Unpacking The Religious World ViewI
I'm a special kind of nerd. I love to translate abstract issues into visual formats. The following entry reflects this tendency. Underlying the idea is the concept that it's possible to "unpack" a world view (especially a religious world view) in ways that separate out the factors that are subject to negotiation and compromise in the real world -- politics versus mythology. If you don't understand what I'm getting at, don't worry, I'm not sure I do either.
RaGBI is a way of characterizing the world view of different people, especially the religious world view, in a way that lends itself to visualization. World view is analyzed along 4 dimensions, each on a scale of 0 to 100. The scale can be translated into 0 to 255 to produce a color scale which can turn rating into a visually intuitive display.
R (Red) - Tradition. The importance of tradition.
G (Green) - Values. Roughly the degree to which the individual supports universally recognized standards of human rights.
B (Blue) - Mythology. The degree to which the person's world view is populated by occult entities and forces including gods, karma, angels, heaven and hell
I (Intensity) - The degree to which the individual is driven by these principals.
We'd like to create RaGBI values for recognizable groups, such as Liberal, Catholic and American Fundamentalist Christians, Mormons, Muslims etc. The scale was originally visualized as a way to compare religions, but it also makes sense if individuals self-characterize in other categories, such as gender, nationality etc.
We picture creating actual values by looking answers to a set of questions on world view. Most of these questions probe more than one dimension and the answers vary in the strength to which we would infer influence along our four dimensions. For example:
God has given the land of Israel to the Jews (agree/disagree/strongly/somewhat)
R - (Tradition) Moderate. This point of view does have historical roots (Zionism) and a certain amount of "momentum" that comes from thinking "this is what we have always believed"
G - (Values) Very Low. Human rights of the displaced population do not seem to enter into the calculation.
B - (Myth) Maximum. Totally dependent on the existence of God and a mythical re-interpretation of history.
I - (Intensity) High. Indicates support for action and/or personal risk.
There is a reason for everything that happens
R - low (mindless bla bla uttered as a traditional formula without evidence)
G - zero (no impact on human rights or motivation to campaign for human rights etc.)
B - Moderate (vague belief in occult forces without serious effort to find specifics)
I - Low (Nobody gets out on the street with placards with this motto)
The Bible (or Koran) is the literal world of God
R - high, mindless bla bla with very strong traditional roots
G - low -- the beliefs and rights of others tend to be trampled, but the "book" does promote human rights which can influence the "believer" to support isolated human rights policies
B - maximum. Not only reflects strong belief in a supernatural entity but also rejection of evidence and what others would regard as the "real world"
I - depends on the individual ! -- this world view can be totally meaningless and without impact or it can drive others to fanatical action
Overall, we expect identifiable groups to turn out roughly along these lines:
Liberal Christians - moderate "myth", high values, moderate to high tradition, low intensity
Conservative Muslims - max "myth", moderate values, moderate to high tradition, moderate to high intensity
Osama and followers - max "myth", low "values", moderate "tradition", high intensity
Mormons - high on all measures
American Christian Evangelicals - high "myth", moderate "values", moderate tradition, high intensity.
Ideally, these measures should be derived from the answers to questions posed by actual members of the group. Even without this, however, the technique can be used to visualize the preconceptions of the analyst.
Underlying this method is a basic insight. What matters in a multi-cultural world is the degree to which we respect and respect and tolerate each other, which gives us a chance to implement a political agenda based on human rights. Our mythical world view hardly matters and there is little point in trying to convert each other on this point. However, for some people, crazy mythological views of history and the unseen world directly or indirectly upset world peace and kill people by the hundreds of thousands (I'd put radical Islam and Zionism in this category). Intensity also matters. Most people really don't care much about their world view. They can be counted on to sit on the sidelines while people who do care wrestle each other to come up with a practical way forward.
Tradition matters to a lot of people (pews bolted to the floor, seven day weeks, boring sermons etc.) but hardly matters as long as traditions of others are respected. We all need a bit of structure in our lives and we fight back only when we are forced to change our routine. In some cases, tradition seems to be the issue but it's really about mythical assumptions. For example, the "traditional" exclusion of women from positions of power in the Church has its roots in disrespect for human rights. Such policies place "traditional" practices into the political arena where the future is determined by the eternal arm-wrestle between people who actually care about the issue (intensity scale).
RaGBI is a way of characterizing the world view of different people, especially the religious world view, in a way that lends itself to visualization. World view is analyzed along 4 dimensions, each on a scale of 0 to 100. The scale can be translated into 0 to 255 to produce a color scale which can turn rating into a visually intuitive display.
R (Red) - Tradition. The importance of tradition.
G (Green) - Values. Roughly the degree to which the individual supports universally recognized standards of human rights.
B (Blue) - Mythology. The degree to which the person's world view is populated by occult entities and forces including gods, karma, angels, heaven and hell
I (Intensity) - The degree to which the individual is driven by these principals.
We'd like to create RaGBI values for recognizable groups, such as Liberal, Catholic and American Fundamentalist Christians, Mormons, Muslims etc. The scale was originally visualized as a way to compare religions, but it also makes sense if individuals self-characterize in other categories, such as gender, nationality etc.
We picture creating actual values by looking answers to a set of questions on world view. Most of these questions probe more than one dimension and the answers vary in the strength to which we would infer influence along our four dimensions. For example:
God has given the land of Israel to the Jews (agree/disagree/strongly/somewhat)
R - (Tradition) Moderate. This point of view does have historical roots (Zionism) and a certain amount of "momentum" that comes from thinking "this is what we have always believed"
G - (Values) Very Low. Human rights of the displaced population do not seem to enter into the calculation.
B - (Myth) Maximum. Totally dependent on the existence of God and a mythical re-interpretation of history.
I - (Intensity) High. Indicates support for action and/or personal risk.
There is a reason for everything that happens
R - low (mindless bla bla uttered as a traditional formula without evidence)
G - zero (no impact on human rights or motivation to campaign for human rights etc.)
B - Moderate (vague belief in occult forces without serious effort to find specifics)
I - Low (Nobody gets out on the street with placards with this motto)
The Bible (or Koran) is the literal world of God
R - high, mindless bla bla with very strong traditional roots
G - low -- the beliefs and rights of others tend to be trampled, but the "book" does promote human rights which can influence the "believer" to support isolated human rights policies
B - maximum. Not only reflects strong belief in a supernatural entity but also rejection of evidence and what others would regard as the "real world"
I - depends on the individual ! -- this world view can be totally meaningless and without impact or it can drive others to fanatical action
Overall, we expect identifiable groups to turn out roughly along these lines:
Liberal Christians - moderate "myth", high values, moderate to high tradition, low intensity
Conservative Muslims - max "myth", moderate values, moderate to high tradition, moderate to high intensity
Osama and followers - max "myth", low "values", moderate "tradition", high intensity
Mormons - high on all measures
American Christian Evangelicals - high "myth", moderate "values", moderate tradition, high intensity.
Ideally, these measures should be derived from the answers to questions posed by actual members of the group. Even without this, however, the technique can be used to visualize the preconceptions of the analyst.
Underlying this method is a basic insight. What matters in a multi-cultural world is the degree to which we respect and respect and tolerate each other, which gives us a chance to implement a political agenda based on human rights. Our mythical world view hardly matters and there is little point in trying to convert each other on this point. However, for some people, crazy mythological views of history and the unseen world directly or indirectly upset world peace and kill people by the hundreds of thousands (I'd put radical Islam and Zionism in this category). Intensity also matters. Most people really don't care much about their world view. They can be counted on to sit on the sidelines while people who do care wrestle each other to come up with a practical way forward.
Tradition matters to a lot of people (pews bolted to the floor, seven day weeks, boring sermons etc.) but hardly matters as long as traditions of others are respected. We all need a bit of structure in our lives and we fight back only when we are forced to change our routine. In some cases, tradition seems to be the issue but it's really about mythical assumptions. For example, the "traditional" exclusion of women from positions of power in the Church has its roots in disrespect for human rights. Such policies place "traditional" practices into the political arena where the future is determined by the eternal arm-wrestle between people who actually care about the issue (intensity scale).
Comments
Post a Comment