On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 16:50:15 -0700, David Johnson wrote:

[Quoting me at >>]

>> ## Religion/Philosophy
>>
>> For the
>> purposes of discussion in this article, *religion* differs from
>> *philosophy* in one principal respect: a religion acknowledges a Deitic
>> Principle (q.v., below).
>
>Curious about this choice. I would argue that the principal difference is a
>reliance on -- or appeal to -- the supernatural, which may or may not
>include deities. . . .

I think that for the purposes of discussion in this article, the acceptance
of the 'supernatural' automatically implies the deitic principle. Such D.P.
may be "uninvolved", but still implicitly exists. This is because the
'supernatural' is beyond natural law as it is known in context, and thus
there must be an entity that can volitionally choose to take actions not in
compliance with natural law.

>> ## Deitic Principle
>>
>> A religion's Deitic Principle is defined as one or more (normally
>> metaphysical or nonphysical) entities that are generally viewed as
>> self-aware and able (if not necessarily willing) to intervene in the
>> affairs of those demonstrating devotion to themselves or to those
>> aspects of the social contract believed to be important.
>
>So, a view which held a belief in, say, reincarnation -- or "astral
>projection" -- but had no deities would be a "philosophy"?

Reincarnation would imply a Deitic Principle as the "driver" for
reincarnation, and thus a religion. The one exception might be if
"volitional reincarnation" is a verified fact - for example, the H. Beam
Piper Paratime story "Last Enemy" - in which case it likely becomes a
political issue rather than a philosophy or religion within the meaning of
this document.

Astral Projection could be an "edge case". It might very well depend on
whether the universe in which this religion/philosophy exists allows for
psionics as a proven-to-exist science, and specifically whether the talents
in the Clairvoyance group have been verified.

>> # Characteristics of Religions
>>
>> ## Model
>>
>> The goal for any religion is to provide a common worldview to bind a
>> society into a cohesive whole. Part of that common worldview involves
>> the rules for interacting with the religion itself. We call this the
>> Model of the religion, and have identified three basic possibilities:
>
>I think there is some work to be done here to distinguish between a
>religion's "common worldview' and its perspective toward non-believers or
>other, differently-believing religionists. This seems to be written as if
>the religion's conception of the "common worldview" is one-and-the-same as
>the "common worldview" generally (i.e. as perceived by others who are not
>among the faithful). I get it that religionists tend to assume that their
>view of the "common worldview" and the common worldview are
>one-and-the-same but that's often observably not the case.

Remember that this is written with the intent of an "in-universe"
explanation being more-or-less like for a UWP - you don't actually have to
interview anyone to get an idea of how to classify the government or law
level; you just look at it and make a "best guess". Different IISS Survey
Ethnologists could come up with different GOV digits for the UK; is it a
"Charismatic Dictatorship" (popular single ruler, currently Charles III),
or is it a "Representative Democracy" (elected parliament makes the laws
and provides the heads of the bureaucracy), or is it a "Civil Service
Bureaucracy" (the real work is done by bureaucrats that get their jobs via
competetive examination)? The same uncertainty can exist with respect to
evaluating the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, or the
French Republic.

Also, it may very well be the case that what the religion _claims_ and what
it _does_ are at odds with respect to the ethnological evaluation. Without
intending to step on anyone's toes, consider the "high church"
denominations of Christianity: One is permitted to pray to a saint for
intercession with G-d, rather than to G-d in G-d's Selfness, but even with
explicit trinitarianism, the claim will adamantly be one of monotheism.
When you're looking at it from 'outside', how, functionally, is this
different from a Chinese person praying to the appropriate functionary in
the Celestial Bureacracy for intercession with the Heavenly Emperor? (Other
than the Chinese acknowledging the multiplicity of the Deitic Principle,
that is.)

>(Maybe this is what you're intending to grapple with below under "Openness" and "Accessibility.")

No; O and A is about being able to learn about the religion/philosophy at
the doctrine/catechism level and become a member of the community (baptism,
circumcision, conversion, etc.). See below.

>> ### Ethical
>>
>> The purpose of devotional activities is to maintain society as a whole
>> in a functional mode viewed as positive, or to remind devotees of the
>> need to so maintain the society. This includes self-focussed activities
>> that are intended to make one a "better person" to the extent that the
>> normal behavior of the "better person" is favorable to maintaining
>> society as above.
>
>What about religious groups which see themselves as being at odds with the
>society in which they find themselves? What does, for example, the charge
>to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" mean in this context?

"Render unto Caesar..." is a key ethical principle, which has been
expressed in Judaism as "The law of the land is the law.". The idea is that
one should not set oneself up in direct opposition to the secular
authorities unnecessarily; where obedience to the secular authorities is
not incompatible with doctrine, obey the secular authorities - or be
prepared to accept the consequences of not doing so. In other words, the
religious community sees itself as both separate from society and a part of
society, and society in both senses needs to be maintained.

>> ### Transcendental
>>
>> The purpose of devotional activities is to bring oneself closer to some
>> idealized state, representing a "perfection" of the self, or to a state
>> where there is no distinction between the self and the Deitic Principle.
>
>Seems like there are plenty of views which have such a focus without any
>sort of "Deitic Principle." Are they all philosophies?

For the purposes of discussion within this article, yes. But again, read
between the lines: If one is attempting to become One With The Universe,
and the Universe is viewed as conscious and volitional in some way,...
haven't you just described a pantheism or panentheism?

>> Occasionally, this is interpreted to focus on becoming "more/better than
>> human" or to develop abilities that are considered exceptional (for
>> example, psionics). (For individuals other than humans, substitute
>> appropriate species identifier, e.g., "more/better than
>> Vargr/Aslan/Virushi/ Gurvin/etc.)
>
>Here is that tension between the "us" of the believers in a religion and
>the "us" of everyone, believers, non-believers and different religionists.
>Surely there are religionists who believe a Human, a Vargr and an Aslan
>might all become "more/better than . . . 'sophont'" while there are also
>Vargr, say, who are convinced those measly Humans are all hopelessly
>doomed. . . .

Remember, we're not looking at religions in the context of other religions,
we're taking each as an entity in itself. Tom Lehrer's "National
Brotherhood Week" doesn't apply.

>> ### A Note on Hybridization
>>
>> It is actually unusual for an "organic" religion (that is, one that
>> developed naturally, rather than being specifically 'designed') to be
>> *purely* in one of the three classes; often, a religion will change as
>> the society does, and a religion that might be classed as 'Ethical' may
>> well have 'held over' elements that would suggest a 'Propitiatory' model
>> (e.g., prayers before and after meals), or one that is principally
>> 'Transcendental' may also have elements of an 'Ethical' model regarding
>> how the Improved self should interact with those who are less Improved.
>
>I like this complexity; it adds a great deal of verisimilitude.
>
>> Even 'designed' religions . . .
>
>Where is the examination of the distinction between "organic" and
>"designed" religions in this taxonomy?

I considered it irrelevant, and made no provisions for coding it. Remember,
this is a quick profile, not an encyclopedia article compressed into three
words. After you've got the profile, you use it to write the encyclopedia
article(s).

If you think it's relevant, convince me.

>> It is possible that an evaluation of a model might result in two models
>> appearing to be codominant (that is, of equal importance, rather than
>> one being vestiges of a historical change). Such cases may be religions
>> that are transitioning between the two models, and thus the codominance
>> should be considered unstable or transitory. It is also possible that
>> such a religion is synthetic (i.e., deliberately created, not naturally
>> developed) or syncretic (the result of two dissimilar religions being
>> combined, either deliberately or organically).
>
>More great verisimilitude here!
>
>> ## Deitic Structure
>>
>> The Deitic Structure of a religion describes the "shape" of the Deitic
>> Principle. When evaluating a religion for its Deitic Structure, look at
>> actual practice, rather than the religion's own doctrinal claims;
>
>I like this distinction, but shouldn't both be captured somehow in any
>description of a given religion?

No - the idea is that the profile is what you see when you look at the
religion; when you start digging, you get the doctrinal claims.

>> ### Dualistic
>>
>> The Deitic Principle is embodied in two entities representing opposed
>> principles. Common principle pairs are Life/Death, Good/Evil, and
>> Creation/Destruction, but other pairings are not unknown.
>
>Is there a reason for separating this out? Isn't this simply a limited case
>or subset of "Multitheistic," or is there something "special" about
>dualism? If so, could there also be something special about a "Triadistic"
>(or "Trintitarian," heh) form? Maybe "Quadratic" -- north/south/east/west
>or earth/air/fire/water -- too?

I suppose that all of those could be specific instances of
"Multitheistic/Deparmental". But for some reason that I can't articulate,
setting Dualism apart seemed like the right thing to do.

>> ### Uninvolved
>>
>> The Deitic Principle rarely interacts with devotees on any basis.
>
>Would this be a de facto "philosophy"?

No. An uninvolved but acknowledged deitic principle is still a deitic
principle, and thus defining a religion. A "philosophy" would have a deitic
structure of explicitly "Nontheistic".

>> ### Hierarchical
>>
>> Selected devotees are individually empowered to act as clergy for large
>> groups of devotees, and to empower others to do so for smaller groups.
>> Authority descends from a single individual or small council, and
>> agreement to interpretations of principles and scriptures is via
>> negotiation and consensus at the highest levels, with doctrinal
>> statements handed down to lower levels.
>
>I might label this "Institutional." Such a form doesn't necessarily need to
>be hierarchical (even if they often or even typically are).

A valid thought, but I don't think I've ever seen an example - in any
context - where an Institution didn't end up being also a Hierarchy.

>> ## Influence
>>
>> While any religion will by definition have influence among its devotees,
>> it's possible for a religion's principles to become influential among
>> others.
>
>and
>
>> ### Persuasive
>>
>> The principles of the religion are held not only by devotees, but by
>> others outside the religion, and have become a significant influence
>> among the wider society.
>
>Here is a sort of acknowledgement that the religion's "common worldview"
>isn't actually the same as the "common worldview" generally.

"... isn't _necessarily_ the same as ...". There are two cases that I can
think of more-or-less immediately where a religion's principles may become
Persuasive:

   1. The wider society is experiencing a major perspective shift, possibly
      because of technological change. In this case, the religion's
      principles may represent a perceived stability, or even a
      retrogression to a "simpler" time. In this case, the religion
      represents the "conservative" viewpoint, and ultimately positions
      itself as a force for 'tradition', 'stability', and/or 'morality'. In
      such a mode, the religion might well be the force that says "Yes, we
      _can_ do X ... but _should_ we?"

   2. The effective opposite of 1. - the society is in a mode that is
      "stuck in a rut", and the religion is bringing a new mode of thought.
      The far-seeing in the wider society recognize the possibilities in
      the new mode of thought, and encourage its wider adoption, perhaps
      shorn of doctrinal "baggage".  Arguably, the shift from propitiatory
      religions to ethical religions - including the transformation of
      primitive, priestly Judaism into rabbinical Judaism (and its cousins,
      Karaism and Samaritanism) - represents such a new mode of thought.

>> ## Openness
>>
>> Openness is an evaluation of how easily one may become part of the
>> religious community. A "closed" religion does not accept converts; one
>> must be born into the religion to be considered a member of the
>> community.
>
>Isn't "being born into the religion" simply a very special case of
>"conversion"? In other words, why privilege birth in your taxonomy? Aren't
>there plenty of examples of actual religions which require some sort of
>"coming of age" ritual for children to "come into" the faith?

Generally, those rituals are less representative of _joining_ the religious
community than they are representative of _attaining a certain level of
maturity/responsibility_ as a member of the community. Bar mitzvah, for
example, is not an induction into Judaism; it is an acknowledgement that
one has learned enough and shown sufficient maturity/responsibility to be
numbered among the adults of the community, with an adult's religious
responsibilities. Adult conversion to Judaism does not automatically imply
this level of responsibility; additional study and a separate ritual - the
same as for when a thirteen-year-old boy makes the transition - are
required.

Essentially, "closed" religions are in effect saying "you are an outsider,
you will always be an outsider, you are not wanted". The child born into
the religion, OTOH, has had no outside influences to 'contaminate' him/her.

Note that lack of a conversion ritual does not mean that the religion is
'closed'. Hinduism, for example, does not have a conversion ritual or any
formal acknowledgement of outsiders becoming Hindu; one becomes a Hindu by
self-identification and living according to the precepts.

>I think perhaps instead there are three categories here: "everyone is
>'in,'" "no one else is 'in'" and "new folks can get 'in'" and then you have
>different ways folks "get 'in'" in that last category. There might also be
>ways that the "Category 1" faithful treat/acknowledge "everyones" who don't
>believe themselves to be "in" and perhaps even how the "Category 2"
>faithful know who we "are."

That's one possible way of dividing it - although my 'gut thoughts' were
more along the lines of Openness equating to "How easy is it to join?".
Hinduism is very open, Islam less so, Judaism still less so, and I quite
frankly have no idea where Christianity would sit on this scale (and it
could very well be denominationally-dependent).

>> ## Accessibility
>
>Is this about what new folks need to "do" in order to become one of the
>faithful? Or is it about how "visible" or "hidden" a given group of
>religionists might appear to outsiders (say, like someone trying to find a
>Psionics Institute in the Imperium)? Perhaps both?

No, this is more along the lines of "How easy is it for an outsider to
learn about the religion (in an academic sense)?" If I can easily obtain
copies of "scriptual" works and/or "talmudic" commentary, if I can openly
ask questions of members and/or clergy, if I can find scholarly or popular
works about the religion not necessarily written by an "insider", the
religion is "Accessible".

Most of the major religions of present-day Earth are highly accessible by
this definition; others, such as a certain lawfare-happy California-based
church or the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors, are less accessible.

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2022. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)