up more difficult than I'd hoped.

[Raphael]

I don't have money for it (or much of anything) but I intend to buy it ASAP,

Good luck.

[alice]

Now, to imagine how different things would have turned out if it had existed in L. Ron Hubbard's time...

I wouldn't give him more than a C on his conreligion. I'd really expect an s.f. writer to do better.

That's still better than what he got for most of his courses in his only year at college.

[Glenn]

Typos found:

• beckause on p65.
• A double space after the word tribute on p105.
• succesors on p126.

Argh... these all survived fourteen readers, too. Thanks for pointing them out.

Ack! I was one of those fourteen readers, and I didn’t catch these at all. Thank you for finding them.

That might make sense for a writer from a country where Catholicism can be easily contrasted to the Evangelical version of Protestantism; it's less convincing for a reader in a country where the most prominent forms of Christianity are, on the one hand, Catholicism, and on the other hand, what would, in the USA, be called mainline Protestantism.

I'm thinking of things like the Catholic acceptance of evolution, scriptural criticism, and religious plurality; backtracking on claims of exclusive salvation; and giving up the Latin Mass. Of course there's also very hidebound factions of the Church. I can't cover everything in a 240-page book.

I can identify with both sides of this equation. On the one hand, I agree with Mark’s characterization of the rationalist side of Catholic doctrine; it also made me think of medieval scholasticism and its appeal to reason.

On the other hand, as a member of a mainstream Protestant church, I have several friends who were brought up Catholic, but left the Catholicism they were raised in because they found it too rigid and exclusionary, and joined our church because they found it more welcoming and more willing to discuss and accept a range of views. (The impression I get from them is that there are strains of American Catholicism that, in practice, have a lot in common in terms of mindset with strains of American fundamentalist Protestantism.)

I'm mainly thinking of the importance placed on sons obeying their fathers, subjects obeying their lords, and wives obeying their husbands

Bear in mind that Confucianism (at least in its ideal form) sees all of these relationships as reciprocal: fathers, rulers, and husbands also had duties to care for and support their children, subjects, and spouses. It is true, however, that even in the best-case scenario, such relationships were normally seen as hierarchical.

The RCK section on "stickiness" made me wonder if it might be plausible for a fictional religion - perhaps an offshoot of my "Preservianism" - to include a focus on some kind of "mindfulness", or consciousness of one's thoughts, intents, and actions, leading to a rule that, whenever a follower of the religion is about to do something, no matter what, they're supposed to make a brief spoken announcement to themselves laying out what exactly they're planning to do, why they want to do it, and what they're hoping to accomplish?

There might, then, be room for religious disagreements, or perhaps even outright schisms, over the question of whether it's ok to skip the announcement, or at least keep it entirely inside your own head, if you're in a dangerous situation, such as hiding somewhere.

(I decided to respond to this here rather than in the 5 Plus 4 thread.)

I can see this being set out as something to strive for, rather than something that all believers succeed in doing. One analogy that comes to mind is the Hesychast movement in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, one element of which was to practice “prayer without ceasing”: the goal of practitioners was to have their prayer constantly running through their minds, enabling them to meditate on God’s presence. This may have been an active practice for some, but more of an aspirational ideal for many others.

There are also cases where an exception to this practice would probably need to be made, such as an emergency situation, where time is of the essence.

[Raphael]

I'm mainly thinking of the importance placed on sons obeying their fathers, subjects obeying their lords, and wives obeying their husbands

Bear in mind that Confucianism (at least in its ideal form) sees all of these relationships as reciprocal: fathers, rulers, and husbands also had duties to care for and support their children, subjects, and spouses. It is true, however, that even in the best-case scenario, such relationships were normally seen as hierarchical.

Well, that idea seems to be standard in reactionary thought about hierarchies.

The RCK section on "stickiness" made me wonder if it might be plausible for a fictional religion - perhaps an offshoot of my "Preservianism" - to include a focus on some kind of "mindfulness", or consciousness of one's thoughts, intents, and actions, leading to a rule that, whenever a follower of the religion is about to do something, no matter what, they're supposed to make a brief spoken announcement to themselves laying out what exactly they're planning to do, why they want to do it, and what they're hoping to accomplish?

There might, then, be room for religious disagreements, or perhaps even outright schisms, over the question of whether it's ok to skip the announcement, or at least keep it entirely inside your own head, if you're in a dangerous situation, such as hiding somewhere.

(I decided to respond to this here rather than in the 5 Plus 4 thread.)

I can see this being set out as something to strive for, rather than something that all believers succeed in doing. One analogy that comes to mind is the Hesychast movement in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, one element of which was to practice “prayer without ceasing”: the goal of practitioners was to have their prayer constantly running through their minds, enabling them to meditate on God’s presence. This may have been an active practice for some, but more of an aspirational ideal for many others.

There are also cases where an exception to this practice would probably need to be made, such as an emergency situation, where time is of the essence.

Thank you, interesting.

[Ares Land]

I can identify with both sides of this equation. On the one hand, I agree with Mark’s characterization of the rationalist side of Catholic doctrine; it also made me think of medieval scholasticism and its appeal to reason.

On the other hand, as a member of a mainstream Protestant church, I have several friends who were brought up Catholic, but left the Catholicism they were raised in because they found it too rigid and exclusionary, and joined our church because they found it more welcoming and more willing to discuss and accept a range of views. (The impression I get from them is that there are strains of American Catholicism that, in practice, have a lot in common in terms of mindset with strains of American fundamentalist Protestantism.)

There seems to be something of a fad for Catholicism among American conservatives too?

There's a real wide range of views among Catholics here. Most are rather reactionary, but there's still a notable left-wing Catholic bloc.

[Glenn]

There's a real wide range of views among Catholics here. Most are rather reactionary, but there's still a notable left-wing Catholic bloc.

Your words reminded me that when I was a college student in the early '90s, I spent a couple of weekends at a Catholic Worker house in Cleveland, Ohio, doing volunteer work to help people in the surrounding community.

The Catholic Worker Movement was founded in 1933 by Dorothy Day and Pierre Maurin, and still exists today. I would say that it is definitely both Catholic and left-wing.

[Civil War Bugle]

I've received and finished reading this book. One of the items (randomizing elements of a religion) was posted on the patreon page a while ago, and I remember rolling dice to generate answers for it. Once I can figure out where my copy of my answers is, I am hoping to develop it further and post about it on the board.