Distinguishing between a fake religion and a religion making false claims.

[ABuddhist]

I define a fake religion as the pretense of a religion lacking real sincere belief. Thus, if people were to gather for rites, create art, and gather doctrines and stories into scripture all associated with their own religion but they were to lack any sincere belief in their rites, doctrines, or scriptures, then they would be engaged in a fake religion.

Scientology may have begun as a fake religion; L. Ron Hubbard wanted to avoid taxation and medical oversight of his claims, so he claimed that his teachings were a religion even though he apparently did not really believe his claims. Eckenkar began similarly, when its founder Paul Twitchell made up claims in order to justify his being the leader of a religion rather than a teacher of teachings from the Radhasoami religion.

But Scientology and Eckenkar, regardless of their origins, attracted real believers and became religions making false claims.

Religions making false claims are religions which have real devotees which make false claims. For example, Christians claim that the gospels are fundamentally reliable, and Young Earth Creatioinst Christians claim that Genesis is literally true. But these claims, although false, do not detract from the realness of the Christian religion.

For this reason, I do not accept the claim that if one accept alternative explanations about the origins of Judaism as advanced by Gmirkin, van Seters, and others, Judaism becomes a fake religion, nor Christianity even if one accept as true the claims made by Mountainman. The same applies to all religions which have genuine adherents.

[Leucius Charinus]

I define a fake religion as the pretense of a religion lacking real sincere belief. Thus, if people were to gather for rites, create art, and gather doctrines and stories into scripture all associated with their own religion but they were to lack any sincere belief in their rites, doctrines, or scriptures, then they would be engaged in a fake religion.

Scientology may have begun as a fake religion; L. Ron Hubbard wanted to avoid taxation and medical oversight of his claims, so he claimed that his teachings were a religion even though he apparently did not really believe his claims. Eckenkar began similarly, when its founder Paul Twitchell made up claims in order to justify his being the leader of a religion rather than a teacher of teachings from the Radhasoami religion.

But Scientology and Eckenkar, regardless of their origins, attracted real believers and became religions making false claims.

Religions making false claims are religions which have real devotees which make false claims. For example, Christians claim that the gospels are fundamentally reliable, and Young Earth Creatioinst Christians claim that Genesis is literally true. But these claims, although false, do not detract from the realness of the Christian religion.

For this reason, I do not accept the claim that if one accept alternative explanations about the origins of Judaism as advanced by Gmirkin, van Seters, and others, Judaism becomes a fake religion, nor Christianity even if one accept as true the claims made by Mountaiman. The same applies to all religions which have genuine adherents.

I agree with the above on the basis that some people adopt a religion in the form of a philosophy and/or in the form of a metaphysics and/or in the form of an ethical practice. Buddhism may be a good example. I have no problems with these things. OTOH religion may not necessary bring out the best in people. The study of religions and religious cults reveals that these also attract corrupt people, and can destroy lives and communities and even nations. So there is a two column ledger.

The study of the history of religions and their cults is in theory additional to and independent of this ledger and seeks to understand the historical truth of the origins of the cult. This study of historical origins involves the who, when, where and how questions related to the appearance of religions / cults on planet Earth.

[Secret Alias]

Having the Australian take up Gmirkin's case is almost parodistic. So all religions are fake, artificial and contrived. How convenient! Like Nazis "discovering" evidence of "inferior races" sharing characteristics or vegetarians "learning" meat eaters are evil.

[Peter Kirby]

Having the Australian take up Gmirkin's case is almost parodistic. So all religions are fake, artificial and contrived. How convenient! Like Nazis "discovering" evidence of "inferior races" sharing characteristics or vegetarians "learning" meat eaters are evil.

I've moved this post to the thread where there's a discussion underway about whether it's implied that the religion is fake.

[Peter Kirby]

I define a fake religion as the pretense of a religion lacking real sincere belief. Thus, if people were to gather for rites, create art, and gather doctrines and stories into scripture all associated with their own religion but they were to lack any sincere belief in their rites, doctrines, or scriptures, then they would be engaged in a fake religion.

Scientology may have begun as a fake religion;

But Scientology and Eckenkar, regardless of their origins, attracted real believers and became religions making false claims.

For purposes of characterizing the religion, nobody's impressed if it started out fake and then just kept on going. The idea that a religion started the way scientology did would certainly be a powerful allegation for those who want to take a swing at it.

[ABuddhist]

I define a fake religion as the pretense of a religion lacking real sincere belief. Thus, if people were to gather for rites, create art, and gather doctrines and stories into scripture all associated with their own religion but they were to lack any sincere belief in their rites, doctrines, or scriptures, then they would be engaged in a fake religion.

Scientology may have begun as a fake religion;

But Scientology and Eckenkar, regardless of their origins, attracted real believers and became religions making false claims.

For purposes of characterizing the religion, nobody's impressed if it started out fake and then just kept on going. The idea that a religion started the way scientology did would certainly be a powerful allegation for those who want to take a swing at it.

I entirely agree. I only used the phrase

But Scientology and Eckenkar, regardless of their origins

in order to indicate that despite their fake origins, both religions were able to attract sincere believers.

[ABuddhist]

For purposes of characterizing the religion, nobody's impressed if it started out fake and then just kept on going. The idea that a religion started the way scientology did would certainly be a powerful allegation for those who want to take a swing at it.

1. That is an appeal to the consequences rather than a refutation of the claim, though.

2. Furthermore, from what I understand about Gmirkin's model, I would qustion whether Judaism in his model would count as a fake religion based upon my definition. people wh really worshipped YHWH, he claimed, and who really believed in the theological and philosophical claims in Plato's works, created, in his model, a scripture which melded these ideas. The scripture was claimed to be older than it was, but it reflectged actual religious beliefs. Such a practise, if true would not be the first or the last time that an intellectual elite, guided by geniune religious belief, would create a scripture with falsely attributed antiquity in order to make that belief authoritative; cf, e.g., the Abhidhamma Pitaka in Theravada Buddhism (older than c. 270 BCE), the Heart Sutra composed (apparently based upon a geniune vision) by Xuanzang, and the Book of Jasher written by Jacob Ilive.

[Peter Kirby]

For purposes of characterizing the religion, nobody's impressed if it started out fake and then just kept on going. The idea that a religion started the way scientology did would certainly be a powerful allegation for those who want to take a swing at it.

1. That is an appeal to the consequences rather than a refutation of the claim, though.

Of course, that is correct.

2. Furthermore, from what I understand about Gmirkin's model, I would qustion whether Judaism in his model would count as a fake religion based upon my definition. people wh really worshipped YHWH, he claimed, and who really believed in the theological and philosophical claims in Plato's works, created, in his model, a scripture which melded these ideas. The scripture was claimed to be older than it was, but it reflectged actual religious beliefs. Such a practise, if true would not be the first or the last time that an intellectual elite, guided by geniune religious belief, would create a scripture with falsely attributed antiquity in order to make that belief authoritative; cf, e.g., the Abhidhamma Pitaka in Theravada Buddhism (older than c. 270 BCE), the Heart Sutra composed (apparently based upon a geniune vision) by Xuanzang, and the Book of Jasher written by Jacob Ilive.

Is there another definition where it would "count as a fake religion" at some point? Playing devil's advocate here.

[ABuddhist]

Is there another definition where it would "count as a fake religion" at some point? Playing devil's advocate here.

Well, certain people such as Secret Alias are apparently convinced that if 1 accepts that the Pentateuch was written in Alexandria in c. 270 BCE, that makes Judaism a fake religion - even though regardless of the Pentateuch's actual origins and the sincere beliefs of the pentateuch's originators, Judaism has had actual believers over the millenia, making it a real religion.

[Peter Kirby]

Is there another definition where it would "count as a fake religion" at some point? Playing devil's advocate here.

Well, certain people such as Secret Alias are apparently convinced that if 1 accepts that the Pentateuch was written in Alexandria in c. 270 BCE, that makes Judaism a fake religion - even though regardless of the Pentateuch's actual origins and the sincere beliefs of the pentateuch's originators, Judaism has had actual believers over the millenia, making it a real religion.

I actually agree with SA that it is fair to make the reference here to "a fake religion" if it is in some sense "fake" at its earliest point. I see exactly why that is important from a polemical perspective of those who have a focus on debunking religion, whether directly or through the advocacy of things (which can be totally valid and correct) that lend themselves to debunkers. I don't agree that its later sincerity in any way helps those who are having their religion debunked. If anything, and it will be pointed out sharply by debunkers, it just makes them unwitting dupes.

I also see your point, from a very dry perspective, that every religion can be called real which has sincere adherents, but I don't see that definition as having much relevance if the jumping-off point is what SA is saying.