On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 16:23:18 -0700, David Johnson wrote:

>Reading your comments it seems like you may have some assumptions about
>this taxonomy -- and perhaps about religion generally -- which are not laid
>out in the material you've provided. I have to admit that makes it a bit of
>a challenge to comment effectively.

Any such assumptions aren't really intentional; they undoubtedly spring
from my own cultural background and education.

>>> 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.
>
>Okay, so perhaps it would be helpful to mention that assumption. (To me
>this does not seem to be an obvious one.)

I've added a paragraph in the Definitions section to reflect this:

## Supernatural [Occurrences/Manifestations]

Events or actions that [are held to] fall outside natural law (or secular
science). These are considered to necessarily imply the existence of a
Deitic Principle; for natural law to be 'violated' would require an entity
with volition to cause the violation - essentially, the definition of the
Deitic Principle.

[I've deleted the reiteration of the (admittedly correct) assertion of
assuming a D.P. for essentially all 'supernatural' manifestations]

>> 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.
>
>Agreed, but I think the psionics form of "astral projection" is the "easy
>case" here. I was thinking about a view which believed in "astral
>projection" without resort to a material universe causal phenomena like
>psionics. . . . (For example, this is sort of commonplace in explicitly
>fantastical settings like Moorcock's Elric and other "Eternal Champion"
>yarns.)

Clarification: What makes it an "edge case" IMO is, in fact, the question
of whether it's "supported" by a science of psionics (whether by that name
or not), or whether it's just a (non-verifiable) belief - in the latter
case, I would hold it to be within the "supernatural", and thus subject to
the Deitic Principle assumption above.

>>> 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".
>
>I understand this but it seems like you still have to make a "level of
>analysis" decision for the rating code. If you're making that for an entire
>world -- like the UWP does for Government -- then perhaps this doesn't
>matter. But then I would expect that at the "world level" most worlds will
>have a UWP-like "religion type" that is the religious equivalent of the
>Government type "Balkanization." That doesn't seem very helpful.

My thought was that the only time there's a religious profile for an entire
world is when there's only a single religion for the entire world.
Otherwise, it's for a religion that has a significant influence on the
world - for Terra of today, a hypothetical Imperial survey ethnologist
would likely note in his report profiles for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,
and Buddhism, and perhaps a couple of others, but he wouldn't claim any one
of them to be "the" religion of Terra.

>> 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.
>
>Yes, I was thinking about this analogy in the context of your project here.
>With a quarter century now to grapple with it, we've learned to deal with
>-- or ignore -- this (substantial) shortcoming in the world Government
>generation rules, but surely if we were "starting over" we'd design the
>system to grapple with that challenge a bit more effectively.

You'd still ultimately have the problem; the "solution" would more-or-less
be to 'procedurally' define what one means by GOV and what its importance
is with respect to the game. And applying the same question to religion,
the ethnologist's [likely mostly subconscious] biases will influence what
hs sees and reports about the religion, meaning that two ethnologists will
likely come up with similar-but-not-identical profiles for the same
religion.

>>> 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. . . .
>
>Okay, so the example I provided was faulty. The point I was trying to make
>still stands. What about religious groups that see themselves as inherently
>at odds with the society around them? (Perhaps the Jews under Pharaoh is a
>better example. I mean, in the end, as they tell it, their wrathful "deitic
>entity" destroyed Ramses II and his pursuing army -- no place in that faith
>tradition for pagan Egyptians. . . .)

How often is that a fundamental component of the religion, rather than a
response to aspects of the milieu? The Egyptians had taken them as slaves;
why wouldn't they want to escape and destroy their oppressors? Yes, the
Hebrews were "at odds" with the wider society, but it wasn't _part_ of the
religion, even though it may have been _because_ of their religion.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen a religion that defines itself as "we are not
X"; the closest I see is generally along the lines of "X does Y, and Y is
not in accordance with the Holy Writings; therefore, we should not
associate with X". Even in the case of non-Virasin on Dlan, they do not say
"it is a tenet of our religion to wear black and to not express positive
emotions"; instead, they do not do so because the wider [Virasin] culture
would disapprove, and conforming to that disapproval minimizes the
opportunity for disapproval to morph into outright persecution (and thus is
is an example of "not setting oneself up in opposition unnecessarily").

(I should note that the idea of 'freedom of religion' as preached [if not
fully practiced] in the United States is actually a comparatively recent
social innovation - until comparatively recent times, the idea of [Cuius
regio, eius
religio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio) tended to
be The Way Things Were Done, even if not expressed in those words.)

>>> 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?
>
>Okay. Here again is an unstated assumption about agency in the supernatural.

(See above)

>>> 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.
>
>Understood, but unless the religion is the de facto "world religion" we're
>still looking at it in the context of the global (or even interstellar)
>society in which it exists.

But does it matter? Is the profile of Judaism, taken in the Israeli
context, going to be different from the profile of Judaism, looked at over
the entire world? (One of the things that is _not_ in my profile that _was_
in the DGP version was the "size" of the religion, in terms of the number
of devotees. I consider this irrelevant; numbers are not the most important
way a religion can influence the society(ies) it is embedded in.)

>>> 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.
>
>Actually, I was surprised to see you mention the distinction. I would have
>assumed that any "designed religion" did not, by it's very nature, qualify
>for description/rating under this taxonomy. Rather, it's just another
>ideology (like Solomani supremacy).

There is a religion that is very lawfare-happy in the United States that is
undoubtedly a designed religion; I can't legitimately describe it as an
ideology (and I will not name it _because_ they are so lawfare-happy; if
they feel that someone has made a disparaging public statement about them,
that someone will find themselves in court).

>>> 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.
>
>So, here's another unstated assumption. It might be useful to see if you
>can "unpack" why this particular circumstance seems to be a "special case."

I still haven't managed to do so, but my best guess is because dualism
seems to have a higher visibility in most studies of religion -
Zoroastrianism has Ormazd (Ahura Mazda) and Ahriman (Angra Mainyu); that
dualism has influenced the development of Judaism (G-d and the Adversary),
Christianty (G-d and the Devil), and Islam (A--ah and Shaitan). I will
concede that this is likely because I am embedded in a culture that
developed within such a mode of religious thought, but...

To the best of my ability to find, Tri-deiticism seems to be pretty much
limited to some interpretations of Christianity; tetra-deiticism generally
seems to appear as what I'd write up (and in fact am doing so) as
"Elementism" (Earth/Air/Fire/Water) - but that's not as strong an
influence; there are variants on it - principally Chinese, as near as I can
tell - that admit additional Elements (for a total of more than four).

>>> 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.
>
>I think most professional and academic societies operate in this manner. I
>was actually also thinking here of a religion that was "at odds" with the
>society in which it existed and perhaps was therefore organized like the
>"cells" of a terrorist organization. (Indeed, this might be a bit like the
>way early Christians were organized under the Julio-Claudian and Flavian
>Romans . . . with Saul of Tarsus wandering about trying to keep them all
>headed in the same direction. . . .)

This is largely covered by the "Clerical Structure' - Early Christianity,
like most Anabaptist-derived denominations today, would have been of
Congregational structure, where the modern High Churches are all
Hierarchical. It could legitimately be argued, however, that the Anglican
Communion (with its decennial Lambeth Conferences) represents a hybrid
structure: the individual national churches (such as the Episcopal Church
in the US) may be hierarchical, but the Communion itself seems to treat the
national churches as "Congregations" and determine doctrine as described in
the "Congregational" structure in the document I posted. I'm less certain
of the Orthodox churches; I don't believe that they have "Lambeths", but
neither does the Patriarch of Constantinople wield the authority that the
Pope does.

>>> 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:
>>
>[snip examples]
>
>Understood, was simply trying to draw the distinction between the
>religion's "common worldview" and that of the wider society it finds itself
>trying to "persuade." (There'd be no need -- or even opportunity -- to
>persuade if they were one and the same. . . .)

>I see here a distinction that is sort of like the one you've already drawn
>for "Deitic Structure" between actual practice and "doctrinal claims." The
>religionists believe their worldview is the "common worldview" but it's
>just not. . . .

>> 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.

>Understood. Again, there seems to be an unstated assumption here that
>"being born into" is the only way to get in "auto-magically." I could
>imagine all sorts of other ways: people born at certain times (seasons,
>lunar cycles, whatever), people with certain physical characteristics (say,
>women, or left-handed people or people with certain DNA markers), people
>whose ancestors accomplished certain things (like being killed in battle or
>having served in a formal religious role or having survived a certain
>illness or injury), etc., etc. Or consider the Grisha of Shadow and Bone...

OK, I think I see where you're coming from on this. But my last sentence
that you quoted above should be the big clue: Being "born into" a religion
more-or-less means that one has been influenced by the religion from birth,
when one has no conflicting ideas. In the concepts you cite for "automagic"
entreé into the religion, there are two possible situations: (1) The person
was not brought up in the religion, and the "automagic" entreé is more of
an 'involuntary conversion' (and the person must be taught what it means to
be of the religion), or (2) the person has been brought up within the
religion (or its cultural context), and the "automagic" entreé is less an
entry into the religion than a recognition of status, conceptually
equivalent to the bar mitzvah or Confirmation, but with the necessary
'ritual' being the condition that you cited.

All I know about _Shadow and Bone_ is what
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_and_Bone) says about it;
it doesn't appear to portray the Grisha in a way that I'd call a religion
or philosophy, but instead would be closer to recognition/discovery of
psionic ability in Traveller. Fantasy milieux always seem a bit
problematical; unless the author has done some serious worldbuilding, there
always seems to be some sort of internal inconsistency, enough to kick
suspension-of-disbelief in the pants and make you go "Wait, what?".

>I will add, just generally, that the language of your taxonomy seems
>exceptionally technical and "academic." I understand the draw of
>abstraction when faced with the sensitivity around religion but perhaps
>there is also a way to write about this using "plain language" which will
>more easily make sense to sociological amateurs (and non-seminarians)
>trying to incorporate the material into their gaming.

As I hope I've indicated throughout all this, I'm open to suggestions.

®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)