my preemptive answer is that because people refuse to commit main characters to it but i'm sure there are many reasons
#i think it's also because many people write about them from an atheist's perspective#i.e. they write like they can't believe a character would take a religion and its tenets seriously#without being a caricature of fundamentalism
(from @lilybarthes)
BTW, Anthropology Degree, yes, yes in systems, so not focused on religion, but while he points out these things I can't help pointing out counterpoints to these things, which he should do, but doesn't do, especially when he's pointing out mainstream religions, rather than cloistered ones.
This is also partially why I stopped watching his videos... he talks about the diversity of religion and then fails to understand the diversity of religion by taking in the Abrahamic view as the only view of religion, and overly focusing on the Abrahamic way of seeing religion, even breaking down Shinto into an Abrahamic view of religion. And for me, who has a more academic view, I have issues with this.
Abrahamic views overly focus on things like ritual, which gods you believe in, black and white thinking, and how the religion will vary by location. But if you start to divorce yourself from that and actually listen to the practitioners that practice the religion and believe them, this starts to fall apart.
His first point: Syncretism:
The first fictional religion that I can think of that defies this is Octavia Butler's Wild Seed. Literally the book is about how the religion will change and the whole point is worshiping change.
The other book I can think of that defies this severely is Jane Yolen's The Great Alta.
The religions he picks are like Christianity which is the WORST religion to choose to say that all religions pick up other religions. This is because it's a global religion. It would be like saying well, salt is in all food. But salt is everywhere. Whereas the better foodstuff to pick up would be say, Potatoes, which was localized, yet spread and influenced other food. The better examples would be how Christianity itself changed and absorbed other things over time as it encountered other cultures to its core, rather than using tangential sects, as he does like Voudoun. Things like the Christmas Tree are better examples of a localized religion becoming part of the main part of the religion. (He did do a video on that).
The counterpoint to this, I should point out is that some religions are very, very localized, for example Jeju's version of Mugyo. Or they are very closed off due to persecution, so it's harder to find if it's true. Wu Jiao is an example of this. Jeju still holds that they keep the purest version of Mugyo without the influences of Buddhism or later religions and that all Mugyo from the main peninsula is corrupt. But the religion on Jeju is also very insular.
So arguing that ALL religions have syncretism ignores the diversity of religions. You are allowed to make a religion protected and insular or even vastly different from its neighbors.
Second point is Ritualization:
The problem with picking on this is that often rituals aren't always a part of religion. You can 100% in Japan be Shinto and not participate in say a huge ritual. You simply ARE Shinto by being born Japanese, you don't have to prove it.
Yes, he argues in another video that you don't have to be born Japanese, but I kinda think this disrespects the fact that imperialism is a hella of a disrespect and the people who stole it from Japan were largely white and American. And I don't give a shit if people don't think this is respectful to tell others no. If you're imperializing a country and then do mass rape and exploitation with no qualms about the damage that your people and your ancestors have done to that country, that's totally not A-OK.
And exhibit A for this is Madame Butterfly, which is literally a 30+ year old trying to marry and have unconsensual relations with a 14 year old. And elew. And then getting the religion wrong. FUCK NO.
Respect the boundary if they say you're locked out, you're locked out. Understand the basics of consent.
White dude arguing for appropriation isn't my favorite, especially when he's so willing to glaze over the hurt that the US has done to Japan and Asia in general.
Anyway, not all religions REQUIRE you to do rituals. Sometimes the rituals are done by a select few in the community, such as in Shamanism and EVERYONE ELSE IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO THEM. Instead, the people observe the rituals being done TO THEM, but they aren't allowed to do themâin fact it's expressly forbidden. And that is a distinction he misses. (And this is a shame, because he covered Mugyo and should get the difference since this is a core tenant). The beliefs, in this case, don't turn into habits or ritualizations among the populace. Kendall, BTW, spends an inordinate amount of time on this, whom he quotes. In Mugyo there is a difference between the people who believe in the religion itself and the practioners.
He counters this with another Abrahamic religion. (Also a poor choice if he's arguing the diversity of religions)
The irony of using anthropology to argue his point really misses the diversity of religion.
He states the "ritualization is everywhere" and then uses another Abrahamic religion. *shakes head*. There are religions without ritualization. By using only Abrahamic views, this destroys religious diversity and understanding, but he keeps backing into it, which ticks me off incredibly.
In Abrahamic views of religion, you have to "prove" your adherence in some way. But in many religions , you simply ARE that religion. Say as in Hinduism. And the ritual becomes secondary. (He BTW, also backs up the idea that white people can be Hindu, while Indian adherents of Hinduism say you can't. Again, Appropriation discussions come into this. And it gives me icky feelings when he's more on the white side of things and doesn't actually have anyone Hindu on his channel to argue the case against white people being able to be Hindu. Like, again, the massive rape, and imperialism of Britain and the constant assault on India by white people, yet white people being more than willing to suddenly think it's a 1960's fad. BTW, totally selling out my white parents (I'm adopted) on this too.)
Materiality of religion
This is somewhat true and somewhat false. He uses Singapore, but then doesn't really get into the weeds. Again, Abrahamic religions tend to focus overly on materiality. He's not helping his case on escaping Abrahamic religions here. But while he's picking on Hinduism, there are sects of Hinduism that specifically focus on the *inmateriality* of the religion. (Thank you to the Hinduism academic class I had). Vedanta focuses more on less religious objects and more what does the teachings say. So if you do go to one of their temples, there is less focus on the Gods. And while adherents might favor a God over another, or participate in rituals, there is no need to "prove" it in material objects one possesses.
Some shamanistic religions also don't emphasize the material goods one has. I was doing a dive into Mongolian shamanism, for example, and the material objects are part of the rituals, yes, for *certain* rituals, but you don't have to have them to prove you're a shaman. You can have a shaman moment without the ritual objects. This is because you simply are, and you got there by being initiated.
There might be required objects, but it's not like you can shove a cross in front of you to prove it. You simply exist in that liminal space as a conduit and you were chosen to do so. (Chosen is a rotten word here, but it's the closest I have without having to launch into it).
BTW, material goods is kinda capitalistic as a view of religion. Older religions found such as in older Europe show that often rituals were done in sacred spaces, and maybe with objects, but not necessarily with ritual objects outside of that space.
For example, the objects buried with Neolithic people show there weren't carrying around things like crosses, but you still have evidence of religion such as specially carved out round spaces. Which means they might have adhered to the religion without having to have proof of the religion.
Again, Octavia Butler goes towards the more believed lived religion (which is honestly closer to West African religions) than the materialistic ones of Capitalism. And that's 100% A-OK. You can do this.
Lived Religions
I somehow feel like he didn't read Lord of the Rings, or totally missed the religious undertones of some of the Elven religions, which read more shamanistic and closer to the Germanic tribe religions. (I had a stint in Tolkien) Did he literally miss the fact that heroes became gods? SERIOUSLY?
I can tick off other books as well, where the religion and the adherence to the religion were different. LE Modesitt had several books going over how the mainstream religion said this, while the individuals believed that.
But getting away from white male authors, which are the ONLY ONES HE PICKS. ***GRRR**** (My other gripe with him)
There's also Hundred Thousand Kingdoms series NK Jemisin. Literally every single last book in that series picks up on the mainstream religion and how the various people end up deviating or are different from that.
There's also one of my favorite, unfinished series which probably will end up ghost written by the estate at the rate it's going, Melanie Rawn's Exile Trilogy (which being Christian-based does all of his major complaints, which is why he needs to get off of white male authors).
Moving on from this point and the fact he clearly didn't quite get sometimes the religions are supposed to be blurred in Myth such as in Jane Yolen...
Or how religion was messed with in Mercedes Lackey Elven series and in the Elven Blood series...
Literally several of the books he cites show religious differences between those who live it and those who are in it. Like Dune's opening is *entirely* about this point.
(Makes me wonder about his literacy... but let's not dunk on him)
My point is here, is that his points ignore religious diversity entirely in the real world and hammer home that all religions *need* to be Abrahamic and capitalistic in nature, but real religions don't work like that.
Humans are cockroaches on this planet more than cockroaches. And there will be religions that try hard to guard against these things, as well as religions that absorb so they can spread further.
And while I entirely find Abrahamic-based religions and people hammering on only Polytheism and for fucks sake, can we get away from Temperate climates with only Polytheism, entirely boring in fnatasy, NOT doing these things doesn't mean your religion in your fiction is not "organic" or "from an atheists" PoV. It means you're consciously thinking about it. I mean, you could build religions like Tolkien ingrains in Lord of the Rings and entirely make it look like it's not a religion at all. Or you could go on full ritual. You can go for entirely cloistered and hidden from view, or you can go on full-on proselytizing. That is 100% valid in a religion.
My gripe, though with the video is that he's mostly aiming at Abrahamic religions and saying that all religions in fiction should be like Abrahamic religions and FUCK NO. NOOOO. PLEASE NO. STAB THAT HARD.
Also the fact he's not read enough fantasy or Science Fiction to state these things are universally true and totally misses out that some of these fantasy are purposefully telling religious tales and mixing reality with religious doctrine. (It's called Mythic Fantasy for a reason) so that it looks like the adherents of the religions are becoming part of the religion.
Again, do what you want, but I think there are some things you need to think about when creating a religion:
How does this religion reinforce daily life for the environment (as in global climate) and government that created it.
In the desert you don't want pigs for example. Pigs eat the same food as humans. Goats climb trees and eat food of humans. So the religion needs to justify that somehow.
Religion should come at the end of your worldbuilding, because religion reinforces the way that the society operates. It might try to p[reserve older beliefs within it, and older ways of life, but generally, when religions are created, they are trying to say people should live towards a certain type of ideal by saying there is a "correct" way to live.
2. For the love of whatever you believe in, could we get some religious diversity up in here that's not capitalistic version of Christianity?
You have Animism, Animatism, Shamanism, Totemism, Polytheism, Monotheism and everything in between. For fucks sake, why does it have to be always monotheism or polytheism with a lot of materialism to prove the religion. Give me more NK Jemisin and Octavia Butler. (This is also my nitpick with magic systems, in general, with hard cut rules that taste like capitalism. Yes, Brandon Sanderson shouldn't be making magic systems that taste like capitalism in a Agricultural setting without a lot of stratification. I think the magic system should fit with the religion(s) governments, and subsistence system. It should slot into the culture, either in the present or in the past. This is one thing Tolkien did well.)).
The video is arguing hard for mostly Abrahamic Monotheistic religious ways and then much to my dislike arguing non-Abrahamic religions as being the same as Abrahamic religions. Stab that hard. Say no. He doesn't cover most of Shamanism, Totemism, Animism, or Animatism religions where most of what he's arguing for wouldn't really exist in the way he's arguing for it.
3. People will travel
People will always encounter someone with a different religion than them. This is *not* the same thing as syncrenicity. This is saying someone on your Other World is likely to encounter someone with a different religion (because it ties into point one, not everyone lives in the same subsistence system). Why not represent some of that?
I was writing a historical fiction and then found out much to my disappointment that I couldn't write in Muslims into the story since Muslims didn't exist yet. (I wanted to make a Black Muslim for the silk road.) So I gave him another religion of the time period and indicated it. TT More pages allowance, I'd have given him more screen time.) Traders exist. Make sure there are people with different religions running around. You can even indicate their beliefs, sketch them in without having to do all of the worldbuilding.
Do that, and make it make internal sense and I think it is OK. You do not have to follow the Abrahamic ways of thinking to make your religion to feel organic.
There are religions that don't believe in souls. There are religions that believe in Totems, ones that don't believe in afterlife. Ones that are academic. Ones that don't read like religions like Humanism.
So what I'm saying is, he's wrong and he needs to read authors that aren't white males. And read Dune more closely.
