What is a pseudoreligion?

[Tahuti]

How do we distinguish pseudoreligions from actual religion. Many (including myself) would consider scientology to be a pseudoreligion, and while I notice that scientology does have a very strong profit making business notably absent in other religions, there is not really a coherent definition of pseudoreligion.

 

[classical_hero]

First you will need to define what a religion is before you can answer that question.

 

[LoneRebel]

Scientology probably repels people to a greater extent than most mainstream religions do because of that strong profit-making bent you mentioned. Plus the fact that it actively encourages believers to shun friends and relatives who criticize Scientology. Plus the way they treat those who have left or could leave in the future. Plus their "attack the attacker" policy regarding critics and their liberal use of litigation against them. Lots of things raise alarm bells.

 

[Masada]

I notice that scientology does have a very strong profit making business notably absent in other religions

I'm not sure if the profit-making bit is the issue, so much as making a profit from its members to the detriment of their financial health. The LDS Church operates a sprawling business empire. The difference, I guess, is that while the DMC does sell goods and services to LDS members, it doesn't force LDS members to purchase the services. I think it's also important to note that most mainline Protestant Churches in the West have endowments which are invested on a for-profit basis for the future benefit of the organisation. The sole difference between the LDS and say the Uniting Church here is that the LDS seems to take a more hands-on approach to managing its money while the Uniting Church prefers to use professional managers.

 

[Traitorfish]

I guess it's about the relationship between form and content? Scientology adopts organisational forms and practices that we associated with religion, but doesn't have any recognisable spiritual or sacred content, or at least none that its proponents seem to take very seriously. Their driving motivations seem to be profit-seeking and organisational patriotism, and it's hard to imagine how the practice of Scientology can be distinguished from simply pretending to practice of Scientology for personal gain.

 

[Harv]

How do we distinguish pseudoreligions from actual religion. Many (including myself) would consider scientology to be a pseudoreligion,

I know nothing about Scientology, except for what I saw on South Park. I use a different word for Scientology that has four letters starting with the letter "c." Maybe pseudoreligion is a more generally acceptable word.

and while I notice that scientology does have a very strong profit making business notably absent in other religions,

uh, what?

Going through the New Testament and identifying profit motives in being a religious leader is a study in itself.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I suppose pseudo means inhonest. Any true religion will have as a goal to liberate and bring one to knowledge of greater truth and deeper life. There cant be no compromise about this. God, Love, Truth, Peace always come first.

 

[Kyriakos]

I suppose pseudo means inhonest. Any true religion will have as a goal to liberate and bring one to knowledge of greater truth and deeper life. There cant be no compromise about this. God, Love, Truth, Peace always come first.

It looks likely that the later Aztec religion was not about 'love' or 'peace', and while it was still about 'god' and 'truth', it was pretty bleak in promoting the idea that in the end humans are just a source of energy for Tezcatlipoca/Voltron, to help him fight the other space monsters

 

[Antilogic]

Well, I'm not going to pull any punches. The behaviors LoneRebel describes are indicative of a cult. Presumably, this is the c-word Harv hints at. Especially the shunning outsiders part, that's a real warning sign.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

It looks likely that the later Aztec religion was not about 'love' or 'peace', and while it was still about 'god' and 'truth', it was pretty bleak in promoting the idea that in the end humans are just a source of energy for Tezcatlipoca/Voltron, to help him fight the other space monsters

Interesting. I do not know much about the Aztec religion but have no doubt it was quite barbaric and invoking rather the the Power aspect. On the other hand I do believe that there was some kind of terror aspect to it I also do think some of it may have been exaggerated ... But sure it could as well have been a pseudoreligion in quite a few of its aspects...

 

[Traitorfish]

I suppose pseudo means inhonest. Any true religion will have as a goal to liberate and bring one to knowledge of greater truth and deeper life. There cant be no compromise about this. God, Love, Truth, Peace always come first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I mean, you're not even pretending to avoid it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I mean, you're not even pretending to avoid it.

No becouse I am not pseudo about it....

 

[Kyriakos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I mean, you're not even pretending to avoid it.

^"The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew".

There are british philosophers?

You know, i once tried to read Hume, cause he was regarded as a serious british philosopher, but in reality it is just another pointless category tree which by itself is a bit like arguing that you should focus on the diameter having a value of X, cause it does have a value of X in a specific and given circle. Kind of defeats the point of generalisation.

Not that he was the only northerner to do this sort of crap.

 

[Traitorfish]

No becouse I am not pseudo about it....

You're going to have to explain this.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Interesting. I do not know much about the Aztec religion but have no doubt it was quite barbaric and invoking rather the the Power aspect. On the other hand I do believe that there was some kind of terror aspect to it I also do think some of it may have been exaggerated ... But sure it could as well have been a pseudoreligion in quite a few of its aspects...

Ethnocentric, much?

I'm not defending the barbarism of human sacrifice, but it's important to remember that to the Aztecs, their religion was every bit as correct and righteous as the various other religions are to the other peoples of the world.


What the word "pseudoreligion" brings to mind for me is when I'm on Care2 (social activism site) and some twit starts accusing me of being a "vaccine priestess" because I think it's important for people to get their annual immunizations for flu, and for kids to be immunized against measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc. Even here on CFC there have been people saying ridiculous things like atheism is a religion (it isn't), and evolution is a religion (it isn't).

 

[Harv]

What defintion do you use for the word "religion?"

ADDIT:

re·li·gion
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

It looks like some people use the definition that is in bold and you emphasize the part that is underlined.

 

[Perfection]

a redundant phrase

 

[Harv]

I suppose pseudo means inhonest. Any true religion will have as a goal to liberate and bring one to knowledge of greater truth and deeper life. There cant be no compromise about this. God, Love, Truth, Peace always come first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I mean, you're not even pretending to avoid it.

To be fair, I do not think Mechanicalsavlation is a native English speaker.

Spoiler :

"Pseudo" means false or fake, and can be found on an online dictionary. For example, "Pseudonym" means a false name. (EDIT: Fixed spelling error by native English speaker - Yay me!!)

He used "inhonest" to describe his understanding of "pseudo" by context. The correct word is "dishonest."

"Cant" should be "can't."

"Can't be no" is a double negative and should be "can't be any."

"Always come first" should be "always comes first."

Mechanicalsalvation, I am really not trying to embarass you in any way. I am simply saying that you are making your best effort to participate in a discussion and be understood. (EDIT: You have my respect for that.)

From reading the link about the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, I cannot see where Mechanical Salvation intentionally changed the meaning of "religion" to exclude a point that would disprove his claim. A "No True Scotsman" appeal to purity would look like:

Any religion will have as a goal to liberate and bring one to knowledge of greater truth and deeper life.

Well,

the later Aztec religion was not about 'love' or 'peace'

Any true religion will have as a goal to liberate and bring one to knowledge of greater truth and deeper life.

It looks to me like he was trying to grasp the meaning of "pseudoreligion." From reading the OP again, it looks like the OP is asking the same question.

 

[Jehoshua]

At least in my opinion, a pseudo-religion would be something that isn't really held for theological and spiritual convictions, but is an accessory to some other belief or circumstance such as ultra-nationalism (so many although I wouldn't say all cases of neopaganism, which is heavily associated with radical nationalism as a "set" that comes together in many places)

 

[timtofly]

It looks to me like he was trying to grasp the meaning of "pseudoreligion." From reading the OP again, it looks like the OP is asking the same question.

There is no true religion, thus no false religion, would be the goal of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Some posters jump at the possibility to point out logic fallacies. 75% of my post probably appear because of that. Post #2 had already covered that, yet we still get later postings, which allow threads to have a life of their own.

I would tend to agree that while there are some established and accepted religions, those that are not accepted are relegated to cults, or pseudo religions. Either all religions are true, or all religions are false, but any attempt at forming a group with the accepted goal to produce the definition of the accepted term religion would be a religion. Adjectives come and go. I am not sure that if scientist get together and attempt to answer the same questions cannot be called a religion, regardless of any spiritual connection. When a person claims or even swears there is no spiritual component, can I just say, "there is no true human"?