It's got a set of DNA - a book, set of rules, or a specific ideology that serves as the building blocks for its entire being. Over time mutations can appear as culture adopts the instructions to better suit the environment, and sections that failure to adopt die off. 5/
Conversation
Religion is identifiable as a creature in contrast to other frameworks due to the cohesive, self-sustaining reasons listed above. It has reproduction, survival, defense, immunity, and instructions built in. Most people who are host to an ideological creature are 6/
1
2
51
visibly or measurably different in their behavior than people who don't host a creature (or, more accurately, host much more fluid/smaller scale creatures). They self-segregate, they feature high-sacrifice signaling for greater acceptance of the tribe, they oppose others. 7/
2
1
43
Ironically, according to this definition many liberal churches in America are no longer hosts to religious creatures; the reproductive and defense elements have been eviscerated; their religion has been taxidermied and put on display as some sort of fond memory. 8/
3
1
60
And according to this definition many things that aren't actual religions, are doing the same thing in spirit to religions. The BLM movement seems to be heading this direction - it hits hard every single one of the points I listed above.
10
2
71
Replying to
Not only BLM, but also climate change, right up to the number of babies you are allowed to have...
1
Replying to
While I generally think climate change is real and bad, I also kind of agree that climate change is also kinda high on the religion spectrum.
1
1
I don't actually want to argue w/you on this coz I've never seen anyone change their mind via verbal discourse EVER on CC, plus you do think is real, but against the religion bit here--vanishing glaciers & arctic sea ice & coral bleaching and changing elevations at which things
1
1
live plus the whole way various pollutants work in the atmosphere are verifiable testable etc; would say the denial is more religious and prone to counterfactuals.
(this was mostly for the peanut gallery, not thee)
1
2
Also climate deniers tend to be religious.
I think a big part of my personal test is how open are you to having your mind changed, and how much do you tolerate earnest and intelligent disagreement? I think people usually vastly overestimate this in themselves.
I'm thinking of one professor who wrote a mild criticism of the state of science around climate change - basically arguing that we should reduce our confidence levels - and she got absolutely roasted. Imo this is a signifier of a religious culture.
1
2
Show replies
This is almost certainly so. I tolerate earnest disagreement fine, but it would be difficult to change my mind on this (not quite as hard as w/gravity, but difficult). Last time I changed my mind on this subject was in the reverse tho (upgraded concern dramatically 10+ yrs ago)
Re changing minds/friendly argument--I had a good friend/coworker (actually worked for me but, coworker) who was VERY conservative and we were arguing environmental protection laws and he brought up "endangered dirt". I didn't believe him. Looked it up. Endangered dirt is real.
1