Why Strict Religions Succeed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- Across cultures, religious communities that expect more from their members thrive (or religious communities in which members face greater consequences for leaving). Meanwhile, lenient religious groups struggle to maintain membership. Why is this? Wouldn't you assume most people would want to join the easiest religion? Recent research suggests that strict religions are sociologically and psychologically predisposed to succeed.
Support Religion for Breakfast!:
/ religionforbreakfast
paypal.me/religionforbreakfast
My religious studies book recommendations: amazon.com/shop/religionforbre...
Follow me on Twitter @andrewmarkhenry
Sources and Bibliography:
Connor Wood, "Ritual Well-Being: Toward a Social Signaling Model of Religion and Mental Health," Religion, Brain, and Behavior, 7:3, 223-243, 2017.
L. Iannaccone. “Why Strict churches are Strong,” American Journal of Sociology, 99 (5), 1180-1211.
W. Irons (2011). “Religion as a Hard-to-Fake Sign of Commitment. In Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment, 290-309.
D.M. Kelley (1972). Why Conservative Churches are Growing. New York: Harper and Brown
Montserrat Soler, “Costly Signaling, ritual and cooperation: Evidence from Candomblé, an Afro-Brazilian Religion,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 33, Issue 4, July 2012, 346-356. doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbeha... / www.montclair.edu/profilepage...
Sosis and Ruffle (2004). Ideology, religion, and the evolution of cooperation: Field Experiments on Israeli Kibbutzim. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 89-117.
W.J. Wildman and Sosis (2011). “Stability Groups with Costly Beliefs and Practices.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14 (3) 1-25. jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/3/6....
Dimitris Xygatlatas, “Extreme Rituals Promote Prosociality,” Psychological Science, 24(8), 1602-1605, 2013.
journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.b...
Vox article: “Mainline Churches are emptying. The political effects could be huge”: www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017...
Definition of Strict Church Theory: www.thearda.com/rrh/bestpracti...
Connor Wood blog post: “Why is Liberal Protestantism Dying Anyway?": www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceo...
Another Connor Wood blog post: “Religion Builds Self Control and Excludes Outsiders Simultaneously," www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceo...
UCC Stats: uccfiles.com/pdf/Summary-Stats...
Computer modeling: www.bu.edu/today/2017/what-com...
PC USA stats: www.firstthings.com/article/2...
PCA stats: www.pcaac.org/resources/pca-st...
Amish stats: www.citylab.com/equity/2012/0...
LDS stats: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chu...
Picture Attribution:
Amish buggy: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Buggy and Car:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Candomblé Priestesses:
Antonio Milena, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candomb...
Candomblé: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
For some reason this reminds me of something I heard about Fallout 76. The game is so terrible that it weeded out almost everyone except the most dedicated players, so it accidentally formed really friendly and close communities from the remaining people.
Honestly, as someone who got into the game again like this month, it's really chill and relaxed for the most part.
Wonder why this hasn't happened to WoW yet and the community is still so toxic
@@leminjapan because wow has a monthly player base in the millions
I grew up in a Mennonite church and I don't even remember about the religion part of it, but I can say it was a very positive community environment. Everyone helped each other, we had weekly potlucks, all the parents took turns looking after each others kids, all of the congregation was very invested in the kids wellbeing and development. Sometimes I wonder how I would've turned out if we had stayed... (we left because we moved for my mom to work, not because of any controversy).
My girlfriend is a Mennonite. Never felt more at home than anywhere before.
I'm sure there is a Anabaptist church near you
So interesting. Makes.me feel secular lifestyle is going the wrong direction for our spiritual growth, in a bigger way than i thought.
One day liberalism will win out! Even if we don't have as many kids, more and more younger people leave conservatism and become liberal every day! I used to be very conservative, now I am very liberal and love it!
@@ErrorNameNotFound123 no
Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”
This prompts another interesting topic I'd like to see you cover: ostracization. How would you interpret things like excommunication, purges, and counter-reformation in religious studies?
I was thinking about this too
The Jehovah’s Witness have lost many members either by willful leaving or excommunication
Family members aren’t allowed to speak with these ex members
This keeps some in for life with half hearted ness
You being up a good point about strict groups like JWs. Based on my experience many suffer from anxiety, depression and alcoholism. It is a toxic environment and not conducive for the mental health of most members.
The Amish do basically the same thing, and in one mainstream media broadcast I saw most of them reportedly claimed to be happy or very happy. (Some of them thought it was prideful to talk publicly of just how happy they were, but later approached the interviewer privately and said that they were not just happy but extremely happy.) Apparently the happiness or not of sect members has to do with more than whether they practice shunning and similar exclusionary practices.
The Cynical Historian … I had to watch the TV show leaving the Amish in order to get some courage to leave… Slowly fade away from 45 years of being a baptized JW. We were never allowed to read or research anything that was contrary to the belief. Thank God for RUclips!
Is an element of this phenomenon the practice of some strict religious communities to cause members to alienate from family members who are not a part of the strict religious community?
3:46 I suppose this explains hazing rituals in sports teams/fraternities etc as well
and the army too!
Tribalistic bonding is in our dna.
@@JohanKylander no, is in your indoctrination
@@moodist1er My indoctrination... to anthropology?
You should discuss the Great Schism of 1054 which caused the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Not too long of a story. It was influenced firstly by politics, pope Leo ΙΧ, together with his relative - the emperor Henry III, wanted to take southern Italy from the Byzantines, and also there was a struggle over Bulgaria and it's church, whether it will be under Rome or under Constantinople. Leo IX is the first pope to have quoted the "Donation of Constantine" document, assuming it's genuine, claiming not only ecclesial primacy, but also political authority as the pope. Secondly there were some minor religious differences, like priests shaving their beards, using unleavened bread for eucharist, and strictness of unmarriedness of the priests. The main canonical argument for the excommunication was adding filioque to the creed. Note that the argument wasnt the theological soundness of filioque, but it's addition to the creed, being that any change to the creed was prohibited by a canon of an ecumenical council. And that's it..
Immaculate Contraception ya, orthodox is true.
Looks like there's gonna be another schism
Православна Maxboy50 why then did the Eastern Orthodox Church accept Catholic doctrine on Papal supremacy, Purgatory and Filioque in 1439 on the 6th of July, by signing the Laententur caeli at the Council of Florence?
Commie Hunter because it was the council of Florence, in Italy. The west had already separated because they wanted to have their political leader or pope to be the head. Catholic Church is false
Sikhi is an interesting case study, in that it started off extremely open to everybody, in fact the founder Nanak said that everybody already praises Waheguru no matter what words they use and invited the participation of everybody as equals, but then became strict 200 years later during a time of severe persecution.
It's not much stricter. There is just a difference between practice. Ones practicing more strictly opposed to more loose practicioners. That kind of is demanded in the modern world to have a sense of 'identity'.
This is what I've been saying for years! If your church/religion doesn't expect anything from you, you aren't likely to stick around. Setting expectations of members/adherents creates a sense of belonging and community. You feel like a part of the community, that the community needs you, and that you make a valuable contribution to a common goal.
Unfortunately this can also create a negative experience for those who don't fit the mold or who leave the fold for whatever reason.
And so prescriptions for prozac increase, ask the Mormons.
I will also add, all these ideas you discuss are alive and well in Judaism and Islam as well. And I really feel like procreation plays a role. The community thing is true and is a benefit we are intended to have (since were social creatures by nature/design anyway), but that doesn’t imo reflect on why they grow in numbers.
Family planning or lack thereof seems important too. Not to mention frowning upon abortion
eating in the community on a schedule and exposing how much is on ones plate
It’s easy to assume this
Have you looked at the reference for the growth in let’s say the Amish? Is it that the next generation is being born and brought up Amish or are there new members?
There usually is strong family planning. These communities demand that men and women fully commit to each other through marriage.
heatseeker There’s no wonder that the fastest growing religions inflict the most sexism on child-bearing robots, meaning women. Islam, Mormonism, Haredi Judaism, just to name a few
Sayed Asif Because it’s only expected of women and not of men! Of course that’s discrimination, and you prove that with your islamic intent to sanitize that oppression that’s very central for the strong growth of Islam (while most muslims are poor)
Here is the thing: when people join a religion, they want something that offers them what they can't get anywhere else. Few join a religion to be a part of the mainstream. They instead join to go against the mainstream and religions that try to integrate into modern, liberal societies fail because people who want religion generally want to get away from materialistic, mainstream, liberal society and not be part of it.
Look at it this way: pop is more popular than Death Metal. But I bet a Death Metal band that tries to sound like pop would be NOWHERE NEAR as popular as an old school, growling Death Metal band. If people wanted pop, they would listen to pop. If they want Death Metal, they want real, brutal Death Metal. By trying to please both, they end up pleasing none.
Likewise, a liberal religious group mixes secularism with religion. If people wanted liberal, secular values they would stay secular. If they want a religion, they want OLD SCHOOL religion.
You're absolutely right! If our think about it, liberal religions are either approaching atheism (we're not sure blah blah blah) or mindfulness (we believe in an abstract higher power of blah blah blah), so... why stay in the religion, when you can become an actual atheist or mindfulness-ist.
Joining a religion from scratch, means that you want to go against the mainstream, therefore going to a more strict community.
Makes perfect sense.
True. Join a religion and you want the real deal, not a watered down 'reformed' version.
rum runner the implication of this video is that liberal churches are struggling not because of what in particular they preach but because of the less-costly demands they place on their members. this then results in a free-rider problem (i. e. anyone can join at no cost to them) hurting social cohesion. From the sound of the video, it sounds like it has little to do with how the religion does or does not reflect the mainstream culture but on what cost or effort is required to be a true member. The more costly the membership, the more cohesive the group. Campus fraternities, for example, work this way too.
Stratos Nikolaidis Exactly! And it's like this for all religions too. I go to a Tibetan Buddhist temple and we have a lot more members than the liberal "sorta Zen" Buddhists around here. People think of Western Buddhist as these hippy types who smoke pot and run around naked. The truth is most of us are more likely to adhere to sobriety, vegetarianism, and the rest than most liberal Christians. We want REAL, classic, authentic dharma told by authentic teachers, not some patchouli merchant who teaches a beginner meditation class every other Wednesday.
More and more in Western Buddhism, Asian, traditional teachers are gathering more followers while the white, tie-dye gurus are seeing dwindling sanghas (congregations) The same thing that is happening with Christianity is happening in our religion.
A part of my Tibetan religious center is the practice of making 100,000 prostrations before the Buddha. That is real Buddhism. Why? BECAUSE IT'S HARD AND DEMANDING. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a religion.
Is there a possibility this only works for minority religions. So strict religions only stay strong as tight knit groups if the rest of the community doesn't behave in a similar way? Say if everyone in the community joins the religion, then the religion feels less special and then it loses its appeal because everyone is doing it?
Here in Utah, Mormons have church ran farms they volunteer at and help to can goods and harvest food. No one in their church goes hungry. If you are in need, you can go to a Bishop's Storehouse and get most food and household goods for free. Non-members can also receive goods and food in exchange for volunteer hours at the Bishop's Storehouse. I can't imagine mainline churches running something this strongly community oriented.
One of the pitfalls of Costly Signaling is the potential of falling under the weight of a Sunk Cost Fallacy. Sometimes people who want to leave feel trapped because they have too much to lose. This is often seen in groups that practice shunning such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and various sects of the Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish, Mennonite, etc.)
To be completely fair, LDS Mormonism doesn’t actively promote the shunning of former members, though it sadly still happens either due to the decisions of individual members or as a natural consequence of the accompanying social schism.
@@jdcrosier2682 - As you said, "actively" promote. These organizations know how this practice is perceived and understand it's bad PR. Instead, it's more insidiously and covertly implied. They won't out-and-out say "shun your family members who leave", but rather instill the idea that they're somehow dangerous and it would be in their best interest to avoid contact, lest they become drawn away from the group as well by their "worldly" ideations.
all groups do this
@@crazysarge9765 - I suppose that depend what you mean by "all groups". However you slice it, it seems like a gross overgeneralization. I don't think someone's liable to be shunned by their entire community for leaving a poker league, a bowling team, or a knitting circle. Even not all religious groups do it. Most pagans don't care what you believe as long as you don't push it on them. Mainstream churches don't typically turn everyone they know against someone either.
The more strict the religion; the harder it is to leave.
Daniel MacMaster, if a religion is hard to leave, then it is not a religion. It is a jail or a prison.
+Chris Kalogeropouls So, a religion ?
Like a cult?
The more strict the religion; the more difficult it is to get there, it is almost impossible to get to the Schwarzentrubers, on the contrary, anyone can become a homeless person in Philadelphia without any costs, so you are not right.
I have finally found a channel dedicated to religion, it’s a dream come true.
What I love about the channel is it's non bias view of Religion
fantastic video--learning a lot from you and, as an athiest, I'm glad to better understand religion from an academic POV (especially one that isnt implicitly making a value judgement for or against religon)
It's just a human need
@@larapalma3744 actually no. It is z construction that is used to pacify human needs without actually addressing them. It is a tool created by and used by the elite of a society to organize people and resources and to keep people in thier place in order to assure the amasse and protect thier power and wealth.
@@mellie4174 Just shut up... Circular reasoning you keep saying.....
@@mellie4174 huh
Kinda makes sense though. The more the religion is liberal-humanist the more people realize they don’t need it, and can achieve the same thing without it. It reminds me of a quote from Voltaire, “the enemy of the best is the good.”
🤓
exclusivity, feeling special, and encouraging spiritual growth (through increasingly more disciplined practices were growth doesnt stagnate in outer practice.)
Right!
I absolutely love your work. Stay strong like you are 💪
I just discovered this channel and it could skyrocket to my top 3 watched channels. Subscribed.
I think this same reasoning can go along with monastic orders, not just religions in general. Monasteries have a lot offer their members (Housing, Food, Cool clothes, a strong sense of fraternity), but also require a lot of their members (humility, strict hours of work and prayer, lack of individual ownership, almost complete separation from the outside world, a lengthy entrance process, and chastity) that few have the capability or interest to join. It would be interesting if there was population data on how monasticism has increased or decreased over the years.
Thanks for starting WW1.
no issue man.
I think that a lot of these strict religions promote having kids a lot so more people are born in
Great video! I am an atheist who works in the field of disaster preparedness and I find myself working a lot with religious groups because of the inherent benefits of social cohesion in disasters. It's an interesting dilemma because I am actually morally opposed to some of the doctrines within these groups, however, based on the beneficial social capital that can be drawn from them, it's hard to argue that these relationships are not worth the investment of time and energy that they require.
I just recently graduated and my final project was focused on social capital development for disaster resilience. I have found that, at least where I live, churches are far and away the leaders in social capital development.
Wow thanks for the insight from the perspective of disaster preparedness. Social capital is a good way to phrase it.
@@ReligionForBreakfast thanks! I'm loving the channel. If you haven't read Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam you might check it out. It's about the role and decline of social capital in the US. Very interesting stuff and it has a lot to do with religious institutions.
Keep up the videos! I’ve search for almost a year to try to find channels that tackle an academic understanding of religion. Usually all you can find comes from an atheist or follower and neither really try to teach an accurate understand of religion. Need more channels like you. Thanks
Appreciate your videos greatly. One economic aspect not covered is the degree to which strict religions and cults are 'free riders' on broader society. Two aspects, apparent in New Zealand with a cult called Gloriavale were the degree to which the cult sought to avoid taxes on business income and the cost to broader society of integrating increasing numbers of ill-equipped young people who leave and are shunned by the sect.
This is mind blowing for me. Thank you so much for the explanation and insight!
Good one! Your videos just keep getting better in quality and this one certainly covers some interesting ground. I am a non religious person with a great interest in comparative religion and I continue to learn and be challenged by your posts. Keep up the good work.
Another very useful video exceptionally well explained. Thank you!
This makes a good point. People who dismiss religion because it's beliefs seem silly are missing a big part of the picture.
However, I think that one reason that strict religions tend to grow more is that many forbid birth control, so they grow by reproduction more than by conversion.
People who are in these religions love making babies. Its not that they would have abortions even if they could.
really enjoyed this. almost wish it was much longer.
God I love this channel. Great video
This is interesting. Thank you for this.
Definitely an interesting topic. As a lifelong Methodist, I can attest to what progressive Christianity has to offer, and believe that membership will rise after the recent trend towards authoritarianism abates.
this has to be the most frustating topic to discuss, people have this idea that everyone wants to be connected to the regular outside world. While that is true for me, I can see why certain groups would want to form insular communities, and that does mean disconnecting from the outside. It is not for me, but I hate people seeing people just not absorb the concept that these "flaws" are also a good thing from a certain point of view.
This topic is one of the primary foci of the cognitive science of religion. I'd highly recommend texts like Norenzayan's Big Gods, or Boyer's The Fracture of An Illusion.
Dan, thanks for the recommends. I plan to look those up. Cheers!
What seems to be completely missing from this discussion is the role of biases (cognitive biases, informal fallacies, etc.). Some that might apply here are: status-quo bias; correlation-bases fallacy; magical thinking; appeal to consequence; anchoring; availability cascade; sunk-cost fallacy and loss aversion; post-purchase rationalisation; authority bias; and in-group bias.
I would argue that strict religious groups discourage critical thinking and that's part of why their members don't tend to leave.
It might be a problem of terminology, with these theories coming from an economic background, but more non-materialistic (if that is a word) benefits seem to fall below the radar there. Being part of a close community, a sense of belonging, an identity, a separation between Us and Them, can be a benefit in itself, without necessarily any more tangible rewards. Strict communities provide these things more successfully than looser ones.
That said, I am quite suspicious of theories that assume rational actors making rational choices. :D
Also, it might be interesting to look at the limits of growth of communities with strict rules. How big can they get before they tend to splinter into smaller groups?
Yes, this is exactly it. I'm surprised no one else has discussed this in the comment section and dance around by the the guy in the video. It may be due to the kind of people this channel might attract having an investment in the prospering of organized religion and maybe more likely to be conservative themselves.
interesting, any books you can recommend?
Love your channel!
So interesting, thank you!! Checking out that center.
I love your channel! It’s so underrated. I wish you had more support so you could do this full time!
Keep up the amazing work!
Artemis Fowl I doubt he’s making much money off his videos as it is, so why would he care about being demonetized? And what would cause him to be demonetized? You’re pretty cynical.
Artemis Fowl; "Don't forget why people like him make videos in the first place. It's not to spread information or truth. It's to make money."
I can tell you without a doubt that in this case you have it exactly backwards. Religion For Breakfast is definitely not doing these videos to make money.
In fairness, the man does get paid as a professional academic, so he is raising his profile. He taught me a lot, best of luck to him.
@Artemis Fowl fascinating insight into reading somebody's mind who you've never met......i can't wait to see your educational videos and for you to refuse to receive money for them...
I really like the channel too. But one question, does he ever interreact with people who comment here though?.Im not sure that ive seen it happen. That's one thing im not sure what to make of. I feel perhaps i may prefer to see some sort of interaction. Just to help gauge the strength of claims made. People do question the claims, but the audience never finds out how valid these question are
I love this perspective
A lot of good points made here and also an important reminder - " never ignore the social dimension of religion". I agree with this analysis that would be worthwhile to deepen because the topic is very important. Now, it would be interesting to explore the negative impact of the « sectarian dynamic » on the members of those communities and, of course, on Others. For instance, it would be interesting to analyze the case of the ultra-orthodox jews (judaïsm being - like islam - a very sectarian religion) and the numerous and serious problems they cause in Israël. My hunch is that these closed communities can easily become pathological above all in a "modern" context that they are prone to reject to impose a style of life based on traditions, habits, and past patterns resulting in infantilization of their members, and an atrophy of their adaptive abilities to changes.
I think this extends to explain the difference between liberalism and conservatism in general. Conservatives tend to value high-cost signaling (see the taking a knee debate) and other indicators of tribal commitment. Loyalty and obedience to established cultural norms are valued over truth seeking in the abstract.
I would disagree with that. Look at all the high cost signaling the LGBT community has done in the last few decades, overcoming oppression to forge their own identity. They've set up arts festivals, community centers and some highly visible symbols (like the rainbow flag), all of which come with a lot of blowback from mainstream culture. The real difference between the two is that conservatives are more likely to take a hostile stance toward out-groups.
How is Colin Kapernack taking a knee to protest police brutality against black people an example of conservatives doing high cost signaling? Colin is the one suffering here for taking a stand.
@@GalaxyPedlar Conservatives have done that , but you haven’t seen the victim mentality from “oppressed” groups. Given too much power they become tyrannical and dangerous, just like everyone on their path to power
Hey, love your channel, been watching for almost a year. I converted to Christianity a few months ago, and I'm currently non-denominational and exploring. I've got a pentecostal neighbor insisting about "gifts of the holy spirit" like tongues and healing, a group of conservative baptists hoping I'll abandon the most supported scientific models of the Earth's history, a declining congregation of Liberal Anglicans who split over LGBT issues, a Catholic parish that won't give me communion until I undergo confirmation, and a small church of Japanese Protestants (unsure of their exact denomination) giving bilingual services about the end times. It's fascinating to look at these different Christian groups I've been exploring and see what ways they are similar and different.
Edit: was going to finish that thought: I think there is something to be said about strict religions doing well, seeing as the more liberal among these churches tend to have emptier pews. I'm trying to make sure that I don't let the size and growth rate factor too much into the decision though and rather to stay focused on each group's teachings.
Hey can I ask if you ever reached a satisfying conclusion to this discernment? Did you ultimately go with any of them?
There is also a convert psychological dynamic. If you are leaving one religious community for another, you not only want the belief system to seem true, but you want it to be tangibly different from the one you are leaving.
This is almost like frat house hazing since frat members tend feel most connected to there universities and tend to give bigger donations back to there universities
I appreciate the work that you do. Another great video
Interesting video
This is the first video of you I see and that's pretty interesting.
This is fantastic
As a devout Christian, are you sure it isn’t just from these groups having more babies??? I’m pretty sure that’s it... Jesus isn’t about rules, He is about heart.
I think yes.
Your wrong first, the reason these groups have many children is because they're patriarchal religions, women are to be subservient to men and don't have equal rights. Second is that the Bible is full of rules and Jesus had many rules if you don't follow the rules then the person is just a liberal atheist cosplaying as Christians that's why liberal non-denominational Christianity has failed
I grew up LDS. I mostly remember, potlucks and community service projects.
May I ask, are you still Mormon?
Why or why not?
This "strict success" theory applies mainly to the period of 1960 through today. Earlier in the 20th century, Fundamentalists were a small minority while more the more liberal mainline churches were predominant.
my assumption is that pre-1960 the broader culture did a better job at providing people with a sense of belonging and support from peers, so tight religious groups may not have been as necessary
@@AugustusBohn0 There was also a strong pressure toward conformity in the 1950's.
@@AugustusBohn0 I think WW2 had a big part in the rise of uniformity and a dislike of non-conformity.
There must be a limit on the extremism otherwise there wouldn't have been a controversy over circumscision in the early Christian church. If this theory is correct comparing different types of Anabaptist communities or Orthodox Jewish communities would be more revealing than comparing either to people who only celebrate the most important religious holidays.
I don't think that strictness is a linear scale. You can be lenient in one area (say, circumcision) while being strict in others (like property, way of life, etc.) That the early Christian church loosened its restrictions on Jewish ritual, doesn't mean that it was less strict overall.
varana312 Very true indeed. OP seems to forget that the same religion that dropped circumscision also eliminated room for divorce.
The "extreme" circumcisers of the early church were those who had themselves castrated. The practice was banned for priests, but crept back for choirboys, for whom it was not outlawed until the church lost control of the Papal States and a version of the Napoleonic Code was imposed. Nevertheless it was still done in secret, and the Sistine Chapel continued to employ castrati until the transphobic Pope Pius X had the last few expelled.
@@faithlesshound5621 the reasoning behind 'castrati' isn't to keep the individual pure but instead to prevent the changes that come with puberty, specifically the deepening of the voice. The religious reasoning behind the practice relates to a prohibition on women actively participating in the Mass i.e. singing in the choir. I've only heard one recording of a castrati singing and it's quite distinct. I don't know if that's because of the singer or the fact it was recorded on a wax cylinder as I've probably listened to less than five recordings in that medium.
rockin that beard, my dude
Have you considered making a video on Rastafari and its texts? (The Holy Piby, Kebra Nagast, etc) I have not found a whole lot of sources on those texts, and the few I have found seem to be very biased.
Fantastic videos, by the way!
The Kebra Nagast is not a rastafarian text. It's an Ethiopian national epic.
The Mormon Church fits in here quite well. I've always thought (from the outside) that it looked a lot like one of the worlds most successful AMWAY programs.
MLMs resemble Mormonism for a reason, they pretty much arose out of Mormon culture
It's probably worth mentioning that the number of LDS members is a controversial subject, because the LDS Church includes ALL people who've ever been baptized in that number, even if those people haven't gone to church for decades, might not consider themselves to be a member of their church anymore, and might not even know they were ever considered a member of the LDS Church since baptism happens at such a young age.
They might even be dead: when they lose track of a member, they count them until they would have been over 100 years old.
Most religions count their membership this way.
@@inshanity84 no, a lot of churches have a strong incentive to clean up their records, since members have the right to vote on issues and even new leadership in a way the LDS Church doesn't allow.
@@meligoose9413 Most Catholics are baptized as babies and won't set foot in a church for the rest of their lives and they are counted as members. All the major Christian religions are in a similar situation. It just doesn't make sense from a logistics perspective for larges churches. This could make sense for a minority of smaller churches, but I don't know any like that.
I think using economic language is redundant here because these strict religious groups are not voluntary organisation's of people joining and leaving based on rational incentives. People become involved mostly by being born in it or being born into similar beliefs, and more babies are being born because women in these conservative organisations are taught to be mothers as their purpose and start younger. Ignoring this is biased and morally charged. They come to define peoples whole lives and will ostracize dissenters, so that can mean leaving your family and kids, so you cannot in practice leave voluntarily without serious personal consequence. But you cannot look at incentives without looking at the actual religious incentives of these churches: that is if they believe their involvement in some particular church saves their soul and to disbelieve will condemn them to hell. Nobody joins the Latter Day Saints weighing up the social costs and benefits, they are just moved by 'spiritual' experiences often in moments of uncertainty or pain and start to believe because it is the 'Truth'. In fact they will often emphasise the sacrifices of being a believer, the utility is not the main reason.
i've been flirting with the idea of becoming amish for a while
Go on ma lad
The video is great as always (and so is your beard), but there is a sharp high sound on your mic that makes this hard to listen to on headphones. If this is something you can control, I'd really appreciate a better audio balance. Many thanks!
Thanks!
My dad left the UCC & joined the PCA as an adult due to the UCC getting more liberal over time (in his opinion). I recently left the PCA & now attend an Episcopal church due to the PCA getting more conservative than it was when I was a child (in my opinion).
I must say, in some ways it was hard for me to leave the PCA (feeling like I was abandoning something important), although no one in my family or my parents’ faith community has objected to me finding a new church or treated me any different since I left. In fact, my parents supported my decision & are sympathetic to my reasons for leaving.
One of my siblings has stayed in the PCA (but is pretty liberal), & my other sibling has left Christianity altogether.
Yepp, the channel is a good one
Hey, great work! Have you ever talked about the (lack of a) believe system of the Piraha tribe?
I was a Mormon missionary and I get what you are saying. I was a Mormon cartoonist so I was more like a Jewish humorist. I show respect to all religions and avoid negative comments even in private. My cartoons were suppose to promote Mormon honesty about our faith. But you understand the difficulties. I am now retired to a dinosaur park. I can relax in science.
You see the same thing with Islam. Conservative elements have been growing for some time now.
Mullerornis how often do these supposed “Muslims” go to mosque at least once a week vs the conservative types? You could probably say the same about people who identify as Christians in America but the actual religious ones and not just self-identified people are a different story.
Mullerornis You’re the one who shifted goalposts in the first place. I spoke of Islam in general then you spoke of Western Muslims that voted.
On a worldwide scale, it’s undeniable that conservative elements have grown, but even in the West, Muslims who vote are not necessarily representative of the greater Muslim population because 1) it doesn’t count immigrants who cannot vote and 2) there’s a significant portion of conservative Muslims who abstain from politics/democracy on purpose since it does not fit their worldview.
Think before you type.
I enjoyed the video! Your gift of charisma really delivers the message well. By the way, as a member of the church in question myself, when someone refers to "The Church of Latter-day Saints" it can give the impression that they didn't feel inclined to use the full name, or to include what amounts to the most important part of the name to the members of that church. I think this is because it is actually a tactic used in the "Mormons aren't Christians" area of interfaith debate ("I refuse to allow someone I consider a non-Christian to use my Savior's name in their church title"). I'm sure it wasn't meant this way, but just wanted to offer that feedback. I hope you keep producing these great videos, as organized religion has in many ways become part of our psycho-cultural shadow, and more education is certainly valuable in this area. Thank you.
It could also be that "Church of Latter-day Saints" is slightly less of a mouthful than "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", while using terms like "The Mormon Church", "The LDS Church" or simply "The Mormons" might sound too derogatory or dismissive. But your point makes sense.
@@SidheKnight Maybe true, but it is still far more accurate to say "Latter-day Saint Church" than to say "The Church of Latter-day Saints". If people are looking for a shorter way of saying the name, there are better (and shorter) ways of saying the name than what is mentioned. The best way to use a shorthanded form of the name is "The Church of Jesus Christ", but for distinction from other Christian denominations it's still appropriate to say "Latter-day Saint Church".
You are really smart guy I like it. Subscribe!
Can you please please do a video(or a few) on sumerian religion? And what sources would you recomend for someone who wants to learn everything about that religion?
Have you looked into the Great Courses? They might have something.
@@PierzStyx great courses?
gingercore69
Great Courses Plus is a collection of college seminar videos you can view online for a (monthly?) fee. I don't use it, but it honestly sounds pretty useful for getting vetted in-depth info on most subjects.
Not trying to advertise, I've just seen or heard the fricken ad everywhere.
@@tort2210 sounds like something i would like... If i had a way to pay for it... Having in mind i sell plants at the park... Is not like i have a way of paying for something with credit card xD
So what are the main differences between religions and cults? Or are religions just big cults? There have never seemed to be be any polytheistic cults, all are monotheistic.
I don't think it is an "either or" answer but more like a spectrum. You have the Wiccans on the far-end who are as far away from a cult as anyone can get, and you have some end-of-the-world zealots living in a compound on the other side. In between are groups like regular churches, and then things get a little more cult-like with the Catholics, an the Mormons are more of a cult than they are, and the Jehovah's Witnesses who are more cult-like than them and so on.
As far as I know the closest you get to a modern Destructive Cult with polytheism is New Age cults or UFO cults.
@Pecu Alex The term Cult/cultus in the ancient world refers to a small devoted group to a certain Cultic image or myth sorrounding a certain god. That being said some of the few mystery cults we know anything about had a certain level dedication and seriousness about it. The Orphic's didn't eat meat, Pythagorean members has a strict hierarchy, and the Eleusianan mysteries were closely guarded secret and only the Stoic Philosopher Marcus Aurelius was the only lay person ever to enter their secret chamber.
So yeah ancient mystery cults still got that "hard core religion vibe" going on"
David, great question. For some scholarly study on the distinction of cults from religions, I recommend you learn about the BITE model which ranks criteria such as control over Behavior, Intellect, Thoughts, and Emotions.
You may enjoy the work of RUclipsr “Telltale” who explores the matter in depth, and reviews which organizations do or don’t fit the model.
It simply has to do with structure. People need structure.
I dont
Exactly
people choose to be in the same church you grew up in generally, so if church members reproduce more then more chances of increasing church membership. Also many of these stricter religions also have higher birth rates.
The religion with stricter rules also means more stricter punishments so people may be afraid of leaving too(like ostracization ).
People who choose to join a stricter religion may want because of stricter rules which give more rigid stuctured life, which some people may prefer because they can't deal with freedom. (only my personal opinion)
people love religion because they have daddy issues. they want an authoritative figure who will guide and discipline them
Fantastic video.
This clearly explains what happened to the Catholic Church following Vatican II. By liberalizing their theology and practices, the truly devout laity and priests left en mass and degenerate priests rushed in to fill the void. Following that, church attendance dropped by 75% between 1968 and 2000.
_"and degenerate priests rushed in to fill the void"_ Actually, the epidemic of pedophilia in the Catholic Church is most likely due to the fact that being a priest gives a pedophile relatively easy access to children to molest. Whether the Church is more or less strict and dogmatic, it makes no difference, since the pedo-priest isn't there for the doctrine or devotion to God (they may not even believe in God) but rather for the "benefits" of the position.
This is why I want to start attending an SSPX Catholic Church.
I hope I'm not too Freudian if I say the role of sexuality and the restriction or permission thereof surely plays a role in the inner workings of a religion and it's ability to grow. WATCH Wild Wild Country. My goodness what insight.
Or just numbers
If i start a religion an someone else joins...my religion has grown by 100%
Stricter groups are also self-selective by personality "type." That is, people looking for such a structured life are either drawn to them or remain in them as with the Amish. Whereas, more liberal religions "select for" (by their very nature) people who are much more likely to be fluid and less dedicated to their religious beliefs or community. It would be interesting to investigate if the drop in UCC membership, for instance, was among people who when asked still said they were sympathetic to UCC beliefs, but just had no time, inclination or finances to participate--because they don't have to. There is no idea that to not participate has dire consequences or any consequences. Also the stricter religions offer a lot more social safety networks and support to their members. My nieces Mega-Church paid all her hospital bills for a premature birth when she was uninsured. And the women organized food for her and her family during her entire convalescence. Such networks have become more and more desirable with the demise of the government and employment social safety nets and the collapse of community in America generally. I was a Unitarian and I guarantee the level of support my niece got would not have happened in my congregation. I would have been lucky to get a phone call.
I'm sorry about your niece and I hope her and her family are doing well.
Thank you for your concern. It was many years ago and the "baby" in question is now an adult and doing fine as far as I know. That family is both homophobic and racist, so I do not keep in contact with them. Hmmm...Speaking of "conservative Christians."@@marlonmoncrieffe0728
I think one reason for this is secular people want to live secular lives and eventualy abandon religion while religious people will remain faithful, if you don't care about religion why remain in one, strict religions provide what religious people want so they develop closer communities, secular religions neither provide what secular people wants nor what religious people want so they lose members
Ah, good point!
Last thing, If you join a religion for social benefits , your God is not Jesus/Yahweh, your god is people and your place in society.
Actually makes sense!
Been taking an interest in Confucianism lately and I think I can see the gears behind the mechanisms behind how it works. It may not have supernatural beliefs, but it sure does hit a lot of other notes.
One thing that should be noted is that many of the mainline denominations have had schisms over doctrinal disagreements which caused many denominations to break away and join more conservative denominations (i.e. many UCC churches switched to the cccc, and many elca churches left as well, there is actually currently a split about to happen in the UMC as we speak). This is not exclusive to mainline denominations (the SBC has lost a lot of churches in recent years, for similar reasons). I think in general, you are right in that religious groups that emphasize keeping with the faith are more successful.
but I suspect that if these religions become very large then they will lose control of their members and will have many internal stresses that will challenge the rules.
J. O'Brien When the size reduces, the Core believers usually initiate revivals that cause regrowth.
Thank you, I really like the content. I would advise you though, to slow down somewhat in your tempo of speech, and to take normal short pauses for breathing in between sentences (and not to edit out breathing pauses). You might find that your message will be less 'breathless' and rushed, and is more easily received and digested by your audience. It is worthwhile enough, half a minute longer on 8 minutes won't hurt anybody, in fact your videos will benefit from it I'm sure.
I'd add "The Churching of America: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy" by Finke and Stark to the bibliography. Looking at our history, the religions that made higher demands on members were the ones that grew.
Great video, dude! I've been watching your videos for a while now and I started to wonder: do you have a religion or do you believe in in a God/many gods?
As far as I can tell, he tends to avoid these types of questions to maintain a sense of "neutrality" and/or "objectivity". (But If I had to guess, it'd probably be agnostic or some salad-mix kind.)
@@bromponie7330 Makes sense... But I really hope that he will, in the future, open up about this kind of things for us.
I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
@@bromponie7330 I hope not. Religious nuts always ask people about their own religion.
0:42 *LET'S GOOOO!*
I did my masters in Anthropology studying the evolution of primate social networks. I’m biased but Signaling Theory is my favorite operational framework.
That's awsome, I'll have to do a deep dive on signaling theory, I don't know much about it.
"the same restrictions that a religious group might impose on a member results in". The restrictions results in discord between subject and verb.
good to know just in case I want to make my own religion....
can you do a video on what is a cult, whether it’s a legitimate term, examples etc I’m not sure what the academic outlook on this is as most resources are true crime-esque entertainment purposes docs?
Fear is a powerful motivator
The China strict theory helps to instil a sense of obligation, what also helps China thrive too. Not that it would say much about the ethics, either
Thanks. Now I understand why the motivation behind Pope Pius XIII (from HBO miniseries "the Young Pope")
and exactly why Catholicism is doomed in the West.
What about plain old fecundity and counting a bunch of young kids as willing, informed members? Mormons, for example, have more kids per couple than members of less strict Christian denominations.
I wonder how the "relaxation" of discipline in the religious society of Friends in the UK in the nineteenth century can be explained as it led at least at the time to a rise in the numbers - mostly be stemming the tide of people being read out of their meetings. Is this a twentieth century phenomenon?
I don't think only 20th century, but the approach has its limits. A movement can become _too_ strict when it starts to exclude more people than it attracts, and strict ideologies have a tendency to break into smaller parts because they're unwilling to compromise between different views (or personalities).
I think Vonnegut obliquely pointed at this when he made Bokononism outlawed by penalty of the hook illegal in San Lorenzo.
More strick religious groups usually encourage or require larger families... in my anecdotal personal experience, my more religious friends have more kids (4-6+) either on principle or because they reject birth control.
MERCH! RUclips LIFE! HELL YEAH!! !! !RUclips ALL THE WAY!!! Study what You LOVE DUDE!! !
This says more about the success of tribalism than anything else. Even though harms outsiders and non-conformists it's deeply embedded in us and it works.
So if it requires more commitment... People are more committed