The concept of creating a cult

[Shoseki]

I was reading recently a little about Scientology, I myself am a pure atheist, but I was curious that one of the supposed "reasons" that Scientology was even created (in the minds of at least one critic, searching for the source now) specifically for the purposes of "making a lot of money".

Now, considering that Scientology is "made up" (ie it can be directly attributed to a founder), it made me wonder, how could the idea of "the cult" be actually used for good?

As I have said, I am an atheist, but aside from believing in no god, I still share many of the "humanistic" beliefs (such as the Bill of Human Rights, equal opportunities etc), so now, I am wondering.

Would it be worth creating a "cult", named something along the lines of Humanology, which would still be compatible with 99% of the worlds cultures/religions (ie it doesn't touch upon anything to do with deities/religiosity) but under which we could put all the sort of "independantly developed, yet universally accepted" set of morals/principles/social rules under one roof?

So for example, I could be a Humanologist/Atheist, which would validate me as a human being (because I believe in justice and equality and Human Rights) as well as my faith (which in my case, is no faith).

This so called "cult" wouldn't have rules apart from the rules which are mostly internationally accepted anyway (such as freedom of speech, Human Rights etc).

It just appears then, that we would then have one "banner" under which we could call of all humankind, guaranteeing that we have at least "some" ideas that are universal, and unchanged by culture/politics/where you are raised etc.

Its an idea, thats all. Its just a higher level idea than "science vs religion" all the time etc.

Some religions already co-exist as it is - Shinto and Buddhism in japan, for example.

Its just nice for us Atheists, at least, so that we have a way of showing that we aren't all crazies/anarchist/destructive etc

(You can tell I listened to the oxford discussions between Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath...)

 

[cleanbluesky]

No, because followers would only be doing 'good' because they are expected to, rather than coming to the conclusion themselves

Plus, what you'd be required to do in order to get the obedience and conformity you would need would have negative effects on the people in your cult.

 

[SB118]

... what you'd be required to do in order to get the obedience and conformity you would need would have negative effects on the people in your cult.

Such as? (don't understand a thing about cult stuff!)

 

[cleanbluesky]

Such as? (don't understand a thing about cult stuff!)

In order to get people to accept values there needs to be a sense of punishment and reward. Also, the group needs to be willing to ostracise and 'attack' people who do not conform.

 

[Shoseki]

No, because followers would only be doing 'good' because they are expected to, rather than coming to the conclusion themselves

Plus, what you'd be required to do in order to get the obedience and conformity you would need would have negative effects on the people in your cult.

I don't kill people because it is wrong (also I have no impulse to ^^). But when I was a child, I was told this, not taught why. I was taught more in a "would you like someone to do that to you? Only do to others what you would have done to yourself" way.

We already have "negative effects" in the form of prisons and, in some cultures, corporal punishment. How would this be any different?

I guess in terms of theory, it is more about raising the level of the law and its associated theory to the level of a religion, but without the god(s)/religiosity. (I'm talking about the basic human rights type laws, not the parking ticket type laws, although that could be argued as a case of social awareness).

EDIT : And are you saying, that you already welcome those who commit capital punishment into your homes?

 

[Shoseki]

Hmm it seems that what I am saying (or at least thinking) is very similar to Secular Humanism but without the anti-religiosity part.

 

[Beren]

I guess I kind of get where you are coming from.

You are not so much seeking a label as to enable yourself to define your own label instead of others pre-concieved notions of what you must believe as an atheist?

Sorry that is a horrible scentence but I can't think of a better way of putting it being full of cold.

It sounds like what you are looking for is the blueprint to being a decent productive human being. I think you are missing the point of a lot of cults in this case

The point of a cult or religion generally is to control the economic, political or mental outlook of it's followers for the benefit of its leadership. The point of a faith generally is the belief in a higher purpose/power to life.
Without either of those tennants you are going to be struggling. Primarily as those that do want power over people will constantly undermine and subvert that which you wish to create.

Mmmm I feel like a right Marvin today. I blame 'man-flu'.

 

[Shoseki]

You are not so much seeking a label as to enable yourself to define your own label instead of others pre-concieved notions of what you must believe as an atheist?

That kinda sounds right. Because then I would still be in the same boat as all the christians/buddhists/anyone else that generally believes those types of things, and those with strongly held beliefs that don't adhere to those beliefs can sort it out between themselves and the Humanism belief system, rather than themselves and me.

It sounds like what you are looking for is the blueprint to being a decent productive human being. I think you are missing the point of a lot of cults in this case

Hmm thats possible. I think I picked the word "cult" because that is how I would describe Scientology. However, it is a manufactured religion, and this is how I would like Humanology, so that general humanistic beliefs etc have the same respect as any other world view.

The point of a cult or religion generally is to control the economic, political or mental outlook of it's followers for the benefit of its leadership.

Well, thats not what I want at all - I don't want anyone (especially not me) worshipped, just that the ideas are examined and accepted.

The point of a faith generally is the belief in a higher purpose/power to life.

Hmm, thats difficult to decide - you could put in structures to ask people to ask themselves about their own purposes in life, at least people would then ask questions. As for the higher power, well as I said, the idea of this "cult" would be to not have any and allow people to have their own religions still.

Without either of those tennants you are going to be struggling. Primarily as those that do want power over people will constantly undermine and subvert that which you wish to create.

That is true of any social group. The guys at the top of tottenham hotspurs are going to denounce the abilities of a rival team in order to push themselves ahead and spur on their players/supporters. People will denounce it, but it will at least give a framework for people to exist together under a single banner without having to fight, and yet still give framework for peoples individual beliefs concerning unanswerable questions such as the origin of the universe and the meaning of life.

Mmmm I feel like a right Marvin today. I blame 'man-flu'.

I hope you feel better soon ^^

 

[Combat squirrel]

great idea, but wont work, the fact its a 'cult' would instantly label it as a 'religion' therefore opposed to any other religions extremist

In short and putting it oh so bluntly (sorry to say it like it is) atheists/people that see religion as a rather pointless stupid idea are generally more intelligent in terms of, they know more about whats going on around them and dont accept ideas blindley

Like trying to heard cats, as its been said before

 

[Beren]

That is true of any social group. The guys at the top of tottenham hotspurs are going to denounce the abilities of a rival team in order to push themselves ahead and spur on their players/supporters. People will denounce it, but it will at least give a framework for people to exist together under a single banner without having to fight, and yet still give framework for peoples individual beliefs concerning unanswerable questions such as the origin of the universe and the meaning of life.

The problem is that you are going to be creating a system that by it's very design has a power vacuum built in. Your cult would bring together a herd of sheep with no shepherd. it wouldn't take long before the wolves started eating away at it.

I hope you feel better soon ^^

Cheers me too. Would be nice to be able to think straight!

Combat squirrel seems to be making the same sort of point in a different way. Most other religions/cults would oppose it, as those in power want to stay there and you would be undermining them.

And the contrary nature of you bunch of heathens!

 

[Shoseki]

Hmm, would you say that there was a "power vacuum" at the top of the "Manchester United Fan Club" ?

They all "believe" Manchester United to be the best team in the world, but there is no overall leader...

 

[Mr.Clark]

Scientology was even created (in the minds of at least one critic, searching for the source now) specifically for the purposes of "making a lot of money".

"Writing science fiction for about a penny a word is no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, the quickest way is to start your own religion."

Cynical? Moi?

 

[Beren]

Hmm, would you say that there was a "power vacuum" at the top of the "Manchester United Fan Club" ?

They all "believe" Manchester United to be the best team in the world, but there is no overall leader...

No, as the top of that pyramid are the owners of Man United, the premier league and the FA. If they are 'true' fans they will buy tickets, kit, and watch the games on telly if they can't go adding to the advertising revenue generated. The club exerts control over them, and profits from them. They also believe in a higher power that will make Man U the best side in the world... Therefore they fulfill my general rules of being both a religion and a faith.

 

[calnen]

Cynical? Moi?

I love that quote too

Just as a point of interest, I know people bring this up all the time on the forum but it's still true:

If you're an Atheist, you have faith in a very similar way to a religious person.

This is because there is no proof that the Atheist position is correct. In following it, you can subscribing to a belief. Its a different belief to that of most religious people, but its still a matter of faith.
If you have no faith, you are an agnostic. (As I am.)

Sorry for nitpicking, but I'm revising for an exam on the Philosophy of Religion at the moment and I felt I had to pick you up on it

 

[magick]

Would it be worth creating a "cult", named something along the lines of Humanology, which would still be compatible with 99% of the worlds cultures/religions (ie it doesn't touch upon anything to do with deities/religiosity) but under which we could put all the sort of "independantly developed, yet universally accepted" set of morals/principles/social rules under one roof?

So for example, I could be a Humanologist/Atheist, which would validate me as a human being (because I believe in justice and equality and Human Rights) as well as my faith (which in my case, is no faith).

Well something similar has already been tried on larger scale called communism. What you'r suggesting wouldn't work because like every other social/political movement the few at the top would get there taste of power and become corrupted to one degree or another. Also in a cult type enviroment it would be much, much harder to remove those people at the top.

 

[fini]

Some 'Danny' bloke created a cult that was all about doing random acts of kindness - launched his tv career and several books - so he's doing quite well out of it.

EDIT: His name's 'Danny Wallace' and the cult was called 'join me'

EDIT2: link
fini

 

[Shoseki]

Well something similar has already been tried on larger scale called communism. What you'r suggesting wouldn't work because like every other social/political movement the few at the top would get there taste of power and become corrupted to one degree or another. Also in a cult type enviroment it would be much, much harder to remove those people at the top.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a distributed belief set, so there *was* no-one at the top.

And I accept calnen's query concerning atheism as a faith set, except that I reject the *concept* of god, therefore, not requiring me to have faith, because in fact there is nothing for me to prove/disprove

EDIT : I lolled at myself there, and that little "self-referential" argument - I don't have to disprove god because he doesn't exist

 

[Mr.Clark]

If you're an Atheist, you have faith in a very similar way to a religious person.

This is because there is no proof that the Atheist position is correct. In following it, you can subscribing to a belief. Its a different belief to that of most religious people, but its still a matter of faith.

What faith? The faith that there is no deity?

That's not faith, it's a lack of evidence.

(or more correctly, there is more evidence to support it's non-existence than it's existence)

I don't believe in mavity because I have faith. I believe in it because men such as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein can prove it (or at least, have the best mathematical evidence for it's existence).

Are you saying that people who don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn have faith in that too?

Do you believe in faeries? Bigfoot? Aliens?

Does your lack of belief in some or all of those constitute faith?

If you have no faith, you are an agnostic. (As I am.)

Or as we call them, "fence-sitters"

See also: Pascal's Wager. (The Catholic church didn't like him much either!)

 

[fini]

When I was at school half our class started a cult called 'bankism'. The core beliefs of the cult was that we must have at least one bank holiday a month and that no work could be done on that day. There were other, less important beliefs, but that's not the point. We took the cult all the way to the headmaster to get him to allow us to have one day a month off in respect for our religion (cult), but he refused us our religious rights

bigots tbh

 

[calnen]

What faith? The faith that there is no deity?
That's not faith, it's a lack of evidence.
(or more correctly, there is more evidence to support it's non-existence than it's existence)

Sorry, but nope! If you dont believe in a deity, you're saying that 'X deity does not exist'. And no, there isnt much evidence to support this position. Its true that there isnt a great deal of evidence that God *does* exist either, but that just means that the informed person should (in my opinion) just form no opinion on the matter. If there's no evidence that something is either true or false, then it seems to me that the logical position is agnosticism. Whatever the Atheist says, its not the case that God's existence is inherantly unlikely. More importantly, I think statements of religious belief carry such weight - and are so hard to retract once they're committed to - that if anything you should need even more evidence before committing to a position then you would do about other matters.

"There may be a God, or there may not. In either case, I dont believe there is enough evidence to warrant committing to a belief that would require such drastic action on the part of the believer." There you are, thats me.

I don't believe in mavity because I have faith. I believe in it because men such as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein can prove it (or at least, have the best mathematical evidence for it's existence).

Thats true, there is strong evidence that mavity exists. However, there is very little, or no, evidence that God doesnt exist. Being an atheist requires faith in a way that being a scientist does not. (Although technically being a scientist does require some faith - See Hume's Problem of Induction.)

Are you saying that people who don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn have faith in that too?
Do you believe in faeries? Bigfoot? Aliens?
Does your lack of belief in some or all of those constitute faith?

Its not quite the same. Where you have evidence, but not proof, that X being doesnt exist its not such a leap of faith to believe it doesnt. For example, the fact that the whole planet has been explored and no-one has ever seen a unicorn would provide rational grounds for not believing in one. God is a different matter - for starter, there is some evidence that he exists. There are a lot of logical arguments for the existence of God, and no matter how hard Atheist philosophers might try, there are several ways in which you can show that the belief in a deity is at least a rational, and quite possibly a reasonable decision.

Or as we call them, "fence-sitters"

Having been brought up in a religious but educated family, and going on to look at these issues for myself, I've come to the opinion that there isnt really any other suitable response to the question of religion than 'I do not know'. If there is a God, he won't mind me being undecided since he made me such a skeptic in the first place. If there isnt, I havnt lost anything. I've had some interesting intellectual adventures, and I think exploring Philosophy and Religion with the open mind of the Agnostic has made me a more rounded, and certianly a more accepting person along the way.