4 ms·

> But it also makes sense to define religious groups such that each member of a group considers all other members orthodox. Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just

> But it also makes sense to define religious groups such that each member of a group considers all other members orthodox. Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just end up with a million little groups of one or two. The whole point of forming a sub-religion is that new people consider the old people heretical or unorthodox or vice versa.

baddox 12y ago
> Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just end up with a million little groups of one or two. There's no way that's accurate. Plenty of Protestant Christian denominations recognize other Protestant denominations as orthodox, and I suspect the same goes between many congregations of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. > The whole point of forming a sub-religion is that new people consider the old people heretical or unorthodox or vice versa. Not at all true, at least within Protestant Christian denominations.
- argumentum 12y ago
  It only makes sense to treat people as individuals. Otherwise, what if one single Lutheran views all Baptists as heretics. I can guarantee that such a person exists. Are you going to create a new category for that one person? What will you call it? "Lutherans who don't consider Baptists to be Christian"? "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." - Thomas Jefferson
  - baddox 12y ago
    You point out an obvious problem, but any method of grouping is equally or more susceptible to this same problem. In practice you would probably look try to look either at the stated official beliefs of sufficiently large religious groups, or at polls of people who self-identify as an adherent to a certain religious group. It's certainly never going to perfectly objective. This is inherent to the very idea of this graph, which is to list religious groups rather than individuals. Any grouping will necessarily group together people who don't share identical beliefs. I'm just proposing one way to do so, because I think the most pragmatically important feature of a religious group isn't the name of the group or the name they use for their deities, but rather who they consider to be orthodox.
    - argumentum 12y ago
      > but any method of grouping is equally or more susceptible to this same problem Not really. If you are looking to group people into what group they identify with (which is what this poll actually was), the only way to do it would be to ask them, individually. > Any grouping will necessarily group together people who don't share identical beliefs. Huh, anyone who self-identifies as "Christian" believes that category describes them better than any other. You can't go into everyone's head and determine what constitutes the totality of their religion or philosophy. It's just not possible. > I think the most pragmatically important feature of a religious group isn't the name of the group or the name they use for their deities, but rather who they consider to be orthodox. I think the only pragmatically important feature of a religious group is who considers themselves to be a part of it.
      - baddox 12y ago
        > Huh, anyone who self-identifies as "Christian" believes that category describes them better than any other. Yes, but most would probably also self-identify with more specific groups, like "Lutheran," more vague groups, like "spiritual," and overlapping groups, like "fundamentalist" or "evangelical." My proposal would not group a person into a group with which they do not self-identify. > I think the only pragmatically important feature of a religious group is who considers themselves to be a part of it. Again, I'm not disagreeing with that. I was just assuming that no groupings would go against any member's self-identification, because that seems very obvious.

baddox 12y ago

> Hah. Good luck with that—you'd just end up with a million little groups of one or two. There's no way that's accurate. Plenty of Protestant Christian denominations recognize other Protestant denominations as orthodox, and I suspect the same goes between many congregations of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. > The whole point of forming a sub-religion is that new people consider the old people heretical or unorthodox or vice versa. Not at all true, at least within Protestant Christian denominations.

argumentum 12y ago
It only makes sense to treat people as individuals. Otherwise, what if one single Lutheran views all Baptists as heretics. I can guarantee that such a person exists. Are you going to create a new category for that one person? What will you call it? "Lutherans who don't consider Baptists to be Christian"? "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." - Thomas Jefferson
- baddox 12y ago
  You point out an obvious problem, but any method of grouping is equally or more susceptible to this same problem. In practice you would probably look try to look either at the stated official beliefs of sufficiently large religious groups, or at polls of people who self-identify as an adherent to a certain religious group. It's certainly never going to perfectly objective. This is inherent to the very idea of this graph, which is to list religious groups rather than individuals. Any grouping will necessarily group together people who don't share identical beliefs. I'm just proposing one way to do so, because I think the most pragmatically important feature of a religious group isn't the name of the group or the name they use for their deities, but rather who they consider to be orthodox.
  - argumentum 12y ago
    > but any method of grouping is equally or more susceptible to this same problem Not really. If you are looking to group people into what group they identify with (which is what this poll actually was), the only way to do it would be to ask them, individually. > Any grouping will necessarily group together people who don't share identical beliefs. Huh, anyone who self-identifies as "Christian" believes that category describes them better than any other. You can't go into everyone's head and determine what constitutes the totality of their religion or philosophy. It's just not possible. > I think the most pragmatically important feature of a religious group isn't the name of the group or the name they use for their deities, but rather who they consider to be orthodox. I think the only pragmatically important feature of a religious group is who considers themselves to be a part of it.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > Huh, anyone who self-identifies as "Christian" believes that category describes them better than any other. Yes, but most would probably also self-identify with more specific groups, like "Lutheran," more vague groups, like "spiritual," and overlapping groups, like "fundamentalist" or "evangelical." My proposal would not group a person into a group with which they do not self-identify. > I think the only pragmatically important feature of a religious group is who considers themselves to be a part of it. Again, I'm not disagreeing with that. I was just assuming that no groupings would go against any member's self-identification, because that seems very obvious.