Interesting. I’ve not thought of it like that, but it would make sense—groups would drop their weird rules if they didn’t fit the larger group which they were integrated into.
However, in this case at least, it IS so that the weird rules increased survival. Rules about keeping clean were seen as weird, but were generally beneficial for the individual. Example linked to the discussion: During the Black Plague fewer Jews got infected, mainly due to the weird rules. Only negative was that this was suspicious, and these Jews were believed to be the cause… A bit of a lose-lose situation, with good intentions.
What I hear there is that in one particular circumstance, the weird rules may have increased survival from disease, but decreased survival from persecution. Net result probably nil for the individual. But persecution also maintains the minority group’s distinct status.
True. In this case, it most likely did harm in the long run, but the intentions behind were good, and logical.
It’s not always rational to generalize, but you make a good argument. Though I’m not sure - for the most part, weird rules in religion seem to be based on public opinion as much as group identity or logic. In short: Can be good or bad depending on circumstances, no matter what it is based on.
But it’s late and I’m beginning to fear for my mind. I’ll stop before I embarrass myself too much.
Interesting. I’ve not thought of it like that, but it would make sense—groups would drop their weird rules if they didn’t fit the larger group which they were integrated into.
However, in this case at least, it IS so that the weird rules increased survival. Rules about keeping clean were seen as weird, but were generally beneficial for the individual. Example linked to the discussion: During the Black Plague fewer Jews got infected, mainly due to the weird rules. Only negative was that this was suspicious, and these Jews were believed to be the cause… A bit of a lose-lose situation, with good intentions.
What I hear there is that in one particular circumstance, the weird rules may have increased survival from disease, but decreased survival from persecution. Net result probably nil for the individual. But persecution also maintains the minority group’s distinct status.
True. In this case, it most likely did harm in the long run, but the intentions behind were good, and logical. It’s not always rational to generalize, but you make a good argument. Though I’m not sure - for the most part, weird rules in religion seem to be based on public opinion as much as group identity or logic. In short: Can be good or bad depending on circumstances, no matter what it is based on.
But it’s late and I’m beginning to fear for my mind. I’ll stop before I embarrass myself too much.