There’s some value, I think, in looking at the rise of and competition between various religions from a pseudo-Darwinian point of view. In other words, the religions themselves are basically neutral; it’s merely the characteristics of the various religions that cause them to spread faster or slower or stand fast in the face of a competing faith.
Active evangelism is one such trait. Another one, as I’ve been pondering the last few weeks, is an external shell of militancy combined with an internal core of peace and love. Both Christianity and Islam have a fringe of hardcore believers who resort to violence to spread the word and beat back unbelievers; both Christianity and Islam are built around a message of tolerance that seems diametrically at odds with the actions of the extremists. Rather than trying to reconcile the contradiction, consider instead that this makes both faiths extremely successful in the pseudo-Darwinian model: You have “ambassadors” that introduce themselves forcefully and negatively to the outside world, and you have “apologists” who follow shortly after and say, in effect, “Those crazies don’t really represent us; we’re really about peace, love, and understanding; here, have some literature.” Additionally, the external fringe serves as a defensive perimeter, while the internal core is able to live more or less peacefully with itself.
In this light, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christianity and Islam are among the most successful of the world religions, because their basic structure helps them spread quickly and effectively; and further it shouldn’t be surprising that the two philosophies, so similar structurally despite their many superficial differences, are now directly butting heads.
Oh, and by the way, one observation regarding Triskadecamus’s list of motives: Through this lens, we see that “religion” encompasses a whole lot more than just the typical church/mosque/temple activities; virtually everything on that list can be applied to the extremity of most beliefs, from environmentalism to free-market capitalism. In some ways, any time you have True Believers who are attempting to Get People To Believe Or At Least Comply Because It’s For Their Own Good, you have religion.
I didn’t start from - and am not advocating - meme “junk.” In fact I could care less since I barely know anything about memes. But thinking about the numbers tends to lead toward the thought that there are a lot of evangelicals around precisely because evangelicals evangelize. Or in other words, why are so many people in your face about religion? Because there are so many people in your face about religion. And she called two friends, and so on and so on…there’s your math, by the way.
All that reminded me of Mr. Meme - who was it Dennett? It seemed like I was touching on or reproducing or validating or stealing his ideas, so I figured I should mention it. It was probably his meme that made me think in that direction anyway.
No it’s not an answer to the question what makes a successful religion. It is one answer to the question - why are so many religious people bugging me?
I like your whole post, Cervaise, I think you’re basically saying that these religions are successful because they both have BIG carrots and BIG sticks.
I could care less about your pet peeve. But not much less.
No, I was not trying to be nasty. But the phrase “I could care less” is a quite valid expression. And I suspect it works better than the less irony-loaded “I couldn’t care less” expression.
[continue hijack] thanks QtM for nailing one of my peeves. Anyone living through the 1990’s would recognize: I could care less (NOT!) But some insist on watering down a perfectly ironic phrase because it fails to fell us with a hammer.
[/continue hijack]
While I don’t entirely disagree with your stance as you lay it out, I have to wonder if this oddly incongruous statement may be the burr under your saddle. You say you’re non-religious, which seems to imply that you don’t darken the church door too frequently…were you at a wedding? a funeral? christening? were you dressed inappropriately for the occasion?
Speaking as one who only enters a church under the above circumstances, I have to wonder…
sorry I don’t believe it. You are prepared to let murderers, rapists, paedophiles do what ever they want? no - well you impose morals.
you have never voted for a political party? and that political party has done stuff that others have disagreed with?
You would let someone enter your house and take your stuff?, No -Then you believe in “private property” (not everyone does)
You believe in democracy and would defend your country in a war?
etc etc
It is just that your “values and morals” are so much pretty middle of the road, that you just assume them to be true without even considering them or challenging them. We all have moral values and impose them on others all the time. This is not to say these values are not very sensible most of the time (if by sensible you mean preserving the current social structure)