To be fair, real-world religions feel fake as well.
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
23 points (96.0% liked)
MealtimeVideos Cafe
721 readers
11 users here now
Not too short, not too long. Videos to last through your meal.
Rules:
- Submissions must link directly to a video between 5 minutes and 1 hour long.
- Use a duration in your title such as [9:27].
- Be mindful that some people will be watching this while eating. No 'gross' content, no NSFL, racism, bigotry, etc.
- Use a title that is descriptive of the actual video.
- Be respectful of other submitters and commenters. Personal attacks, hate speech, bigotry, etc will not be tolerated.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
I recommend watching the video not just reading the title. You write about religous doctrines and dogma, the video is about every part of a religion, what and how ordinary followers do, etc. When someone goes to a pilgrimage is it fake? No they actually go there, and it's part of the religion.
Your logic is flawed and you should feel biased... Oh, you already do? Yeah, that tracks.
FWIW, and just to clarify, ALL RELIGION IS FAKE. 🤌🏼
I don't know what do you mean, you haven't seen a church or mosque in your life? I'm pretty sure they exist, and they are part of a religion. The video is not about what they speak in those buildings, but the whole thing: people believe in things, and those belifes has manifestations: festivities, buildings, rituals, books, etc, and that is a Religion in its actual sense. There is no word on if it's based on facts or not,but how a religion looks like. Watch the video please.
Every religion feels fake to an unbeliever.
Religions aren't fake. Religious doctrines factually exist, real believers are real, religious rituals are well documented. Say what you will about the factuality of the doctrine and necessity of its practice, but the doctrine and practice are themselves undeniably real.
This video is about fictional doctrine and practice not feeling the way doctrines and practice feel in real life. It seems to mostly aim at world builders¹ to fill the gaps in their descriptions to make the fictional religions feel more real and lived-in². Even an unbeliever can tell when a story feature feels hollow.
¹Authors, DMs, game designers, etc
²Doctrines and practice that emerge naturally have certain features that are frequently overlooked in fictional ones. The video goes into detail.
I love the example of syncretism, because you literally can't do that in a fictional universe. It requires merging two preexisting bases, and you can't have a huge pool of pre existing aspects because you are creating that on the spot. By definition, it can't be syncretist.
Doctrines and practice that emerge naturally have certain features that are frequently overlooked in fictional ones. The video goes into detail.
The problem is that many worldbuilders try to make their universe have reasons for things, and many religious practices just generally... Don't.
The video goes into a detail of Foundation (the tv show that shares a name and little else with a book series), about a ritualized pilgrimage. But those people do it because it has a very real effect, and the Emperor does it for an entirely additional secular reason to. The reason is explained clearly and supported properly, very much unlike many real world practices.
Then he moves on to real world ritualized actions, and none of them are explained. He goes into several examples that would never work in fiction, and any editor would just throw out those actions.
Imagine reading a book, and every time a character enters a room, the author makes a point to describe how they tap their toe against the ground twice. When asked by an outsider in chapter 28, the main character explains it's because his mother taught him that it's important.
Great, it contributes nothing to the story, so it gets chucked. In a movie version, they have even less time, so it doesn't even come up.
By definition, it can't be syncretist.
I disagree. You can make multiple religions in your fictional universe, and subsects of those religions, which influence one another. Maybe you have two predominant religions, one worshipping a harvest god and the other a warrior god; perhaps along the border of their respective domains you have harvest god worship which emphasizes victory over pests, and warrior good worship emphasized by lavish feasts.
Great, it contributes nothing to the story, so it gets chucked
A judicious use of these kinds of rituals can make the world feel more authentic. Especially when you can use characters new to the rituals to casually explain them. It isn't really a religion, but the scene about the Order of Lesser Service in the Dark Crystal Netflix show is a great example of doing it well. "Jingle jangle, time to put on the hat" is a masterclass in worldbuilding that feels effortlessly authentic. I believe that the Order of Lesser Service is a real, organic part of the world, it doesn't feel like a contrived plot point.
Maybe you have two predominant religions, one worshipping a harvest god and the other a warrior god; perhaps along the border of their respective domains you have harvest god worship which emphasizes victory over pests, and warrior good worship emphasized by lavish feasts.
And here is where the editor starts asking tough questions.
How would this ever work narratively? Remember, show, don't tell. So you have to establish two clear religions, means you either need to go there or introduce two whole characters. How much space would you take up just to explain the origins of the religious habits of a small border town?
My entire point is that you need to take a huge amount of book space or screentime to give background info that hardly matters to the plot.
Sure, of you're on book three, and you already established those other two cultures, it's a cool detail. You see this a fair bit, and some series even have it come up quite frequently, such as famous worldbuilding mess Warhammer 40k. There are whole books around this.
But in a single novel, you need to make a monumental effort, for very little.
but the scene about the Order of Lesser Service in the Dark Crystal Netflix show is a great example of doing it well. "Jingle jangle, time to put on the hat" is a masterclass in worldbuilding that feels effortlessly authentic.
I had to look up the scene, so pardon if I'm wrong about anything.
But I disagree very hard. It's a jesters hat and that's part of what makes it work, because "haha silly hat as punishment".
But specifically using a jesters hat feels incredibly inauthentic to me. They have a massive pile of cultural and iconographic baggage, and are important signifiers of special privilege. It strikes me as extremely weird, and it only works if you know nothing about jesters.
That's fine, it's a super niche bit of history. It works for almost everyone, but I wouldn't call it a masterclass. I might be wrong, I haven't seen the show, but this doesn't make it feel authentic to me at all.
A bit later, they make someone pre-chew food as part of the Order, which is even MORE out of place as a punishment for giant bird culture. Why wouldn't that be associated with child-raising and motherhood? Is raising a baby servile and debasing? It feels like they just took stuff a 21st century human would find humiliating and bad, without a care for worldbuilding at all. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they really do hate mothers, they are evil bird monsters after all, in which case it's great again. But it feels out of place.
Every religion is fake.
There, FTFY.
Lemmings, and making comments based on a misinterpretation of the post/article/video title. Name a more iconic duo.