how does rational choice perspective apply to emergence and evolution of religious cults?
350034
That's a very deep question, and you could easily write a paper, if not a book, on the topic.  I'll keep my answer short...\n\nI think most cult leaders tend to be very charismatic and persuasive.  They often think highly of themselves and want to lead others.  The cult is their way of gaining that leadership and having a loyal following.  A good example of that is L. Ron Hubbard, who seems to have been motivated to start Scientology not because he believed what he was teaching, and not because he cared about the people he set out to "heal", but because he saw the financial gain in it for himself.  When cult leaders attain a group of followers, those followers gain a group mentality, and can/will give up their time, money, and possessions for "the good of the group".  In the most extreme cases, cult leaders can grow to have such a power over their followers that the followers can be convinced to kill themselves, and will do so willingly.\n\nI'm not sure if you were asking about the evolution of cults in general, or how an individual cult evolves, but they stay alive because the leader(s) get what they want.  They have the money, power, and followers.  Obviously the cult will begin to fail if they don't have one of those necessities (although it's much easier to keep the cult alive without money, rather than power or followers), and as long as they maintain those three things the cult could go on until the leaders decide to call it quits or an outside force comes into play.\n\nAgain, there's a lot more that can be said about it, but hopefully that helps a little...
1025522
Yes this is absolutely RATIONAL. \n\n========================\nlets see how it is rational and makes sense. \n\n1.Say, He is God, One and only. \n\nGod cannot be more than ONE because if there were many gods besides God, then there would not have been such order in the universe, and each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others. If there would have been many gods then each god would try to defeat others to establish his rule. \n\n(Quran 17:42-43) Say: If there had been (other) gods with Him, as they say,- behold, they would certainly have sought out a way to the Lord of the Throne! Glory to Him! He is high above all that they say!- Exalted and Great (beyond measure)! \n\n\n2. God, the Eternal, Absolute\n \n\nGod has to be Eternal then otherwise He would have a beginning. Suppose, we say God had a beginning, then there was a time when God did not exist. It means that he needed somebody else to make him exist. So there is somebody else who is God, not him. but as we agreed that there is only one God, therefore, there is no one else who make Him exist. When we say that God cannot be born, we are also saying that a creator cannot becomes his creation, because creation means what is in need of a creator. To be a creature, mean there had to be someone to create you. So if God becomes his creation, it means now he is in need of a creator. And this is absudity! As we know, A creation is not eternal. An eternal being is uncreated. We can conclude that the one God who is uncreated, has to be Eternal.\n\n3. "He begets not, nor is He begotten"\n\nIt follows by logical necessity that if God is one, and if He is eternal, Then obviously He does not beget , Nor is he begotten. Because if He beget, then He will have a child and the child will have to be God-like. So there will then be two Gods. Since we agreed that there is only one God, you cannot have two.  OR If he was begotten, that means he would have father. Then the father will be older than him and more eternal than him. and we cannot have one who is more eternal than "ETERNAL"\n\n4. And there is none like unto Him\nmeans He is unique unlike that which He has created.\n\n \n=====================\n\nHOPE THIS ANSWERS\n\n\n\n==============\n\n*******************************\n\n\nTO ....... poooks9\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\n\nHumans are not unique. I am a human, and i am not unique in the sense that i am not the only human. there are other humans as well. \nGod is unique means there is nothing like unto HIM. and He is not like anything. \n\nsame thing is mentioned in bible >>>> "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."\n[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]\n\nnow what has blowing to do with this question.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ansotukrv9vu2mEVQz183CXsy6IX?qid=1006051404952\n\n=======================
623503
Edward O. Wilson's book Consilience deals with this question among others.  He maintains that genetic code associated with ethics and religion played an integral part in early man's life since religion and ethics help people to make sense of things like death, pain, and most importantly, purpose.  Wilson maintains that communities with stronger religion/ethics genes rose above those without it and so people today tend towards religion and ethics for good and sound reasons (that is, it's better for humanity to be driven by a sense of purpose than for it not to be).\n\nSo, in my mind, this is the crucial fork in the road.  Is purpose really a creation of our own, or is it possible that our sense of purpose comes from an outside force?  I think that it is at least possible, but how far does the rabbit hole go down?
735315
Those who follow rationality do not object to religion existing, but to the way the religious claim to have special knowledge.  In fact people follow religion without really understanding it or knowing why it exists.
265312
PBS did a series and a book a few years ago on The Day the Universe Changed, as i remember it had to do mostly with landmark historical events and scientific discoveries. I think that you would say that the spiritual evolution of mankind is more of a continuum.  Judaism would look at the giving of the law to Moses as a key event; Christians look to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ; Muslims to the life of Muhammad and the Koran. Maybe the next step is trying to understand how this all plays out in everyday life, learning what lessons we need to learn, taking them to heart, applying them to ourselves, learn how to 'pull for' and not 'push against.' I remember the title of a book from years ago, One Hundred Years of Solitude,  that races condemned to one hundred years of solitude do not get a second opportunity on earth.
481380
Not all chatholics believe this. Generally, however, strong heaven/hell beliefs, in any religion, are a reflection of the person's own level of psychological development. Now I don't have time, obviously, to get into theories of psychological development, so I won't, but without understanding development I think it is harder to answer these kinds of questions, so I will just offer what I can and hope you get the drift.\n\nPeople who have developed to the conventional/mythic-membership level of cognition -- which is the general level of consciousness among fundamentalists and people who adopt conventional religious beliefs such as heaven and hell -- tend to see the world in black and white, good versus evil, us versus them, and therefore tend to project their own psychological orientation toward the world onto God, thus assuming God must be as equally judgemental and vengeful. Since people at the conventional stage of psychological development tend to see those outside of their own group, community, or religious affiliation as a threat, as other, as less than fully human, they assume God will think/feel the same way. \n\nHowever, having said this, there are catholics who happen to be more psychologically developed than this. Some reach the ability for rational cognition (that does not mean the ability to sound rational, but rather the ability to hold perspectives that separate objective its from subjective shoulds), some pluralistic cognition, and some higher. For such people, God will tend to be viewed increasingly as more rational, more pluralistic (in which case, God couldn't possibly hold the tight standards of heaven as hell as a conventionally minded follower would believe), etc, depending on the person's individual cognitive and psychological development. \n\nSo, one's stage of psychological development largely dictates what that person considers to be "loving", and therefore they will project their form of "love" onto God. For a person developed up to the conventional/mythic-membership level, and no higher, "love" means being moral and good to your friends, neihbors, family members, and community, but that love rarely extends to foriegners or outsiders (which is why they tend to be more prone to racism and pro-war positions). Thus, a God who loves his chosen people, but essentially hates and punishes the non-chosen, is not seen to be at odds with their understanding of love.\n\nOn the other hand, someone developed past the conventional/mythic-membership stage, someone with rational or postmodern consciousness, understands love not merely as loving your neighbors, friends, community, and family, but also loving those who are different than you. That is, their sphere of loving embrace is larger, and therefore naturally will assume that God's sphere of love must be larger too.\n\nHope this helps a bit.
71790
technically speaking, we use reason and logic before we believe. After all, reason and logic are mental processess which re- or deconstructs information before we accept it. The talibans believe that their code is only logical and reasonable, even if we do not. On the other hand, the theory of evolution is also logical and reasonable based on evidences, but many still do not believe in it. So perhaps, there is a vague line between them. Howver, which will you ACCEPT? believing without logic and reason, or reasoning without believing?
552891
Religion plays a part in the choices you make in voting, just as every other part of who you are plays a part in every decision you make about anything.\n\nEverything we learn, experience, and believe in molds our decision making.
431691
I think that often we gain perspective with age.  Often the people trapped by cults are younger people who are searching for something and haven't found it yet.  They are easy prey for cultists. People often leave cults of their own accord when they get older and they can, as you say, step back and consider what they are doing.
293525
There is always going to be a difference of opinion and different ways to handle any situation. It all comes with the territory whether you're religious or not. Therefore it would not have any bearing on my decision as long as they don't preach and push me into their beliefs. The only aspect that matters to me, would be my future children. They will be raised of neither faith, but left to choose their own. Only educated as much as possible.
420498
Rationalism is a philosophical trend that theorizes the primacy of man's intellect over spiritual revelation or religion. One of its foremost thinkers was Rene' Descartes - "I think, therefore I am" - who placed man at the center of the universe, putting God in the background.\nIt argued that we can explain all earthly phenomenons with our thought and do away with revelation.\nReligion on the other hand requires you to explain life through faith which, by definition, requires no intellectual or factual truth. It is the belief in the unseen, and therefore not acceptable to rationalist theory.
694580
Ability to exercise one's choice and bring that choice into effect independently of any involuntary causal link which made that person's choice a necessary outcome.\n\nEDIT:  SH's attempt to show a contradiction in human libertarian free will and classical theism fails.  God's divine foreknowledge assures us that He knows what we would choose if presented with a set of options in certain circumstances.  But we still have the ability to choose.  In other words, God's infallible foreknowledge makes a particular outcome CERTAIN, but this does not make that outcome in any way NECESSARY.  \n\nThe difference is a measure of epistemological CERTAINTY, and ontological NECESSITY.  Put differently, God's perfect foreknowledge no more causes us to choose an option any more than an infallible barometer controls the weather.
607249
religion or family believes.
1153626
This point is terrific.\n\nIt's why intelligent design is ridiculous and absurd.\n\nWhen I hear people say they believe in theistic evolution I have to say to them grow balls pick one.
569852
What's the difference?\n\nDidn't the brain which engages in rational decision making also evolve?
625723
You are correct. \n\nWhat it comes down to is that religion is irrational.
1124323
Start with the people who know you best and explain the basis of your beliefs. Start with one person who agrees and have them go out and do the same thing. Pretty soon the exponential power will bring you a flock as long as the dogma you put out is believable and aligned with the people you want to teach.