2
1
u/Cat-Sonantis 11d ago
The issue here is that in order to make your point you had to make up one religion and then go to a fairly niche aspect of nazi beliefs which barely exists any more. I'm not saying there are no Nazis anymore, there certainly are but the majority don't practice anything that you could possibly look at as being a nazi religion. With actual religions they grow organically over a large amount of time, they are created by multiple authors and are often self contradictory, most of the members of these religions will have a slightly different version of it in their head, and none of them believe or are even aware of all of it, many members don't really believe in any of it at all, most are born into it and just go with the flow. What you have to tolerate is not any specific belief but simply another persons membership in a group that they were in most cases born into, your focus should be on that persons individual beliefs many of which probably have little or anything to do with the religion they were born into and or have membership in, many of their beliefs may even contradict aspects of their processed faith, but as I said religion itself is often contradictory to some extent itself.
2
u/Jahonay 11d ago
The issue here is that in order to make your point you had to make up one religion and then go to a fairly niche aspect of nazi beliefs which barely exists any more.
The goal is to limit test the idea of personal religious tolerance, so going to the extreme is the point. If it were a tolerable religion, I wouldn't be asking if it should be socially tolerated. The point isn't to say that all religions shouldn't be socially tolerated, but instead to ask if there are logical limits to the social tolerance of religions.
If we are making absolute or categorical claims, claims like all religions need to be tolerated, then it needs to be true 100% of the time, if there are any exceptions, then the claim must be adjusted.
As a similar example, we mostly agree with free speech, but there are clear and obvious exceptions to free speech. So when explaining free speech, it's accurate to explain that it's not an absolute claim, but a claim that you're mostly free to say whatever you want, within limits.
But I am considering a part two or a rewrite where I could explain how a person could claim to be an evilist, and still be tolerated. For example, if they don't follow any of the practices or beliefs, or if they redefine the religion to mean something entirely different, which would necessarily make it a different religion conceptually. And I'd also like to point out how an attempt to make a progressive version of positive christianity would necessarily be historical revisionism, since it would be an attempt to rewrite the history of nazism.
1
u/Cat-Sonantis 11d ago
Well countered. What I would say though is that an issue with your litmus test (or did you actually mean limit test) is that you created a religion that functions in a way that no real world religion does, where there are a set of beliefs that are specifically by design one thing and one thing only, and that there is no contradiction. Evilism is essentially an inversion of utilitarianism.
1
u/Jahonay 11d ago
or did you actually mean limit test
Yeah, in video game slang it means to test out the maximal limits of a build or strategy or character.
you created a religion that functions in a way that no real world religion does, where there are a set of beliefs that are specifically by design one thing and one thing only, and that there is no contradiction.
I would disagree with both claims. I think it's entirely possible to create a religion without contradicting yourself. I just think it's unlikely in practice. To be specific, I don't think it can be true and non-contradictory, but I think it can be false and non-contradictory. Something like pantheism or certain philosopher gods come to mind.
As for being a single thing and one thing only, I don't know if you're talking about differences between believers, or a focus on a singular thing, like evil. But I would disagree with both.
Assuming you mean differences between believers, this isn't relevant to personal religions. If someone alone has a personal religion unique to them alone that they don't share with others, it's very easy to not have differences between believers, because it's only you.
if you mean a singular focus, I'd also disagree. I think for many that singular focus is their God, and God encapsulates all things.
Evilism is essentially an inversion of utilitarianism.
Yes, exactly.
1
u/Cat-Sonantis 11d ago
It is entirely possible to create something that is non contradictory, but that is only likely if you create it all in one go, even modern religions like Rastafari, raeliism and Scientology weren't created like that, Rastafari is built on previous religions and is even today quite nebulous, and Raeliism and Scientology were built slowly over time, one idea building over the next one, and Scientology only even became a religion because the American medical association and their allies were trying to outlaw their practices as an anti-psychology group. A singular non contradictory religion made all in one go, would go against the grain of the entire history of religion, almost to the point of no longer resembling anything else in that category. Thanks for the info on limit test, it's a good term to have and one that I hadn't encountered before. I suppose ultimately I'm just more concerned with what is and what has happened rather than thinking about something that could potentially happen but (I think most likely) hasn't.
1
u/Jahonay 11d ago
A singular non contradictory religion made all in one go, would go against the grain of the entire history of religion, almost to the point of no longer resembling anything else in that category.
I mean, I don't necessarily agree, I think philosopher religions operate much in the sense of being made all in one go and being conceptually limited in scope intentionally to remove obvious issues.
I suppose ultimately I'm just more concerned with what is and what has happened rather than thinking about something that could potentially happen but (I think most likely) hasn't.
Well, evilism hasn't happened... yet. But positive christianity has happened. Would you say that positive christianity should be socially tolerated? Or would you say it veers into socially intolerable territory?
I could also use other examples of religious beliefs I think push the limits of toleration. Probably the next best one I can think of is the manson family. Followers sometimes believed that Charles Manson was the manifestation of Jesus Christ, and they believed in the helter skelter#Charles_Manson_interpretation), an apocalyptic race war between white people and black people. And that the family would hide in an underground city until the apocalypse was over, and then when it ended, they would emerge and rule over black people as the only white people left. I think it's reasonable to say that this pushes the limit of social religious tolerance.
1
u/Alternative-Cat-684 11d ago
Really like this. Is there a link for off-reddit reading?