Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

He's not exactly being careful with his claims in here. But a few posts up sums up what he's driving at - that the fact that people tend to take the religion of their family/culture shows that it's not being chosen for some purely logical reason, and that makes all religions equally arbitrary. He's not actually looking for a stat, he's trying to explain an objection to a strong religious belief that I myself wrestle with as a religious Christian.

 

[Joe Bryant]

He's not exactly being careful with his claims in here. But a few posts up sums up what he's driving at - that the fact that people tend to take the religion of their family/culture shows that it's not being chosen for some purely logical reason, and that makes all religions equally arbitrary. He's not actually looking for a stat, he's trying to explain an objection to a strong religious belief that I myself wrestle with as a religious Christian.

But I'd ask what is the right number there?

Are we looking for high retention? Or tons of churn where nobody stays?

Finding the number shouldn't be too difficult. For me, it would be about what that number means (or if it means anything). I thought that was the original focus of the whole thread.

J

 

[shader]

Perhaps this chart does a better job of providing the answer to the retention rate question:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/07/religious-retention-rates/

 

[proninja]

He's not exactly being careful with his claims in here. But a few posts up sums up what he's driving at - that the fact that people tend to take the religion of their family/culture shows that it's not being chosen for some purely logical reason, and that makes all religions equally arbitrary. He's not actually looking for a stat, he's trying to explain an objection to a strong religious belief that I myself wrestle with as a religious Christian.

But I'd ask what is the right number there?

Are we looking for high retention? Or tons of churn where nobody stays?

Finding the number shouldn't be too difficult. For me, it would be about what that number means (or if it means anything). I thought that was the original focus of the whole thread.

J

I would argue retention numbers don't tell us much without knowing the context behind them. Even within this country, to go apostate means very different things sociologically depending on where you live. If you're a real estate agent in the bible belt, leaving the church is financial suicide, and most people will grin and bear it despite their reservations with the teaching if they don't believe. If you're a lawyer in New York, there aren't any social penalties to being an atheist, or to behavior that would be looked down on in, say, Alabama. There are different personalities who will react in different ways to their lack of belief, and in some countries/religions you'll be excommunicated by your family unless you profess the same faith.

A high retention could mean that your life will be ruined by leaving so you don't leave no matter what. Or it could mean that your parents' faith was so vibrant and so affected you positively that you can't dream of any other paradigm in which to continue, and you actually *do* believe this stuff. I'm unsure what retention numbers actually tell us lacking any context for them.

 

[mr roboto]

Perhaps this chart does a better job of providing the answer to the retention rate question:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/07/religious-retention-rates/

Seems like 50-60% is an average. What's interesting to me is that those higher up on the scale tend to be tied to dominant socio-political structures as well.

 

[KCitons]

Someone mentioned the avoidance of religion and politics discussion in real life.

Otis, does this same theory apply to politics? I know my political stance is very different from my parents. But, for some reason they don't care, they just want me to go to church on Sunday.

Politics is only a temporary phenomenon of our earthly existence. Clearly, your parents are seeing the bigger picture here.

Wait, there's religion in the afterlife too? With no time constraints, mass must go on forever.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

He's not exactly being careful with his claims in here. But a few posts up sums up what he's driving at - that the fact that people tend to take the religion of their family/culture shows that it's not being chosen for some purely logical reason, and that makes all religions equally arbitrary. He's not actually looking for a stat, he's trying to explain an objection to a strong religious belief that I myself wrestle with as a religious Christian.

There's also the issue of "false positives" in the data, people who self-identify as religious who don't actually share the core beliefs of that religion. Using Christianity in the United States as an example, most data collection puts the percentage of people who self-identify as Christian somewhere in the 60-80% range of the population, yet the percentage of people who attend church at least once every 4-6 weeks is somewhere in the 40-50% range. The data set equates the family who hosts Bible Study every night at their house with the family who doesn't really believe all that Jesus-y mumbo-jumbo but likes the show on Easter and Christmas and answers a poll "Christian" because they go to church twice a year.

 

[Psychopav]

Doesn't the original concern also include some inherent bias? It seems to me that it presupposes that all religions are equally valid (or equally invalid) and does not allow for the possibility of a true religion. If it's true that people generally tend to follow the religion of their parents but it's also true that one faith is true, how would that affect the way the data should emerge?

 

[Henry Ford]

Doesn't the original concern also include some inherent bias? It seems to me that it presupposes that all religions are equally valid (or equally invalid) and does not allow for the possibility of a true religion. If it's true that people generally tend to follow the religion of their parents but it's also true that one faith is true, how would that affect the way the data should emerge?

Given the complete absence of evidence as to which one is true, other than arguments against a particular type of God, I'm not sure it would. Facts only influence an outcome if there is some way they can be known.

 

[cstu]

I know a lot of people who have converted, many times due to marriage, or who have stepped away from religion altogether. Not to disagree with your point about parents influencing children, but 99% seems high.

99% may be high but I imagine there's a very small percentage of people who changed religions for reasons other than marriage or non-belief in religion altogether.

To follow this up, here's the chart showing the people who have changed religion.

Of the 44% who have changed from their childhood religion:

- 20% changed from one version of Christianity to another (I don't consider this truly changing religion)

- 11% became unaffiliated with religion

- 4% went from unaffiliated to affiliated

- 9% changed major religions

I'm curious to know of those 13% (those than became affiliated or changed major religions) how many of those were for marriage?

 

[matuski]

Doesn't the original concern also include some inherent bias? It seems to me that it presupposes that all religions are equally valid (or equally invalid) and does not allow for the possibility of a true religion. If it's true that people generally tend to follow the religion of their parents but it's also true that one faith is true, how would that affect the way the data should emerge?

Can you give us a reason to suppose any religion is more true than the next?

 

[Otis]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

Well for starters, what is "better"? For whom and in what way? The comment you quoted is my thought that, if there is arbitrary assignment of religion, then it creates some interesting questions. Which is what we have been discussing. Does that make sense?

 

[Otis]

If you had said "Catholic" instead of "religious" in the OP, we'd be down to nitpicky correlation/causation stuff.

If you meant "religious" when you said "religious", those numbers from religions of non-trivial size like Muslim (60%) and Protestant (54%) disprove the statement you made in the OP pretty cleanly.

So I guess it depends on how much you're willing to move the goal posts to avoid admitting you were wrong in the OP.

I still don't believe I was wrong. I'm not moving the goalposts. The data above supports my view, no?Do you disagree with my theory that people tend to take on the religion that is handed to them as children?

I wholeheartedly disagree with your OP statement " I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X." That's a much more extreme statement than "people tend to take on the religion that is handed to them as children". Your OP statement claims religious people are only religious because their parents are, and their parents are only religious because of where they live.

Your revised statement is so uncontroversial and so widely accepted, it doesn't qualify as insightful. You shouldn't be taking credit for it as "your" theory, and you certainly should be trying to equate it with what you said in the OP.

Shouldn't it be expected that the child takes on at least some of the attributes of their parents? We're talking about shared DNA in the vast majority of cases here, and environmental factors controlled by the parents as well. The vast majority of children are not randomly assigned.

OK, so I was wrong about 99% which is a number from post one I have conceded is an unsupported assumption. The number is as high as 90% in some religions. Still pretty meaningful, don't you think? Point is the same concepts we have been talking about all along seem to apply.

Not sure what you're driving at.

 

[Otis]

Doesn't the original concern also include some inherent bias? It seems to me that it presupposes that all religions are equally valid (or equally invalid) and does not allow for the possibility of a true religion. If it's true that people generally tend to follow the religion of their parents but it's also true that one faith is true, how would that affect the way the data should emerge?

I would say the original concern is inherently NOT biased BECAUSE it sets all religions on equal footings. Why shouldn't they be if we are trying to be objective?

 

[Otis]

I know a lot of people who have converted, many times due to marriage, or who have stepped away from religion altogether. Not to disagree with your point about parents influencing children, but 99% seems high.

99% may be high but I imagine there's a very small percentage of people who changed religions for reasons other than marriage or non-belief in religion altogether.

To follow this up, here's the chart showing the people who have changed religion.

Of the 44% who have changed from their childhood religion:

- 20% changed from one version of Christianity to another (I don't consider this truly changing religion)

- 11% became unaffiliated with religion

- 4% went from unaffiliated to affiliated

- 9% changed major religions

I'm curious to know of those 13% (those than became affiliated or changed major religions) how many of those were for marriage?

These are exactly the numbers I was expecting, and I agree the context of that 13 percent is important.

 

[Black Box]

There also seems to be an inherent bias against those who retained their childhood religion. The assumption seems to be that those people haven't questioned anything or that they are only religious because they were raised in it.

I don't think that is a safe assumption to make for the entirety of the 56% who retain their childhood religion.

ETA: In fact, according to the chart, 9% have "changed faith at some point", and presumably returned to their childhood religion. That doesn't seem to indicate unquestioning adherence.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

There also seems to be an inherent bias against those who retained their childhood religion. The assumption seems to be that those people haven't questioned anything or that they are only religious because they were raised in it.

I don't think that is a safe assumption to make for the entirety of the 56% who retain their childhood religion.

ETA: In fact, according to the chart, 9% have "changed faith at some point", and presumably returned to their childhood religion. That doesn't seem to indicate unquestioning adherence.

I'm not sure the implication is a complete lack of questioning, it just seems like the hurdles to accepting certain religious beliefs are far lower if you're brought up believing those things are normal. I've witnessed Christians who make fun of Scientologists because all the space alien stuff is so wacky. Most of them don't seem to consider that their own religious beliefs would seem just as wacky to an outside observer.

 

[Clifford]

So I assume this has been a respectful and productive thread thus far?

 

[Jayrok]

I don't know a single Christian who has given any thought to their faith at all that hasn't struggled with the problem of evil existing.

I think I can honestly say, during my upbringing, I didn't really have any big issues with the problem of evil. I understood that we lived in a fallen world and evil behavior was a direct result of man's propensity to sin coupled with his free will to do so.

 

[McGarnicle]

I've spoken to Christians who say these issues are not for us to understand, that God's will is perfect and all will be revealed to us in the next world. So, that obviously makes it a pretty simple proposition -- follow the bible as the infallible word of God, go to church on Sunday, and don't ask any questions.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't so analytical. They say ignorance is bliss and it sure seems that way when you observe people who think they have everything all figured out. It would be awesome if life had a playbook and all you had to do was follow it to be happy.

 

[Psychopav]

Doesn't the original concern also include some inherent bias? It seems to me that it presupposes that all religions are equally valid (or equally invalid) and does not allow for the possibility of a true religion. If it's true that people generally tend to follow the religion of their parents but it's also true that one faith is true, how would that affect the way the data should emerge?

I would say the original concern is inherently NOT biased BECAUSE it sets all religions on equal footings. Why shouldn't they be if we are trying to be objective?

What meaning do. You ascribe to the results? It sounds like your conclusion would have been the same regardless of whether all religions' retention numbers were equal or different. Let me put it another way: what results would make you conclude that there's more to it than just people simply tend to continue to practice the religion they were raised in as children?Some other questions:

Why does correlation between growing up faithful and remaining faithful mean that the driving factor for staying is the tradition you were raised in?

Why does a survey, which represents a specific snapshot in time, suffice to answer that question? Wouldn't surveying strictly elderly people be a better indicator of what you're trying to get at? I imagine there are a not insignificant number of people who fall away then return or change to another faith before the end. At least for Christians, a big part of the faith is that the belief is more important than the timing. Look at the repentant thief on the cross or the parable of the wage earners for examples.

 

[johnjohn]

I've spoken to Christians who say these issues are not for us to understand, that God's will is perfect and all will be revealed to us in the next world. So, that obviously makes it a pretty simple proposition -- follow the bible as the infallible word of God, go to church on Sunday, and don't ask any questions.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't so analytical. They say ignorance is bliss and it sure seems that way when you observe people who think they have everything all figured out. It would be awesome if life had a playbook and all you had to do was follow it to be happy.

Christians aren't ignorant, go troll another thread.

 

[Clifford]

There is a small part of the overall Christian demo that actively encourages questioning and analysis. Just doesn't appeal to large groups, who are looking for answers and are bothered by questions.

 

[Black Box]

There also seems to be an inherent bias against those who retained their childhood religion. The assumption seems to be that those people haven't questioned anything or that they are only religious because they were raised in it.

I don't think that is a safe assumption to make for the entirety of the 56% who retain their childhood religion.

ETA: In fact, according to the chart, 9% have "changed faith at some point", and presumably returned to their childhood religion. That doesn't seem to indicate unquestioning adherence.

I'm not sure the implication is a complete lack of questioning, it just seems like the hurdles to accepting certain religious beliefs are far lower if you're brought up believing those things are normal. I've witnessed Christians who make fun of Scientologists because all the space alien stuff is so wacky. Most of them don't seem to consider that their own religious beliefs would seem just as wacky to an outside observer.

I agree that hurdles are lower. I don't think that is controversial, but I also don't think it is the entire story. See the religious growth in China as a counter-example.

I disagree with the much stronger language Otis is using to describe the beliefs of these people (sometimes... he seems to be flipping back and forth between uncontroversial statements like you are using here and controversial ones that he used in the OP).

 

[shader]

I don't know a single Christian who has given any thought to their faith at all that hasn't struggled with the problem of evil existing.

I think I can honestly say, during my upbringing, I didn't really have any big issues with the problem of evil. I understood that we lived in a fallen world and evil behavior was a direct result of man's propensity to sin coupled with his free will to do so.

Honestly I'm the same. The bible is pretty clear that the world around us isn't what God intended and that God has plans for the future that will wash away the effects of sickness and death.

 

[Clifford]

Hell is everywhere God is not. Marlowe explains it pretty well in Faust.

 

[matuski]

Hell is everywhere God is not. Marlowe explains it pretty well in Faust.

The same God that is everywhere?

 

[Clifford]

Huh?

 

[Jayrok]

One of Gods attributes is His immutability, He is incapable of changing.

Just silly.

 

[Otis]

Doesn't the original concern also include some inherent bias? It seems to me that it presupposes that all religions are equally valid (or equally invalid) and does not allow for the possibility of a true religion. If it's true that people generally tend to follow the religion of their parents but it's also true that one faith is true, how would that affect the way the data should emerge?

I would say the original concern is inherently NOT biased BECAUSE it sets all religions on equal footings. Why shouldn't they be if we are trying to be objective?

What meaning do. You ascribe to the results? It sounds like your conclusion would have been the same regardless of whether all religions' retention numbers were equal or different. Let me put it another way: what results would make you conclude that there's more to it than just people simply tend to continue to practice the religion they were raised in as children?

I addressed this earlier -- i.e., if there were a more random distribution of religions, and less correlation of religions to parents' religions (as in Joe's analogy, where a child isn't so likely to have the same occupation as his or her parents (it happens sometimes, but not nearly as common as taking the same religion)).

 

[Joe Bryant]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

Well for starters, what is "better"? For whom and in what way?The comment you quoted is my thought that, if there is arbitrary assignment of religion, then it creates some interesting questions. Which is what we have been discussing. Does that make sense?

I'm asking you which is "better" as far as the group being attractive or unattractive. Do you like a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be attractive?

J

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

There also seems to be an inherent bias against those who retained their childhood religion. The assumption seems to be that those people haven't questioned anything or that they are only religious because they were raised in it.

I don't think that is a safe assumption to make for the entirety of the 56% who retain their childhood religion.

ETA: In fact, according to the chart, 9% have "changed faith at some point", and presumably returned to their childhood religion. That doesn't seem to indicate unquestioning adherence.

I'm not sure the implication is a complete lack of questioning, it just seems like the hurdles to accepting certain religious beliefs are far lower if you're brought up believing those things are normal. I've witnessed Christians who make fun of Scientologists because all the space alien stuff is so wacky. Most of them don't seem to consider that their own religious beliefs would seem just as wacky to an outside observer.

Funny FFA thread on the topic of Scientology vs Creationism

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

Perhaps this chart does a better job of providing the answer to the retention rate question:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/07/religious-retention-rates/

Wow. Will admit I find it very interesting that in this chart atheists are shown to have the lowest "retention" rate.

 

[Psychopav]

Doesn't the original concern also include some inherent bias? It seems to me that it presupposes that all religions are equally valid (or equally invalid) and does not allow for the possibility of a true religion. If it's true that people generally tend to follow the religion of their parents but it's also true that one faith is true, how would that affect the way the data should emerge?

I would say the original concern is inherently NOT biased BECAUSE it sets all religions on equal footings. Why shouldn't they be if we are trying to be objective?

What meaning do. You ascribe to the results? It sounds like your conclusion would have been the same regardless of whether all religions' retention numbers were equal or different. Let me put it another way: what results would make you conclude that there's more to it than just people simply tend to continue to practice the religion they were raised in as children?

I addressed this earlier -- i.e., if there were a more random distribution of religions, and less correlation of religions to parents' religions (as in Joe's analogy, where a child isn't so likely to have the same occupation as his or her parents (it happens sometimes, but not nearly as common as taking the same religion)).

Occupation is not a good analogy because there are a lot more occupations and because within the same value system there are myriad occupations which could fulfill the same ideals. I would think level of education would be a much better analogy.But regardless, what kind of distribution are you looking for? All religions in the 20% range or something like that? Wouldn't that also allow you to conclude that no religious faith has validity?

If you can't provide an illustration clearly showing what kind of results would debunk your theory, then I don't see how your theory can possibly have any meaning.

 

[timschochet]

Perhaps this chart does a better job of providing the answer to the retention rate question:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/07/religious-retention-rates/

Wow. Will admit I find it very interesting that in this chart atheists are shown to have the lowest "retention" rate.

It's a very interesting chart, but it has little to do with Otis' point, because it separates each different sect of Christianity. If someone born to Lutheran parents later attends a Mwthodist church, should that be considered "non-retention"? Hardly.

 

[shader]

Perhaps this chart does a better job of providing the answer to the retention rate question:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2012/07/religious-retention-rates/

Wow. Will admit I find it very interesting that in this chart atheists are shown to have the lowest "retention" rate.

It's a very interesting chart, but it has little to do with Otis' point, because it separates each different sect of Christianity. If someone born to Lutheran parents later attends a Mwthodist church, should that be considered "non-retention"? Hardly.

I think the point stands with all of the religions, aside from Protestant religions. Protestant religions seem to be the ones that "church hop", look for favorite pastors, switch to mega-churches, but still believe that they are a Christian the entire time. So I would agree that the numbers are tough to quantify for Protestants, although the first chart I posted had a page that discussed the protestant issue.

 

[timschochet]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

 

[shader]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Well that is one way to ensure that the numbers all stay above 90%

 

[Otis]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

Well for starters, what is "better"? For whom and in what way?The comment you quoted is my thought that, if there is arbitrary assignment of religion, then it creates some interesting questions. Which is what we have been discussing. Does that make sense?

I'm asking you which is "better" as far as the group being attractive or unattractive. Do you like a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be attractive?

J

Again, not to be obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by attractive. Attractive to someone trying to prove what point?

I think I can answer your question by going back to your occupation analogy. In a population in which there is a more random distribution of religion from parents to children, it would to me evidence more independent thinking and choice, and therefore suggest to me that the thought process and investment of energy in deciding which religion to adopt would be far less likely to be simply taking on the religion that is handed to you. It would then just seem less arbitrary -- a person wouldn't have a religion simply by virtue of their parents' religion or geographic location. That would resolve the primary issue I raised in the original post. (We would still be left with the problem of many different religions, all of which can't be right, and so really then NONE are likely right, but that was a sidebar in the discussion).

 

[shader]

Proninja, to set the record straight, I don't believe Jesus is God. I believe he's God's son. I have never claimed I don't believe Jesus is of a divine nature.

 

[proninja]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Actually, only two of those believe that Christ is God. The other two believe that Christ is a created being.

 

[The Commish]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Right....but your unwillingness to recognize the differences shouldn't be placed on them....that's on you. For some the theology is so different they consider it a change in religion and your comment about "divinity" is incorrect.

 

[proninja]

Proninja, to set the record straight, I don't believe Jesus is God. I believe he's God's son. I have never claimed I don't believe Jesus is of a divine nature.

Gotcha. I'll try to use a different word than "divinity" in the future, and I'll edit my most recent post so there is no quibble with the language I use to describe something.

 

[shader]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

Well for starters, what is "better"? For whom and in what way?The comment you quoted is my thought that, if there is arbitrary assignment of religion, then it creates some interesting questions. Which is what we have been discussing. Does that make sense?

I'm asking you which is "better" as far as the group being attractive or unattractive. Do you like a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be attractive?

J

Again, not to be obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by attractive. Attractive to someone trying to prove what point?

I think I can answer your question by going back to your occupation analogy. In a population in which there is a more random distribution of religion from parents to children, it would to me evidence more independent thinking and choice, and therefore suggest to me that the thought process and investment of energy in deciding which religion to adopt would be far less likely to be simply taking on the religion that is handed to you. It would then just seem less arbitrary -- a person wouldn't have a religion simply by virtue of their parents' religion or geographic location. That would resolve the primary issue I raised in the original post. (We would still be left with the problem of many different religions, all of which can't be right, and so really then NONE are likely right, but that was a sidebar in the discussion).

It's really all irrelevant if there isn't a "correct" religion.

 

[shader]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Actually, only two of those believe that Christ is God. The other two believe that Christ is a created being.

I believe you are correct. JW's and Mormons both reject the trinity, and most Baptists and Catholics believe some version of the trinity doctrine.

 

[Steve Tasker]

One thing I do question a lot about these polls asking people about their religious beliefs is if there is a bit of a bias in the responses. NPR had a piece recently about how people systematically (and probably unconsciously) overinflate their actual church attendance and prayer habits in polls.

I don't often discuss religion in real life, but when I do it's usually with self-identifying Catholics. And if you really get down to it, from an actual belief standpoint, they're as agnostic as I am. But they self-ID as Catholic. Why? Perhaps it's just easier to keep IDing as Catholic and not discuss your actual thoughts? Maybe you don't want to disappoint your family? I don't know, but I do know that those friends of mine in particular definitely don't believe in Catholic dogma. But if you were to ask them in a street poll, I'd have no doubt they'd list themselves as Catholic.

Purely anecdotal, of course.

 

[timschochet]

Shader, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes a Baptist or a Catholic or a Mormon, to me as a non- Christian it's all the same. I know there are big differences between these, but they all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, thus they are all Christians from my perspective.

Right....but your unwillingness to recognize the differences shouldn't be placed on them....that's on you. For some the theology is so different they consider it a change in religion and your comment about "divinity" is incorrect.

Fine. All of them worship Jesus Christ- hows that? In any case, relative to Otis' argument that most Christians are Christian because their parents were Christian and because they live in a society which is largely Christian, these distinctions don't matter.

 

[Otis]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

Well for starters, what is "better"? For whom and in what way?The comment you quoted is my thought that, if there is arbitrary assignment of religion, then it creates some interesting questions. Which is what we have been discussing. Does that make sense?

I'm asking you which is "better" as far as the group being attractive or unattractive. Do you like a group with high retention where most of the children choose to follow their parents? Or is it better to have a group with low retention where most of the children choose a different path than their parents? What percentage would be attractive?

J

Again, not to be obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by attractive. Attractive to someone trying to prove what point?

I think I can answer your question by going back to your occupation analogy. In a population in which there is a more random distribution of religion from parents to children, it would to me evidence more independent thinking and choice, and therefore suggest to me that the thought process and investment of energy in deciding which religion to adopt would be far less likely to be simply taking on the religion that is handed to you. It would then just seem less arbitrary -- a person wouldn't have a religion simply by virtue of their parents' religion or geographic location. That would resolve the primary issue I raised in the original post. (We would still be left with the problem of many different religions, all of which can't be right, and so really then NONE are likely right, but that was a sidebar in the discussion).

It's really all irrelevant if there isn't a "correct" religion.

What is? This discussion?

 

[Gr00vus]

I look at the world and the universe and find it hard to believe that all of it happened randomly without someone or something at the switch. If I gather all the ingredients to make a cake and throw them in the oven I dont get a cake.

If you did that enough times you might actually end up with a cake. Our world is just one result among an incredibly large number of possible results, none of which require sentient guidance to bring about.

Well that is your opinion. Quite obviously many others disagree, not only when discussing the earth, but also the universe, the physical laws that make up the universe, etc.

It's not my opinion, it's the result of applying math (particularly probability) and understanding the results of the work of astro physicists along with a few other branches of science.

Again, I disagree

With what? Math? The work of astrophysicists and lots of other scientists?

Your interpretation of the science mostly.

I'm not interpreting the science at all, just understanding what's been formulated. If you go with the worst case scenario of what we've discovered so far, the rare earth hypothesis, there are millions of planets in the universe that can support life as we know it. Given that the universe is over 13 billion years old, it's very highly probable there are/have been/will be planets out there that host species and civilizations as advanced, or more advanced as we are. I'm not making this up/interpreting it, it's just the inevitable conclusion of what we know already. As our technology improves we find even more possible planets fitting this category as well, so the probabilities increase.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

One thing I do question a lot about these polls asking people about their religious beliefs is if there is a bit of a bias in the responses. NPR had a piece recently about how people systematically (and probably unconsciously) overinflate their actual church attendance and prayer habits in polls.

I don't often discuss religion in real life, but when I do it's usually with self-identifying Catholics. And if you really get down to it, from an actual belief standpoint, they're as agnostic as I am. But they self-ID as Catholic. Why? Perhaps it's just easier to keep IDing as Catholic and not discuss your actual thoughts? Maybe you don't want to disappoint your family? I don't know, but I do know that those friends of mine in particular definitely don't believe in Catholic dogma. But if you were to ask them in a street poll, I'd have no doubt they'd list themselves as Catholic.

Purely anecdotal, of course.

Totally agree ST. I think there are many atheists/agnostics continue to attend or play along. I don't know if this is a good thing. Otis in this thread says maybe there is a higher power but not the definition we've been given. Also said they may move to a more predominantly Catholic community and will likely attend to fit in or just because. I discovered my own atheism after I was already married and had kids so I attend each week to play along. Is it the stigma? Why is it hard for (some?) atheists to draw the line and just not go and just openly tell their kids/coworkers/family/etc?