A Generative Model of the Mutual Escalation of Anxiety Between Religious Groups
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
> We chose the main elements of the architecture (agent traits, networks, hazards, group identities, etc.) with the goals of the model in mind. While many other variables and factors are relevant for mapping a phenomenon as complex as religious conflict, we aimed for a level of abstraction that captured the most salient and empirically-researched mechanisms that bear on this type of intergroup conflict. In the remainder of this section, we describe the architecture of our model including: (1) the entities within the model, (2) the process used to initialize the entities, and (3) the rules that dictate the interactions among them.
> Our model is made up of N agents separated into two groups interacting in a two-dimensional landscape. The two groups of agents are: (1) a majority group and (2) a minority group. The disparity in size between these groups can vary from negligible (2 agents) to extreme (N-2 agents). Each group is composed of individuals who share a set of distinctive supernatural beliefs and ritual behaviors.
Just about seems convincing.
The Soviets, in the name of their very progressive ideology did terrible things 100x the scale, it's just that they had a different ideological premise that happened to not be religious.
More consistently and broadly the Church set up charities, the hospital system, education and the University system as we understand them.
Also - there's such a huge chasm between 'faith' 'belief' and 'actual behaviour' that it's always a stretch.
The OP's point is very valid:
Ideologies and religions are very different in terms of their metaphysical ideals, their beliefs, social constructs of morality, and resulting behaviours.
Moreover, it's almost impossible to separate those from cultural norms.
For example, many of the cultural epitaphs that we often associate with Islam (i.e. head coverings) really are not 'religious' per sey - they are aspects of the hyper conservative culture of the Arabic peninsula. Islam has a lot to say about specific behaviour of it's adherents, so naturally, Arabic aspects of moral behaviour are going to be codified into 'religious law' by Islam.
Buddhism on the other hand, doesn't generally have a lot of specific behavioural rules.
Finally I would say that all cultures espouse some kind of ideological or metaphysical ideal - some are more overtly religious, some more overtly secular, but they are all ultimately the same thing. You could substitute 'political ideology' for 'religion' and use the same equations.
I find this subject basically enthralling and intoxicating, I love it, but I think it's all just far too vague, there are so many variables that we barely understand, it's so hard to draw conclusions. You could stick a number of forks in almost every statement of the paper if you wanted to.
Also, the authors definition of "religion" is quite broad -- it's any belief that some unseen force affects the world. For example, "illegal immigrants" or "Russian bots" or any other "bogeyman" fit the authors; definition of a "supernatural" religious target