Survey on faith in America

[darlets]

This is an interesting read.
article
I've read "The God Delusion" and watch a couple of presentation by Sam Harris and they both seem to be really out of touch with what a typical person on the street believes about religion. Some of these stats seem to back this up

"Ironically, however, both atheists and committed Christians share one unusual area of common ground: concern about superficial, inert forms of Christianity in America. There are nearly 130 million American adults who describe themselves as Christians, but who are Christian in name only; their behavior includes little related to experiencing and expressing their alleged faith in Christ."

 

[rivercrow]

"Ironically, however, both atheists and committed Christians share one unusual area of common ground: concern about superficial, inert forms of Christianity in America. There are nearly 130 million American adults who describe themselves as Christians, but who are Christian in name only; their behavior includes little related to experiencing and expressing their alleged faith in Christ."

Personally, I think Christianity started to lose some of its power once it started being codified in the early Councils.

More of its esotericism got lost during the de-emphasis of ritual. What ritual is good for is to give the active mind a focal point while stilling it. A reaction was the turn to Eastern religion.

While I think it is possible to find an enveloping experience in modern Christianity, I think that experience is downplayed and denigrated by large parts of the faithful. I'm willing to accept that what the Evangelicals describe as being saved is a similar experience, but I'm not convinced it's a transformative experience, which I think it should be. It's too clean and contained and doesn't seem to change the core--only serves, in many cases, to re-emphasize existing beliefs.

But, who am I to say for sure? I am not the people I speak of.

 

[Totenkindly]

Personally, I think Christianity started to lose some of its power once it started being codified in the early Councils.

More of its esotericism got lost during the de-emphasis of ritual. What ritual is good for is to give the active mind a focal point while stilling it. A reaction was the turn to Eastern religion.

I would say the same thing. The shift in the 60's and 70's towards more Eastern religions was very predictable. And Christianity always seems to lose power once it is transformed into the establishment and codified. There is a fine line between standardization and sterilization.

While I think it is possible to find an enveloping experience in modern Christianity, I think that experience is downplayed and denigrated by large parts of the faithful. I'm willing to accept that what the Evangelicals describe as being saved is a similar experience, but I'm not convinced it's a transformative experience, which I think it should be. It's too clean and contained and doesn't seem to change the core--only serves, in many cases, to re-emphasize existing beliefs.

Well, there are groups/philosophies that would identify themselves as part of the Evangelical movement that promote the very transformative faith that you describe here. Spiritual development and growth (and not just "pray three times a day and read 30 minutes in your Bible as a Quiet Time" as pseudo-spiritual development, but actually trying to connect with God and experience something more fulfilling, integrating your relationships with other people) is growing within the church. I think the most sterile times were actually the 80's and early 90's for the church.

The largest difficulty nowadays still seems to be the political movements -- the notion that it is the church's job to create a theocracy, rather than simply having people as individuals be effective in their roles in life and impact the lives of those around them.

That is my perspective, as an "insider" type.

 

[cafe]

The largest difficulty nowadays still seems to be the political movements -- the notion that it is the church's job to create a theocracy, rather than simply having people as individuals be effective in their roles in life and impact the lives of those around them.

I hope that the theocracy stuff is losing some steam. Sometimes it seems as though it is, other times I think it's simply that I'm around a different group of believers. I've lost my tolerance for, well, intolerance, not to mention the complete overlooking of the social justice and economic teachings of the Bible.

 

[darlets]

The largest difficulty nowadays still seems to be the political movements -- the notion that it is the church's job to create a theocracy, rather than simply having people as individuals be effective in their roles in life and impact the lives of those around them.

Where does that stem from is the question?

I could be wrong, but I think pushing for a theocracy from the right wing fundies will force americans to rethink their religious belief because a theocracy goes against the American constitution. Giving people an ultimative, we are one people under one god, might not be such a bright idea.

Do they honestly believe they can turn America into a theocracy, or do they have some other goal?

 

[Totenkindly]

Where does that stem from is the question?

I could be wrong, but I think pushing for a theocracy from the right wing fundies will force americans to rethink their religious belief because a theocracy goes against the american constitution. Given people an ultimative, we are one people under one god, might not be such a bright idea.

Do they honestly believe they can turn american into a theocracy, or do they have some other goal?

Well... (it's a good question!) I can't really speak for an entire mixed group of people... but my ideas on the matter...

For some people, it's not even a group-political activity, it's simply what they feel as individuals. Here is what the Bible says is right and wrong, and the law should reflect true morality, so therefore the law should be the same. (It's very simplistic thinking but seems very sensible if you are that sort of believer -- the "Law" should be the "Truth!")

For others, they might see American as losing ground morally, they don't like the promiscuity and the horrible things that people do (drugs, sex, gluttony, greed, etc.), and they feel that to reestablish laws based on God's principles will provide the sort of society that is needed to nip such sin in the bud. This is more an SJ "Garbage in, Garbage Out" philosophy -- people are malleable and need to be put into a positive environment in order to ensure they respond positively.

And they already see other philosophies as "enemies" and ultimately sinful, who thus need to be defeated. Because God wouldn't want sin, and sin is bad for people in the long run... so let's get rid of it! And if it's a war... well, Christians should be willing to fight and sacrifice for Jesus, just like he sacrificed for us. (Etcetera.) There's definitely a war mentality in some of the conservative trenches, and they're defending the homeland which has been taken over by people who don't serve God, and they need to be patriotic and fight.

So you get at least those three mentalities in place.

And I suppose you could even throw in the "godless liberal media" cliche as well as working under the scenes, which basically prejudges any knowledge that arrives through the media that might challenge one's viewpoint as simply the work of the devil / sinful mentalities (which it WOULD be... if you are of that bent). This is why much of the scientific discussion has been shut down... because anything running against the Christian group-thought can simply be attributed to the "godless people" and ignored. (Put another way, scientists believe in evolution because their hearts are hard and they don't want God to be in charge of their lives, NOT because there happens to be any real evidential basis for evolution; it's a sad truth, they think, but that's what they've been told it is...)

It's getting late... my head is swimming... did I make any sense?

 

[HilbertSpace]

This is an interesting read.
article
I've read "The God Delusion" and watch a couple of presentation by Sam Harris and they both seem to be really out of touch with what a typical person on the street believes about religion. Some of these stats seem to back this up

"Ironically, however, both atheists and committed Christians share one unusual area of common ground: concern about superficial, inert forms of Christianity in America. There are nearly 130 million American adults who describe themselves as Christians, but who are Christian in name only; their behavior includes little related to experiencing and expressing their alleged faith in Christ."

What the typical person on the street believes is very heavily influenced by where that street happens to be. I could not find a link to the survey questions themselves, so I would find it difficult to reach any conclusion as to what the article would use to classify someone as "Christian in name only." However, the site does seem published by a conservative Christian group with the stated purpose:

to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States.

Their number for the people they wish to classify as Christian (58 million) strikes me as low, because several recent polls have concluded that approximately 48% of the American population believes that God created man and all the animals in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. Another 40% believe in a theistic initiation and guidance, but over the course of millions of years. The number they gave struck me as pretty much identical to the number of Protestant worshipers who attend weekly service - it does not include Catholics (69 million) or Orthodox (over a million, I believe), nor does it include Protestants who didn't make the weekly service survey. Gallup estimates that there are 118 million Americans attending weekly service.

I am quite confused by their statement that American infidels* are concerned about moderate Christians. I'm far less concerned about moderate Christians than I am about the ones trying to get Creationism into public school curricula, for example. I don't know any other atheists, agnostics, free thinkers, humanists, et cetera, who are more concerned about Cafeteria Christians than they are about Evangelicals.

*It's OK. I'm taking it back for us so that it can be a symbol of pride. I just have to make sure it stays politically incorrect for anyone else to use it.

 

[darlets]

It's getting late... my head is swimming... did I make any sense?

Sadly a little too much. Sigh, that's all very depressing.

 

[rivercrow]

Where does that stem from is the question?

I could be wrong, but I think pushing for a theocracy from the right wing fundies will force americans to rethink their religious belief because a theocracy goes against the american constitution. Given people an ultimative, we are one people under one god, might not be such a bright idea.

Do they honestly believe they can turn american into a theocracy, or do they have some other goal?

Let's start at the beginning.

Constantine converted in 312. Sometime soon after that, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Political and religious power was, in some way, strongly intermingled from that time forward. The Protestant Reformation and other such broke some of this combination of power, but it's always been there.

Christian texts have always included some promise of a theocracy. The same promise is in the parts of the OT that were made canon--the parts about Solomon, the return from Babylon, etc. Theocracy is basic to Christianity.

What we see now in the States is nothing new. It's a very literal reading of texts and traditions, right down to attempts to breed red heifers in Jerusalem because some document says that the Apocalypse will be signaled by the birth of red heifers in Jerusalem.

Christianity has made itself purely exoteric--what you see is what you get, no hidden traditions or meaning here. The exorcism of esoterisicm forces literal readings of the texts. Subsequently, if we read of a "kingdom of heaven" then that must be a theocracy, rather than a state of mind or a guiding principle.

 

[rivercrow]

I would say the same thing. The shift in the 60's and 70's towards more Eastern religions was very predictable. And Christianity always seems to lose power once it is transformed into the establishment and codified. There is a fine line between standardization and sterilization.

You can see similar movements throughout Christian church history. The rise of monasticism was very unsettling to the established church. St. Francis and his notions of poverty threatened the corporate enterprise.

 

[Xander]

Honestly guys what the difference between a country being run by the church and a democratic country with a large section of the community being of one faith?

 

[Totenkindly]

Honestly guys what the difference between a country being run by the church and a democratic country with a large section of the community being of one faith?

A very LARGE one.

The differences start in the attitude of the people of the community, then proceed outward from there.

It is rather like asking what's the difference between a democratically run smaller group (let's say 30 people), where everyone at least feels they have a voice and everyone supposedly respects other points of view, versus one where a leader does "top-down" law dictation and enforcement.

Or like in a company that is run on a flat level as opposed to a hierarchical level. The atmosphere is very different, for one, just to start with some major points of contrast.

 

[Xander]

A very LARGE one.

The differences start in the attitude of the people of the community, then proceed outward from there.

It is rather like asking what's the difference between a democratically run smaller group (let's say 30 people), where everyone at least feels they have a voice and everyone supposedly respects other points of view, versus one where a leader does "top-down" law dictation and enforcement.

Or like in a company that is run on a flat level as opposed to a hierarchical level. The atmosphere is very different, for one, just to start with some major points of contrast.

Sorry slightly misworded question. What's the difference in outcome?

 

[Totenkindly]

Sorry slightly misworded question. What's the difference in outcome?

Um... that you have one system that is essentially a top-down dictatorship, and another one that feasibly allows people to modify their viewpoints and vote differently?

(The first is also a pressure-cooker waiting to happen, while the second offers the possibility that violence is not an unavoidable outcome.)

In the second, people are also forced to acknowledge the right of others to speak, even if they don't much like it or waste a lot of time shouting them down. In the first system, those who dissent can be punished without repercussion.

I don't know -- Can anything be learned from looking at China a few decades back (or even nowadays to some degree) compared to US development? (China wasn't a theocracy, but it definitely was authoritarian, prohibiting the right to practice or speak one's beliefs in the public setting under fear of punishment.)

 

[rivercrow]

I don't know -- Can anything be learned from looking at China a few decades back (or even nowadays to some degree) compared to US development? (China wasn't a theocracy, but it definitely was authoritarian, prohibiting the right to practice or speak one's beliefs in the public setting under fear of punishment.)

We're sort of edging this way in the States. Have been for years....

 

[Xander]

Um... that you have one system that is essentially a top-down dictatorship, and another one that feasibly allows people to modify their viewpoints and vote differently?

(The first is also a pressure-cooker waiting to happen, while the second offers the possibility that violence is not an unavoidable outcome.)

In the second, people are also forced to acknowledge the right of others to speak, even if they don't much like it or waste a lot of time shouting them down. In the first system, those who dissent can be punished without repercussion.

I don't know -- Can anything be learned from looking at China a few decades back (or even nowadays to some degree) compared to US development? (China wasn't a theocracy, but it definitely was authoritarian, prohibiting the right to practice or speak one's beliefs in the public setting under fear of punishment.)

WARNING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE...

Sooo your basically saying that the illusion of choice is a better shackle for the people than actual bare faced dictatorship? Instead of saying you can't you just make it nigh impossible and thereby fool those disgruntled into silent obedience. Nice.

 

[Totenkindly]

WARNING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE...

Sooo your basically saying that the illusion of choice is a better shackle for the people than actual bare faced dictatorship? Instead of saying you can't you just make it nigh impossible and thereby fool those disgruntled into silent obedience. Nice.

Cute... but democracy is not an illusion of choice. The choice is potentially there and could be effected if people were persuaded to believe.

[But we'll make an exception for you if you ever visit our little community, there's a nice stock set up out front with your name on it!]

 

[wildcat]

This is an interesting read.
article
I've read "The God Delusion" and watch a couple of presentation by Sam Harris and they both seem to be really out of touch with what a typical person on the street believes about religion. Some of these stats seem to back this up

"Ironically, however, both atheists and committed Christians share one unusual area of common ground: concern about superficial, inert forms of Christianity in America. There are nearly 130 million American adults who describe themselves as Christians, but who are Christian in name only; their behavior includes little related to experiencing and expressing their alleged faith in Christ."

Do they enjoy the time wasted?

 

[Xander]

Cute... but democracy is not an illusion of choice. The choice is potentially there and could be effected if people were persuaded to believe.

[But we'll make an exception for you if you ever visit our little community, there's a nice stock set up out front with your name on it!]

Your in the minority.. do you have a choice? HELL NO.

If the other side are set in their view points then your talking a LOT of effort to move them. Kinda similar to the effort of regime change in the honestly oppressive countries.

(As I said, done in the fine art of argumentativeness.. )

 

[Totenkindly]

Your in the minority.. do you have a choice? HELL NO. If the other side are set in their view points then your talking a LOT of effort to move them. Kinda similar to the effort of regime change in the honestly oppressive countries.

We're not talking "likely outcome" -- we are talking "no outcome allowed by definition of the system itself" versus "potential [if unlikely] outcome allowed by definition of the system."

And you never know will change that could impact the latter. Times change. The world changes. Disasters strike. Things change people's minds over time.

And there's still a big difference in the atmosphere. You're looking far too hard at the surface similarities without acknowledge underlying differences that, though intangible, permeate out to impact the environment.

(As I said, done in the fine art of argumentativeness.. )

For me, all said in the fine art of making the discussion as vague as possible!