Heresy Hypothesis

[DeistPaladin]

I have a hypothesis regarding what religion typically regards as heretical that I would like to throw out there for everyone's consideration:

As a religion becomes more dominant in society, as measured by the percentage of the population that identifies as adherents of the faith, it becomes proportionally less tolerant of and more sensitive to heterodoxy and therefore more prone to labeling it as heretical.

Observation: In Indonesia, where Islam is the majority religion, Christians that I've met are oblivious to denominational differences, even ones as stark as Protestant and Catholic. Being in the minority, Christians there are more likely to see each other as comrades even though their theological differences would be incompatible here in the USA. In the USA, where Christianity is 75% of the population, Catholics are regarded by Protestants as "not true Christians".

If this hypothesis is correct, as sure as 1/X will never equal zero, there can never be any peace with religion. As a society converts, the religion becomes increasing demanding of its followers to conform, so there will always be "heretics" over increasingly hair-splitting details of the theology.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I agree.

Mostly, anyway. Unfortunately (or maybe not) I don't think it works both ways. In order to be heretical, one requires an orthodoxy to split from, and a religious authority to label it as such. Some Jewish groups have managed to accomplish this even while remaining a rather small minority, and I can think of other examples of Christians in the Ottoman Empire... even the English Civil War. So it is possible to fragment and in-fight even as the dominant society is against you ... probably not healthy though.

One of the major themes of R. I. Moore's The Formation of a Persecuting Society - a great book which everyone should read - is that societies actually need an 'other' to help define themselves. I imagine heresy fills this role with regards to religion, but that if you're in a small minority this need is typically less pronounced then the need for group solidarity.

And then, of course, there's my own personal belief that the difference between a religion and a cult, is that religions have schisms.

 

[Ibis3]

Don't have a lot of time to reply unfortunately, but here are a few points to consider:

1. This may be more accurate in the type of situation you describe, where both the orthodoxy and heterodoxies are rather well-defined.
2. I don't think it necessarily holds true when a religion is first developing (take for example, the first couple of centuries of Christianity). At that point, getting the doctrine "right" is seen to be of paramount importance to adherents.
3. Not all religions exhibit a need for orthodoxy. Roman Paganism, for example, was rather more syncretic than monlithic. The only orthodoxy demanded was prayer for the Emperor (which was really more political than religious), and the only religious practice universally forbidden or looked upon with disgust was human sacrifice.

 

[lrkun]

I have a hypothesis regarding what religion typically regards as heretical that I would like to throw out there for everyone's consideration:

As a religion becomes more dominant in society, as measured by the percentage of the population that identifies as adherents of the faith, it becomes proportionally less tolerant of and more sensitive to heterodoxy and therefore more prone to labeling it as heretical.

Observation: In Indonesia, where Islam is the majority religion, Christians that I've met are oblivious to denominational differences, even ones as stark as Protestant and Catholic. Being in the minority, Christians there are more likely to see each other as comrades even though their theological differences would be incompatible here in the USA. In the USA, where Christianity is 75% of the population, Catholics are regarded by Protestants as "not true Christians".

If this hypothesis is correct, as sure as 1/X will never equal zero, there can never be any peace with religion. As a society converts, the religion becomes increasing demanding of its followers to conform, so there will always be "heretics" over increasingly hair-splitting details of the theology.

Having shared your opinion. What is your intent for sharing such? What do you wish as a solution or remedy? What are your suggestions?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Don't have a lot of time to reply unfortunately, but here are a few points to consider:

1. This may be more accurate in the type of situation you describe, where both the orthodoxy and heterodoxies are rather well-defined.
2. I don't think it necessarily holds true when a religion is first developing (take for example, the first couple of centuries of Christianity). At that point, getting the doctrine "right" is seen to be of paramount importance to adherents.
3. Not all religions exhibit a need for orthodoxy. Roman Paganism, for example, was rather more syncretic than monlithic. The only orthodoxy demanded was prayer for the Emperor (which was really more political than religious), and the only religious practice universally forbidden or looked upon with disgust was human sacrifice.

In quick response.

For some reason the 4th and 5th Centuries seems to have been the time when State-backed Orthodoxy (run by a priesthood) really took off in the world; or at least in Rome, Sassanid Persia, and India. It probably is true that, before this time, any rules regarding it are inconsistent at best.

 

[DeistPaladin]

Having shared your opinion. What is your intent for sharing such? What do you wish as a solution or remedy? What are your suggestions?

I'm just exploring an idea here and seeing what others think. This hypothesis is based on limited observation and I want to avoid painting with a broad brush or generalizing too much.

If this hypothesis holds up, it implies that there can never be peace with religion, or at least not with the Abrahamic faiths. There will always be "heretics" even if the whole world were to convert.

 

[lrkun]

it implies that there can never be peace with religion, or at least not with the Abrahamic faiths. There will always be "heretics" even if the whole world were to convert.

What other factors do you think you should consider besides religion?

 

[DeistPaladin]

What other factors do you think you should consider besides religion?

Such as...?

Idea has been thrown out for discussion. Please let me know if I'm missing anything.

 

[lrkun]

What other factors do you think you should consider besides religion?

Such as...?

Idea has been thrown out for discussion. Please let me know if I'm missing anything.

Factors such as customs, traditions, laws, different ethnic groups, sex, and creed.

Peace is not disturbed by reason of religion alone.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

I guess everyone who is not an atheist is heretic according to atheism

But yes, it's human nature to exercise collective power when a whole group is threatened and individual powers are useless against the threat. Perhaps that could be why minority christians transcend their differences to have a collective power against the majority.

As the threat disappears, so does the need for collective power. Individual selfishness then becomes the priority, and with religion, this means orthodoxy.

 

[DeistPaladin]

Factors such as customs, traditions, laws, different ethnic groups, sex, and creed.

Peace is not disturbed by reason of religion alone.

[/quote]

Correct and I never said otherwise. Getting rid of religion won't get rid of bigotry and conflict.

 

[lrkun]

Factors such as customs, traditions, laws, different ethnic groups, sex, and creed.

Peace is not disturbed by reason of religion alone.

Correct and I never said otherwise. Getting rid of religion won't get rid of bigotry and conflict.

This confuses me. Again, I ask what is your intent for sharing this hypothesis.

I ask, because I wish to understand your position.

 

[DeistPaladin]

This confuses me. Again, I ask what is your intent for sharing this hypothesis.

I ask, because I wish to understand your position.

To repeat my earlier post:

If this hypothesis holds up, it implies that there can never be peace with religion, or at least not with the Abrahamic faiths. There will always be "heretics" even if the whole world were to convert.

This hypothesis doesn't posit or promise that there will be peace without religion.

 

[lrkun]

There will always be "heretics" even if the whole world were to convert.

What do you mean by this? or did you make a mistake in writing it in this manner.

Do you mean to say that heretics will exist, despite everyone converts or if most of the people convert?

Do you mean to say that heretics will exist, despite without religion, like one being called a heretic because of his or her race?

Do you mean to say that heretics will exist, despite everyone being of a certain creed?

-oOo-

Do you plan to test this hypothesis or stick to our opinions?

If yes, how do you wish to conduct it?

-oOo-

-mew

 

[DeistPaladin]

There will always be "heretics" even if the whole world were to convert.

What do you mean by this? or did you make a mistake in writing it in this manner.

OK, let's say the whole world converts to Christianity. Then the conflict would be between Protestant and Catholic.

If all the world converted to Protestantism, then the conflict would be between different denominations, like Methodist or Baptist.

If all the world converted to one denomination, then the conflict would be between different branches of the denomination.

Just as 1/x =/= 0, no matter how "x" is defined, so too sectarian-based conflict will always exist only with increasingly minute doctrinal distinctions.

By this hypothesis, the label "heretic" is defined partly by how dominant a religion is. This is why an earlier poster said "cults don't have schisms". This is because they aren't large enough to identify schismatics within their ranks. Critical mass hasn't yet been achieved.

So, "there will always be 'heretics'" means that there can't be enough conformity to satisfy religion. The definition will simply change to suit the current level of conformity.

Clear?

 

[lrkun]

I see. You're not thinking of the possibility of a one religion for the world or the lack thereof, but only of a situation that there will always be another to contradict the former. Like A vs. B. Not all A or all B.

Thanks for answering some of my questions.

-oOo-

Now with respect to your guess. Are you going to test it or will you retain it only as a hypothesis?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I see. You're not thinking of the possibility of a one religion for the world or the lack thereof, but only of a situation that there will always be another to contradict the former. Like A vs. B. Not all A or all B.

Thanks for answering some of my questions.

-oOo-

Now with respect to your guess. Are you going to test it or will you retain it only as a hypothesis?

I'm not sure how we could test it beyond drawing historical reference.

It probably wouldn't be ethical to spur on religious conflict via experiment in humans.

 

[DeistPaladin]

Now with respect to your guess. Are you going to test it or will you retain it only as a hypothesis?

Perhaps if we looked through history:

Does history show that tensions between denominations as a religion gains dominance?

Is there more tolerance between denominations when a religion is in the minority (i.e. more observations like mine)?

Are there some religions that are more prone to persecuting heterodox belief than others?

 

[lrkun]

It probably wouldn't be ethical to spur on religious conflict via experiment in humans.

That is an interesting thought. Of course it will be something for the thread starter to decide.

What made you think of such experiment by the way?

 

[lrkun]

Now with respect to your guess. Are you going to test it or will you retain it only as a hypothesis?

Perhaps if we looked through history:

Does history show that tensions between denominations as a religion gains dominance?

Is there more tolerance between denominations when a religion is in the minority (i.e. more observations like mine)?

Are there some religions that are more prone to persecuting heterodox belief than others?

And what's the answer?