M. Afzal Upal (2005)
Simulating the Emergence of New Religious Movements
To cite articles published in the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, reference the above information and include paragraph numbers if necessary
Received: 27-Jul-2004 Accepted: 22-Nov-2004 Published: 31-Jan-2005
|Figure 1. The initial state of an Experiment I at time = 0. Each round black dot corresponds to one non-affiliated agent. The spatial positions of the agents do not mean anything as the current version of RBS does not take into account an agent's spatial position|
|Figure 2. The state of an Experiment I world at time = 11. Agent 5 (shown by a red star) has emerged as an IE offering Rule 3|
|Figure 3. The state of an Experiment I world at time = 50. Thirty eight agents have made the rule offered by the IE as their active rule and paid homage and tithe to IE 5|
|Figure 4. The state of an Experiment I world at time = 453. Two more agents, Agent-100 (shown by a green star) and Agent-101 (shown by a blue star) have emerged as information entrepreneurs|
|Figure 5. The state of a Experiment I world at time = 500. The new IEs are only able to attract a small number of followers (3 for Agent-100 and 5 for Agent 101)|
|Figure 6. The state of an Experiment I world at time = 1000. Both Agents 100 and 101 have died and their few followers disbursed back into the non-affiliated group, while Agent 5 is holding onto its 49 followers (by far the largest grouping including the 40 non-affiliated members). A number of new IEs emerged starting around time 700 but none has been able to gather more than a couple of followers|
|Figure 7. The state of an Experiment II world at time = 32. Agent 0 (shown by a red star) and Agent 31 (shown by a blue star) both declare their entrepreneurship at time = 4. IE 0 offers Rule 7 and IE 31 offers Rule 6. Agent 0 gets to propagate its knowledge first and has attracted 48 agents by round 32|
|Figure 8. The state of an Experiment II world at time=44. The strongest-rule IE initially attracts only the non-affiliated agents but starts to attract some of the former followers of the weakest-rule IE 0. as time proceeds|
|Figure 9. Things remain fairly static until Round 387 when one of the unaffiliated agents Agent-97 (shown by a yellow 4-corner star) declares its weakest-rule entrepreneurship offering Rule 1|
|Figure 10. An intense battle for followers ensues between the three agents with a number of inter-sect conversions. The simulation ends with no non-affiliated agents remaining and each entrepreneur having established a norm community|
|Figure 11. The state of an Experiment III world at time = 23. Two agents Agent 4 (shown by a red star) and Agent 35 (shown by a blue star) have declared their entrepreneurship in Round 5. IE 4 is a weakest-rule IE offering Rule 1 while IE 35 is a strongest-rule IE offering Rule 3|
|Figure 12. By Round 51, IE 4 has lost 4 members to IE 35 who also attracts another 26 non-affiliated members|
|Figure 13. Agent 100 (shown as a yellow star) declares its entrepreneurship in Round 349. It is a weakest rule IE also offering Rule 1. By Round 850, it has attracted only four followers when Agent 121 (shown as a purple star) also declares its entrepreneurship. Agent 121 offers Rule 3. By this time IE 35 has attracted another 30 followers while IE 0 has lost 4 more followers|
BAINBRIDGE W S (1985) Cultural Genetics, Religious Movements, Stark, R. (ed) New York: Paragon.
BAINBRIDGE W S (1995) Neural Network Models of Religious Belief , Sociological Perspectives, 38: 483-495.
BAINBRIDGE W S, Brent E, Carley K, Heise D, Macy M, Markovsky B, Skvoretz J (1994) Artificial Social Intelligence, Annual Review of Sociology 20: 407-436.
BAINGBRIDGE W S, Stark R, (1979) Cult Formation: Three Compatible Models, Sociological Analysis, 40: 285-295.
BARRETT J L (2000) Exploring the natural foundation of religion, Trends in Cognitive Science, 4 (1): 29-34.
DAY M (2003) Religion, Off-line Cognition, and the Virtues of Embeddedness. Paper delivered at the American Academy of Religion Conference, Atlanta, GA: November 23.
DORAN J (1998) Simulating collective misbelief, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(1).
ERIKSON K T (1966) Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
FINNERMORE M and Sikkink K (1998) International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 50 (4): 887-918.
FRIEDMANN Y (2003) Prophecy Continuous: Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
FUSFELD, W. (1992) Review of Prophecy Continuous, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 24 (2) 347-348, 1992.
GOPNIK A (1998) Explanation as orgasm, Minds and Machines, 8:101-118.
HOFFMANN M (2002) Entrepreneurs and the Emergence and Evolution of Social Norms. in Proceeding of Agent-Based Simulation 3 Conference, ed. Christoph Urban, 32-37. Ghent, Belgium: SCS-Europe.
IANNACCONE L (1998) Introduction to Economics of Religion, Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 1465-1496.
KEYNES K M, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Macmillan.
LAVAN S (1974) The Ahmadiyah Movement: A History and Perspective. New Delhi: Manohar Book Service.
LEIK R. K. and B. F. Meeker 1995. Computer Simulation for Exploring Theories: Models of Interpersonal Co-operation and Competition. Sociological Perspectives, 38: 463-482.
LEWIS J R (2004) The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MARWELL M and Oliver P (1993) The Critical Mass in Collective Action: Studies in Rationality and Social Change, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
NAGEL R (1995) Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study, American Economic Review, 85 (5): 1313-1326.
NORMAN D (1993) Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Book.
SCHANK, R C (1986) Explanation Patterns : Understanding Mechanically and Creatively, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
SCHANK R L (1932) A study of community and its group institutions conceived of as behavior of individuals. Psychological Monographs 43 (2): 1- 133.
SIMON H (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
SNOWBALL D (1991) Continuity and Change in the Rhetoric of the Moral Majority, New York: Praeger.
STARK R. and Bainbridge W S (1987) A Theory of Religion. New York: Peter Lang.
TALBOTT W J (1995) Intentional self-deception in a single coherent self, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LV(1) 27-74.
UPAL, M A (2005) Towards cognitive science of new religious movements, forthcoming in Journal of Cognition and Culture.
WALTER H A 1918. The Ahmadiya Movement. London: Oxford University Press.
WEBER M (1993, first published in 1922) The Sociology of Religion, Boston: Beacon Press.
WHITEHOUSE H (1995) Inside the Cult: Religious Innovation and Transmission in Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WHITEHOUSE H (2000) Arguments and Icons: Divergent Modes of Religiosity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Return to Contents of this issue
© Copyright Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation,