Why might a religion be said to have failed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is some confused chatter about Christianity being successful seemingly down to survivorship bias.
Since survivorship bias is just looking at survivors and not the failures, how do religions fail to survive?

[Dicky Underpants]

There is some confused chatter about Christianity being successful seemingly down to survivorship bias.
Since survivorship bias is just looking at survivors and not the failures, how do religions fail to survive?

Well, I'd say Mithraism failed in part because it had no significant role for women. Let us hope that the Taliban's disgusting version of Islam fails for the same reason.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is some confused chatter about Christianity being successful seemingly down to survivorship bias.
Since survivorship bias is just looking at survivors and not the failures, how do religions fail to survive?

The confusion is yours, and for lots of reasons obviously: not enough subscribers so they just withered away; rival religions tooled up and slaughtered the believers in the religions they didn’t like; various rulers decided for administrative reasons that one religion should be the official one and others should be outlawed, eg Constatine (”Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore he chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the imperial cult”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great); some religions overreached into claims about objective reality that were superseded by more robust explanations (see creationism vs evolution, flat earthism etc); natural disasters took out the believing population (eg Easter Island) etc etc. All pretty obvious stuff I'd have thought.         

[jeremyp]

There is some confused chatter about Christianity being successful seemingly down to survivorship bias.
Since survivorship bias is just looking at survivors and not the failures, how do religions fail to survive?

When nobody believes them anymore, they have failed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The confusion is yours,

It was unclear if you were or weren't suggesting that Christianity succeeded because of survivor bias which seems a stupid, circular idea. Something survives and then we have to look at reasons for why it survived when others failed to.

and for lots of reasons obviously: not enough subscribers so they just withered away; rival religions tooled up and slaughtered the believers in the religions they didn’t like; various rulers decided for administrative reasons that one religion should be the official one and others should be outlawed, eg Constatine (”Some scholars allege that his main objective was to gain unanimous approval and submission to his authority from all classes, and therefore he chose Christianity to conduct his political propaganda, believing that it was the most appropriate religion that could fit with the imperial cult”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great); some religions overreached into claims about objective reality that were superseded by more robust explanations (see creationism vs evolution, flat earthism etc); natural disasters took out the believing population (eg Easter Island) etc etc. All pretty obvious stuff I'd have thought.         

The survival due to Constantine theory is a bit thin since his empire failed to survive, the implication being that the Emperor's power and influence was no guarantee of survival.
There must have been other factors. Again survival bias is about not considering failed religions and you haven't considered any here.

To suggest Christians weren't slaughtered as you seem to be doing here seems to distort history as does the suggestion that Christianity perpetrated the most slaughter in the Roman Empire.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It was unclear if you were or weren't suggesting that Christianity succeeded because of survivor bias which seems a stupid, circular idea. Something survives and then we have to look at reasons for why it survived when others failed to.

Dear god but you struggle. It was perfectly clear that Sassy’s assertion that survival of the Bible meant it must be divinely inspired is an example of survivorship bias. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, even for you.   

The survival due to Constantine theory is a bit thin since his empire failed to survive, the implication being that the Emperor's power and influence was no guarantee of survival.
There must have been other factors.

That the Empire failed to survive doesn’t mean that the head start it gave to Christianity wasn’t then crucial to its success.

Again survival bias is about not considering failed religions and you haven't considered any here.

Again, no it isn’t for the reason I explained and you ignored.

To suggest Christians weren't slaughtered as you seem to be doing here seems to distort history as does the suggestion that Christianity perpetrated the most slaughter in the Roman Empire.

I made no such suggestion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
   

That the Empire failed to survive doesn’t mean that the head start it gave to Christianity wasn’t then crucial to its success.

Your thesis, your burden. Any citation of why gladiatorial combat, heavily promoted by the Roman Empire did not succeed or why the thing most heavily promoted by the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire itself did not survive?

Head start indeed, again, nothing from you about failed religions.

[Gordon]

Your thesis, your burden. Any citation of why gladiatorial combat, heavily promoted by the Roman Empire did not succeed or why the thing most heavily promoted by the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire itself did not survive?

Head start indeed, again, nothing from you about failed religions.

Maybe you need to read and understand some relevant history, Vlad - the situation between Ambrose of Milan and Theodosius for example, and consider the extent to which political power and Christianity became rather conflated towards the fag-end of the Roman Empire.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your thesis, your burden. Any citation of why gladiatorial combat, heavily promoted by the Roman Empire did not succeed or why the thing most heavily promoted by the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire itself did not survive?

Head start indeed, again, nothing from you about failed religions.

Wrong again. You asked about why religions fail. I gave you some of those reasons, and doubtless there are many more. The point here though is that Sassy asserted that the success of her religion was evidence for its divine authorship. It’s no such thing though because it takes no account of the many other reasons some religions succeeded and others failed. It’s the same survivorship fallacy as assuming that the QWERTY keyboard layout must be as it is because enables the fastest possible typing whereas in fact it’s the opposite of that – the keys of early ABCDE keyboards kept jamming so QWERTY was introduced to force the stenographers to slow down.

The point here is that I no more need to know why some religions failed than I need to know why the ABCDE keyboards were withdrawn to know that the assertions “the Bible succeeded because God is real” and “QWERTY succeeded because it made typing faster” are both examples of the survivorship fallacy.   

Could you try at least to understand why you've gone off the rails again here?         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe you need to read and understand some relevant history, Vlad - the situation between Ambrose of Milan and Theodosius for example, and consider the extent to which political power and Christianity became rather conflated towards the fag-end of the Roman Empire.

I just wonder what political power a fallen empire can offer though? The general pattern is that empires and civilisations fall but religions survive.
Christianity didn't need Rome, in fact it hasn't had Rome for a long time. There are claims that Christianity weakened the empire.

[Gordon]

I just wonder what political power a fallen empire can offer though? The general pattern is that empires and civilisations fall but religions survive.
Christianity didn't need Rome, in fact it hasn't had Rome for a long time. There are claims that Christianity weakened the empire.

The political power that organised Christianity had acquired was sufficient for it to persist after the fall of the Western Roman Empire: Christianity was active elsewhere you know at that time, such as the the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, and as it survived in morphed into various subsets along the way while still exerting political power and social influence - but also friction and conflict.

The so-called 'wars of religion' that began in the early 16th century and continued until well into the 18th century, over a millennia after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and well before that Christianity was a active political force (such as in Anglo Saxon times).

Thankfully, in the wee bit of the planet I inhabit, Christianity nowadays has little power or influence, and is a minority activity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The political power that organised Christianity had acquired was sufficient for it to persist after the fall of the Western Roman Empire: Christianity was active elsewhere you know at that time, such as the the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, and as it survived in morphed into various subsets along the way while still exerting political power and social influence - but also friction and conflict.

The so-called 'wars of religion' that began in the early 16th century and continued until well into the 18th century, over a millennia after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and well before that Christianity was a active political force (such as in Anglo Saxon times).

Thankfully, in the wee bit of the planet I inhabit, Christianity nowadays has little power or influence, and is a minority activity.

Again, it is interesting that The Eastern Roman empire
 could not preserve the political power of the western empire but somehow rescues christianity from at least political oblivion.
It seems some here believe political oblivion would have meant oblivion for Christianity.

Christianity it seems was expanding while this retreat of empire was going on.

This article from Wikipedia, might be of interest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The so-called 'wars of religion' that began in the early 16th century and continued until well into the 18th century, over a millennia after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and well before that Christianity was a active political force (such as in Anglo Saxon times).

However, Christian minorities where other world views are in the majority show you can have Christianity without political power as does centuries of expanding Christianity without political patronage in the case of Rome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I'd say Mithraism failed in part because it had no significant role for women. Let us hope that the Taliban's disgusting version of Islam fails for the same reason.

Would you say then the lack of universality leads to a religion's failure?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

However, Christian minorities where other world views are in the majority show you can have Christianity without political power as does centuries of expanding Christianity without political patronage in the case of Rome.

You have no way of knowing whether or not Constantine’s installation of Christianity as the official religion and the simultaneous banning of competing religions was what gave Christianity just the foothold it needed to flourish thereafter. Planting an acorn and throwing away the other seeds increases significantly the chances of there being an oak tree and not a sycamore on that spot 100 year later even though the gardener died long ago. 

Anyway, Sassy’s falling for the survivorship fallacy still stands no matter how much you try to distract and obfuscate.       

[Gordon]

However, Christian minorities where other world views are in the majority show you can have Christianity without political power as does centuries of expanding Christianity without political patronage in the case of Rome.

As far as I can see, Christianity, in my experience, in my wee bit of the universe, has seen its political power, authority and social influence decline to the extent that it is marginal and is easily avoided or ignored - and the result is that, as the most recent census in Scotland showed, Christianity in Scotland is in decline.

I doubt that this is a coincidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can see, Christianity, in my experience, in my wee bit of the universe, has seen its political power, authority and social influence decline to the extent that it is marginal and is easily avoided or ignored - and the result is that, as the most recent census in Scotland showed, Christianity in Scotland is in decline.

I doubt that this is a coincidence.

Sounds a bit parochial and argumentum ad populum to me.

[Gordon]

Sounds a bit parochial and argumentum ad populum to me.

Really: declining adherence is surely the opposite of ad populum - a non-fallacious 'ad unpopulum' is nearer the mark.
 

[jeremyp]

I just wonder what political power a fallen empire can offer though? The general pattern is that empires and civilisations fall but religions survive.

Really? Where are all the religions that were extant in the Roman Empire at the time of the birth of Christ? As far as I can tell, only Judaism survived.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really? Where are all the religions that were extant in the Roman Empire at the time of the birth of Christ? As far as I can tell, only Judaism survived.

Zoroastrianism exists, paganism had a revival, I understand.

Actually some might argue Constantine did for apostolic christianity until the reformation overcoming Pauline Christianity.

[Dicky Underpants]

Zoroastrianism exists, paganism had a revival, I understand.

Actually some might argue Constantine did for apostolic christianity until the reformation overcoming Pauline Christianity.

Zoroastrianism indeed survives in the various forms of the Parsee faith, as does the similar but unrelated Yezidi religion (the faith of the Kurds). Both have been persecuted by Islam, and as Islam moves towards fundamentalism more and more in certain areas, things don't look too good for those particular religions.

[jeremyp]

Zoroastrianism exists

Zoroastrianism originated in Persia which was not part of the Roman Empire.

paganism had a revival, I understand.

Paganism isn't a religion, at least, not in the context of Ancient Rome. It was an umbrella term for anything not Christian. Modern paganism has nothing to do with the paganism of Rome.

[Dicky Underpants]

Zoroastrianism originated in Persia which was not part of the Roman Empire.
Paganism isn't a religion, at least, not in the context of Ancient Rome. It was an umbrella term for anything not Christian. Modern paganism has nothing to do with the paganism of Rome.

Correct

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Zoroastrianism originated in Persia which was not part of the Roman Empire.

That explains the survival of Zoroastrianism. How about the survival of Judaism?

[jeremyp]

That explains the survival of Zoroastrianism.

No it doesn't. It merely excludes Zoroastrianism from "religions that were extant in the Roman Empire at the time of the birth of Christ".

How about the survival of Judaism?

You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about. You claimed that religions tend to survive. I was using the religions in ancient Rome and their lack of survival (except Judaism)  to point out that no, they don't tend to survive.