Talk:Pseudoreligion

message: (inserted for readability: the oldest is the least topical. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: (random heading)

message: There was an entry from 2005-Oct-12 on Wikipedia:Third_opinion pointing out the "Dispute over basic definition".  In response, I'm adding my opinion here.
User:Spooky Donkey's original question above was
:It is unclear whether this article is claiming this term is applied to religions which are not generally accepted, or to so-called "joke" religions which either make no claim to be serious or make it clear without doubt that they are not intended to be taken as such, or to both.
From my research on the use of this word, I believe its definition leans toward the former -- actual religions.  When someone starts a joke religion (like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism), calling it a pseudo-religion would only elevate its status.  Pseudo-religion is primarily a pejorative term used for religions whose members consider them legitimate.
When I first read this article, I was confused by seeing Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in the same list.  I think FSMism should be moved out of the list (along with any others that are clearly jokes).  They may be described separately in this article as "intentional pseudoreligions", or some other such term.
I don't think I'm quite up to the task of determining how to implement these changes.  For now, I just wanted to offer a third opinion.
(JeremyStein 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *On second thought, I did go ahead and move it, along with the Church of Sub Genius to its own sentence. Now that there's an entry for parody religion it seems appropriate to distinguish the categorisation. Perhaps a list of significant pseudoreligions is in order? —LeFlyman 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion on definition 

message: The article confuses postmodernist religions and cults.  At the extreme, maybe it should just be turnned into a disambiguation page?  JeffBurdges 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing 

message: :Belief systems such as Theosophy, corporate Kabbalism, Scientology and Objectivism, have all been referred to as pseudoreligions, as have various New Age religions. While the more serious-minded participants in these groups may prefer to consider themselves part of a proper religion, the mainstream ascribes to them fringe status.
:Satirical, unserious, or parody religions, such as Discordianism, Church of the SubGenius, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have been viewed as pseudoreligions, particularly when members claim that their group is as real and/or as valid as other more widely accepted belief systems.
Wouldn't religions that actually call themselves religions just be cults, then? I would think that the term of pseudoreligion would be reserved for those philosophies and practices that make the claim that they aren't a religion, yet are functionally similar to one. Discordianism, whether you think it's "serious" or "real" or not, makes the claim of being a religion, as, I'm sure, do many New Age religions, and I would argue against them being classified here as pseudoreligions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Voretus (talk • contribs) 11:29, 31 May 2006
*I'd suggest that not all such groups that call themselves religions are "cults" (AKA the politically correct "new religious movements"); nor are all "cults" actually religions -- although it's more likely that such groups will have the qualities of a pseudoreligion, even while denying a supernatural power. Thus, Scientology-- which at its core appears to be anti-religious, teaching that Xenu implanted false memories/history of religion to subvert those darned thetans-- is a pseudoreligion in veneration of a dead "prophet" L. Ron Hubbard. Discordianism, while generally considered to be satirical, has "followers" who actually consider it to be serious, aiming to legitimise it as such, particularly in references on Wikipedia. The FSM group seems to straddle the line, being obviously tongue-in-cheek, while evangelising for their cause, and having a "Gospel" published. See  I would contend, as a simile, that pseudoreligion is to mainstream religion as pseudoscience is to mainstream science, and pseudophilosophy is to... well, you get the gist. There are always going to be arguments about which classifications certain beliefs should fall into. --LeflymanTalk 19:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit confused 

message: --Greasysteve13 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But doesn't religion assert claims that cannot be verified, or falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant? Doesn't religion assert claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements as a basis? Doesn't religion assert claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict? Doesn't relgion assert that claims which have not been proven false must necessarily be true, and vice versa? Doesn't Science fail to make these assertions?--Greasysteve13 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the place to expound on epistemological questions such as these. If you're aiming to make a case that religions aren't as "valid" as science, consider submitting an article to the Skeptical Inquirer.--LeflymanTalk 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fair enough. This article seems a little silly to me. Any religion can be considered a cult or pseudoreligion in the eyes of another. And where do we draw the line for what is and what isn't mainstream? Furthermore science could be considered a pseudoreligion by those who see it as blasphemous or by those who consider religion to be a pseudoscience. We could be able to note this from aources found on other pages in Wikipedia.--Greasysteve13 09:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should just redirect to [[Science]] 

message: The reference to Objectivism as a pseudoreligion is unfounded; an internet search turns up not a single non-Wikipedia based page that includes the terms "Objectivism" and "Pseudoreligion." Likewise, the Rothbard article calls Objectivism a cult, not a pseudoreligion (I would dispute the cult accusation, though that is not relevant to the discussion at hand). The Parrotti citation is invalid, as self-published articles don't count. The book The Ayn Rand Cult does not call Objectivism a pseudoreligion either. Nor does Objectivism have a liturgy, principal text, or an explicilty (if at all) faith based belief. Nor does it even claim to be a religion. LaszloWalrus 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivism 

message: The "philiosophical pseudoreligion" part is especially egregious. Marxism is a "pseudoreligion" because one guy said so in a text?  No real attempt is made to distinguish commentators' positions on these movements from Wikipedia's position (which should be neutral) on them. Personally, I'd like to see this section deleted or changed so that it states clearly that these religions or philosphical movements have been described as pseudoreligions and why. By its nature, "pseudoreligion" is a very POV term, and we need to be careful not to use it ourselves, but rather to describe how it's been used.--Birdmessenger 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I made changes as per above.  Please note, however, that I'm not the one who removed references to Objectivism.  If it were up to me, I'd keep those in, with the qualification that Objectivism does not bill itself as a religion, pseudo or otherwise (and as further illustration of the way in which the term has inexact and perjorative uses).--Birdmessenger 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Pseudoreligions--extremely POV the way info is presented now 

message: Surely a key aspect of pseudoreligion is motivation. If the desire is to truly understand and follow the will of God, then, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it is a religion. If the desire is self serving, "empowerment", and essentially the elevation of self to the central focus, or the manipulation of God, then it is pseudoreligion. In that regard, it shares the distinction of true science from pseudoscience. You can get genuine science which is bad, perhaps contains a flawed methodology, but remains "true science", but the minute the language and semiotics of science are contorted to fulfil ulterior and non-scientific goals, it becomes pseudoscience? Is that not the definition of pseudo-anything? Ros Power 20:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all autotheists would agree with you, nor would people in religions that do excessive (or any) blood sacrifice.  Yet, those are called religions.--Dchmelik (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation 

message: This article has one of someones guidlines as: "Any religion entirely self referential is a pseudo-religion." This renders most religions as psuedoreligions.
For example.
:Q. How do people know the Bible is true?
:A. It is the word of God.
:Q. How do people know it is the word of God?
:A. It tells them in the Bible.
:Q, How would...
Etcetera. See also: Circular logic.--Steven X 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but that reflects the flaws of that definition of "pseudoreligion", since such circularities needn't exist in a pseudoreligion, and are easily replaceable with a straight-lined reasoning based on "well chosen" Equivocations. If there should be a concept such as pseudoreligion, it should be based on that it alleges to convey advantages that religions do convey, but that the pseudoreligion doesn't. Fallacies are fallacies and a pseudoreligion would probably not restrict itself to use just one of them. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning that the second criterion is lacking. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Reading the source, I don't think that James D. Carmine by "Any religion entirely self referential is a pseudo-religion" meant to refer to circular logic. Instead I get the impression that Carmine meant "entirely self referential" to mean "unable to respond to objections from outside", which by my studies is equivalent to a philosophical isolation of a cultic mindset system. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those pseudoreligion guidlines render most religions psuedoreligions: 

message: Only the source of James Carmine does actually try to make a term definition of "pseudoreligion", the other sources mention "pseudoreligion" not as defined terms, but as an alias for "fake religion". Why don't we have articles for "fake clowns" or for "fake houses"? Because they're not terms. The term pseudoreligion has one source, the other sources uses "pseudo-" as a linguistically universal alias for "fake". IMHO Carmine defines "pseudoreligion" very much like "cult", only not describing any totalitarian tendency so typical for what I consider "hard-line cults". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean: the article is WP:OR:ish doing WP:SYNTH. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another try to define a term pseudoreligion Religion and pseudo-religion: an elusive boundary by Sami Pihlström. This link provides a term, like Carmine does. The other links used in this article uses "pseudoreligion" as an alias for "fake religion", and should be cleaned away, because they don't adher to any definition. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No term