The importance of understanding for belief

[DrZoidberg]

In another thread I have had a discussion with Wilson about belief and philosophy (among other things).

One thing stuck with me. He repeatedly scorned philosophy. Thinking it was unnecessary and a sham or something.

So my question, can a person who doesn't have a firm grip on philosophy be a Christian?

Abrahamic Monotheism is a complicated philosophical system of thought. While the basic premise is simple, each believer needs to resolve all the omnipotence paradoxes in their own head. Until they've done that, they don't know what they believe.

Perhaps an example can make it more clear what I believe. Imagine a libertarian wanting to vote for a political party that shares his views. He thinks it's the communists. And then gets a shock when they're voted into power and he sees the bills they're trying to pass.

If you don't understand what it is you claim you believe, do you really believe? I'd argue no. Putting on a Che Guevarra t-shirt doesn't make you a revolutionary. Hanging a cross around your neck and praying a lot doesn't make you Christian.

Thoughts?

 

[Speakpigeon]

All you need to be a Christian is to attend church every Sunday and follow the instructions from there.

You will be expected to read the Bible but there's nothing to understand in there and nobody will ask you. This idea that you need to believe in God or in the resurrection of Christ is just vacuous posturing since no one can check what it is you really believe. So all you have to do is say you believe.

All religions have this in common: they ask members to take part in rituals. Taking part in rituals is usually fairly simple. You can attend church all your life without ever having to explain how the Trinity works. Many people really believe in at least a good part of what the priest says but I suspect that they're still a minority. Most people I'm sure just move along with the crowd. Even apparently intelligent and educated people. I've seen them.

It's interesting for example to oppose Catholic theologians, who over centuries have built an overly complicated philosophy of God, now essentially accepted as gospel truth by the Church, and certainly by the previous pope, and the ground-level trend in recent centuries for Catholic practitioners to move towards a religion of adoration of Christ (the "passion"), i.e. without reference to what theologians have done. Benedict warned against this. That and of course the larger movement of messianic and evangelical protestant churches, which do away with the complications of Catholic theology. Less is more.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

All you need to be a Christian is to attend church every Sunday and follow the instructions from there.

You will be expected to read the Bible but there's nothing to understand in there and nobody will ask you. This idea that you need to believe in God or in the resurrection of Christ is just vacuous posturing since no one can check what it is you really believe. So all you have to do is say you believe.

All religions have this in common: they ask members to take part in rituals. Taking part in rituals is usually fairly simple. You can attend church all your life without ever having to explain how the Trinity works. Many people really believe in at least a good part of what the priest says but I suspect that they're still a minority. Most people I'm sure just move along with the crowd. Even apparently intelligent and educated people. I've seen them.

It's interesting for example to oppose Catholic theologians, who over centuries have built an overly complicated philosophy of God, now essentially accepted as gospel truth by the Church, and certainly by the previous pope, and the ground-level trend in recent centuries for Catholic practitioners to move towards a religion of adoration of Christ (the "passion"), i.e. without reference to what theologians have done. Benedict warned against this. That and of course the larger movement of messianic and evangelical protestant churches, which do away with the complications of Catholic theology. Less is more.
EB

But isn't that just what you need to do to appear as Christian? As opposed to actually being a Christian. Christian as a tribal identity vs Christianity as a belief system.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Personally, I would very much like to agree with you but it's not like that. The world isn't like that. Ask the Pope whether most churchgoers are actual Christians or just pretenders. He is the Pope and represents somehow the Church. What he says as to who is Christian and who isn't has to be taken at face value. Although of course lots of self-declared Christians don't recognise him as their shepherd. But that's also the situation for other Christian denominations. As long as you take part in the rituals you are usually accepted as Christian (unless people have some specific information about you to the contrary). To me, being a Christian doesn't mean believing this or that but bothering to adhere to a particular set of rituals, with obviously degrees in how much of a Christian somebody really may be.

I wonder whether you are not projecting your own self-identity standards on other people. We're all different. Many people just don't spend any time on introspection, on speculative thought, on imaginary things, etc. Yet, Christianity in particular was made for the actual people there are on this planet. It's a universal faith. You also have a number of prominent Catholic thinkers who reported having a crisis of faith. It's even in the Bible I think, somewhere.

Of course, I still want to agree with you. Being a Christian should mean you understand the theology. In effect, for Catholics at least, all you have to do is your Catechism, which is really a seriously dumbed-down version of the actual Catholic theology and it's for all lay people, not just for the feeble of mind.

Religions cannot be too choosy or they would just not have that many followers. It's all "let's pretend and let's not say it". God will recognise His own.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

OK I can be a christian to the outside world by appearing to be a christian. I may even think that by attending church I am being a christian. That said, one doesn't need to know what it means to be a christian in even the least responsible sense if one believes that attending, proximity to others who claim to be christian, is all there is to being a christian. There are many hooks to being minimally christian. Least operations sense to me would be claiming to be christian or going to church.

Neither of those operations require much understanding of Christianity and many others would believe by your claim or your attendance you are a christian. One might choose to do good deeds she read that Jesus asked of his followers, one might carry out physical strictures associated by scholars or christian teachers one must suffer is one finds herself failing in belief. Many who call themselves Christians or profess to be experts in Christianity would praise who follow either of those creeds. But does following such measures necessarily reflect an understanding of Christianity.

So I've traveled a little way up an understanding ladder. I see no real benefit in doing so. Maybe there is a structure that can be built on understanding that serves some purpose for us, but, even cursory examination of Christian morality ,charity, or, benefits in lifestyle, suggest probably not really.

Perhaps satisfying a need to belong, the tribalism aspect, has some benefit. It certainly does seem embedded in our nature.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder whether you are not projecting your own self-identity standards on other people. We're all different. Many people just don't spend any time on introspection, on speculative thought, on imaginary things, etc. Yet, Christianity in particular was made for the actual people there are on this planet. It's a universal faith. You also have a number of prominent Catholic thinkers who reported having a crisis of faith. It's even in the Bible I think, somewhere.

Well... no. I'm just taking the Christians seriously on their own words. Christianity and Islam are literally the only two religions where it matters what you believe. For every other religion, including Judaism, religion isn't something you believe, it's something you do. Religion as an activity rather than a faith.

I agree with you for all the other religions. But when it comes to Christianity the belief matters. And if belief matters, doesn't it matter if you understand what you believe?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I wonder whether you are not projecting your own self-identity standards on other people. We're all different. Many people just don't spend any time on introspection, on speculative thought, on imaginary things, etc. Yet, Christianity in particular was made for the actual people there are on this planet. It's a universal faith. You also have a number of prominent Catholic thinkers who reported having a crisis of faith. It's even in the Bible I think, somewhere.

Well... no. I'm just taking the Christians seriously on their own words. Christianity and Islam are literally the only two religions where it matters what you believe. For every other religion, including Judaism, religion isn't something you believe, it's something you do. Religion as an activity rather than a faith.

I agree with you for all the other religions. But when it comes to Christianity the belief matters. And if belief matters, doesn't it matter if you understand what you believe?

I would agree it's tempting to take this to be true. However, it's just the case that you've decided that you can choose the criterion by which to assess whether somebody is a Christian.

Sure belief is essential but not anything like a comprehensive belief in the theology of the Christian faith. All you are asked is to "believe in God", as well as in the reality of some inconsequential pseudo-historical details such as that Jesus had been crucified. People are not asked to understand the Trinity or the love of God for His creation. The level of their required commitment is minimal. And I think most people would be prepared to take the stories in the Bible at face value if only to feel they belong to the local community of the faithful, should they want to belong and most people do to some extent. This wouldn't equate to believing anything like the Catholic theology. Rather, most of the time, it's accepting the literal truth of the short version of the Bible, the New Testament, while often taking the Old Testament less literally. Accepting here is essentially being willing not to oppose the message, to give it a free pass, rather than to commit oneself to it, which is only what "devout" Christians would do.

I would agree that most Christians are not up to standards but as long as they are willing to listen to the priest deliver his sermon and to confess then it's good enough for the Church. I'm not sure why you think you can set the standard for being Christians beyond what the Church itself is asking of the faithful. Again, it would be suicidal for the Church to be too demanding. If you had to understand the theology to qualify as a Christian, there would be only a few thousand Christians in the whole world. Instead, being a Christian should be seen as a matter of degree. Most are low-level and laic. Only a few can become the highly trained specialists you are talking about.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So understanding isn't necessary then? Just observed practice? Who's the designated observer?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well... no. I'm just taking the Christians seriously on their own words. Christianity and Islam are literally the only two religions where it matters what you believe. For every other religion, including Judaism, religion isn't something you believe, it's something you do. Religion as an activity rather than a faith.

I agree with you for all the other religions. But when it comes to Christianity the belief matters. And if belief matters, doesn't it matter if you understand what you believe?

I would agree it's tempting to take this to be true. However, it's just the case that you've decided that you can choose the criterion by which to assess whether somebody is a Christian.

Sure belief is essential but not anything like a comprehensive belief in the theology of the Christian faith. All you are asked is to "believe in God", as well as in the reality of some inconsequential pseudo-historical details such as that Jesus had been crucified. People are not asked to understand the Trinity or the love of God for His creation. The level of their required commitment is minimal. And I think most people would be prepared to take the stories in the Bible at face value if only to feel they belong to the local community of the faithful, should they want to belong and most people do to some extent. This wouldn't equate to believing anything like the Catholic theology. Rather, most of the time, it's accepting the literal truth of the short version of the Bible, the New Testament, while often taking the Old Testament less literally. Accepting here is essentially being willing not to oppose the message, to give it a free pass, rather than to commit oneself to it, which is only what "devout" Christians would do.

I would agree that most Christians are not up to standards but as long as they are willing to listen to the priest deliver his sermon and to confess then it's good enough for the Church. I'm not sure why you think you can set the standard for being Christians beyond what the Church itself is asking of the faithful. Again, it would be suicidal for the Church to be too demanding. If you had to understand the theology to qualify as a Christian, there would be only a few thousand Christians in the whole world. Instead, being a Christian should be seen as a matter of degree. Most are low-level and laic. Only a few can become the highly trained specialists you are talking about.
EB

If there isn't an objective criteria (that works and we can agree on) to judge whether somebody is Christian or not, then it is subjective. If it is subjective then it is meaningless. If it is meaningless we can and should ignore anything anybody says about Christianity, or spoken from the perspective of a Christian.

 

[fromderinside]

We can't because we are designed to recognize and react to difference. Putting that aside is something philosophers need to do. Unfortunately there is philosophical study of religion so philosopher's aren't going to put aside tribalism in interpretation. That being the case, maybe we should first establish what being tribal by nature means.

Someone here wrote Christians are different from other religions. Can the one who said that flesh out what she means.

 

[another1]

DrZoideberg I think people are born with belief in God and culture wont let them express it for themselves. There is a perfect vehicle there already and it has writings so trippy that it is easy to fit any of a person's smaller beliefs into it and bend them to Christ. I think it is an inescapable thing in some places of the world.

They have it written very strangely and it fits EVERYTHING> sit down anybody and they will have their own little ideas about things but they can all be bent and shoved into the same vehicle that only appears to move because apparently that is all that is necessary.

It really is a shame that people can't just think for themselves but that is how things are set up. At any rate it is all the same energy and I believe it goes to the same place, which is a kind of God that should be fully understood by now but it is forbidden to think in some places. It creeps people out. Just not a good thing.

A mere interest in God is sending energy to the same well where total belief lies, so no difference in anything. I think that fact should be explored but I can't get an opinion on it no matter how I state it. There is a place in the brain that should be observed going by that notion. It wouldn't be a hard thing to figure out but I don't have any MRI machines and technicians on hand. Can't even find my ash tray. Don't hold your breath, but hey there may be a link out there with exactly what I'm saying.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We can't because we are designed to recognize and react to difference. Putting that aside is something philosophers need to do. Unfortunately there is philosophical study of religion so philosopher's aren't going to put aside tribalism in interpretation. That being the case, maybe we should first establish what being tribal by nature means.

Someone here wrote Christians are different from other religions. Can the one who said that flesh out what she means.

Christianity and Islam is unique in that they care about what the believer thinks. Most gods can't read minds. All the other gods (including the Jewish God) only cares about what the religious person does. The god wants sacrifices, or that the correct magical words are said, or it's more like a smorgasbord of guidance the believer can pick from, for their own benefit. Most gods are largely indifferent toward humans. We have to make an effort to be noticed and get favour. Or make an effort to offend them. Most religion's god concepts are formulated in a way that they can be interpreted metaphorically if you like, and the meaning is intact. Their holy texts are written on many different levels at once.

That's what's so funny about calling other religions for "faiths" or "beliefs". You've already loaded the dice with the question.

Christianity and Islam are perhaps the least sophisticated religions ever devised.

 

[fromderinside]

Christianity and Islam is unique in that they care about what the believer thinks. Most gods can't read minds. All the other gods (including the Jewish God) only cares about what the religious person does. The god wants sacrifices, or that the correct magical words are said, or it's more like a smorgasbord of guidance the believer can pick from, for their own benefit. Most gods are largely indifferent toward humans. We have to make an effort to be noticed and get favour. Or make an effort to offend them. Most religion's god concepts are formulated in a way that they can be interpreted metaphorically if you like, and the meaning is intact. Their holy texts are written on many different levels at once.

That's what's so funny about calling other religions for "faiths" or "beliefs". You've already loaded the dice with the question.

Christianity and Islam are perhaps the least sophisticated religions ever devised.

Seems to me C and I are based on differences between believers and non believers as are most other faiths. So I disagree that C and I are least sophisiticated.

However you do make points, including the one above about distinguishing differences very copacetic with tribalism. Recognize of one of us seems to be at the center. It may be one reason that Jesus' God of love so often becomes religions where believers stigmatize those who belief not in Jesus or the teachings of Mohamed. Even if the religion, at its real base is not tribal, humans make it tribal.

 

[bilby]

DrZoideberg I think people are born with belief in God and culture wont let them express it for themselves. There is a perfect vehicle there already and it has writings so trippy that it is easy to fit any of a person's smaller beliefs into it and bend them to Christ. I think it is an inescapable thing in some places of the world.

They have it written very strangely and it fits EVERYTHING> sit down anybody and they will have their own little ideas about things but they can all be bent and shoved into the same vehicle that only appears to move because apparently that is all that is necessary.

It really is a shame that people can't just think for themselves but that is how things are set up. At any rate it is all the same energy and I believe it goes to the same place, which is a kind of God that should be fully understood by now but it is forbidden to think in some places. It creeps people out. Just not a good thing.

A mere interest in God is sending energy to the same well where total belief lies, so no difference in anything. I think that fact should be explored but I can't get an opinion on it no matter how I state it. There is a place in the brain that should be observed going by that notion. It wouldn't be a hard thing to figure out but I don't have any MRI machines and technicians on hand. Can't even find my ash tray. Don't hold your breath, but hey there may be a link out there with exactly what I'm saying.

This is simply not true, at least, not universally. For all I know, some people might be born believing in Gods of one kind or another, but all the evidence suggests otherwise.

If belief in God is something (a large fraction of) people are born with, then we would see people born and raised in animist and atheistic cultures (eg Native Amazonians, Buddhists) spontaneously develop theism without contact with missionaries or other cultures. But we don't see this happening - people rarely believe in Gods unless told about those Gods by others; and they never develop a mainstream religious belief to which they have not been exposed - Nobody grows up in a 100% Buddhist village, and then suddenly becomes a Muslim or a Christian without having first been approached by a Christian or a Muslim, or exposed to their texts/TV shows/Radio broadcasts/etc.

My parents (both atheists themselves) decided before I was born that they were not going to indoctrinate me into any religion or superstition. That's not to say that I was not aware of these things - At school we were required by law to participate in a daily act of Christian worship, and of course such myths as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were endemic in society in 1970s England, and my parents made no attempt to obstruct my access to information about these things in any way - but they were always scrupulously honest with me and my siblings, and never told me that these things were real - only that some people think that they are real.

It wasn't until quite late in my life - about the age of 9 or 10 - that it really sunk in to me that some ADULTS believed any of this religion stuff. I figured that the Jesus character, like Santa, was just a pretense that adults indulged in to keep their children in line - Don't be naughty or Santa won't bring you presents; Don't be bad or you won't go to heaven.

I still find it passing strange that grown people still haven't worked out that it's all just make-believe.

My only interest in religion is to care about the negative influence it has on the society in which I must live. I think about Gods only when debating their existence in fora such as this one; And I have always been aware of them as purely fictional constructs - there are no real Gods, just as there's no real man in the moon, or Jack frost, or Santa. They exist as metaphors, and are a convenient mechanism to impart ethical behaviour to children - and to limit their questioning without having to admit ignorance (and thereby risk loss of power over them).

It is completely understandable to me how someone born and raised in a community where almost all adults really believe in a God, would come to think that belief was something people are born with; But even a fairly cursory examination of societies where God belief is not dominant - or where multiple incompatible God beliefs are common - should be sufficient to show that this cannot actually be the case.

As a teenager, and as a young adult, I was asked many times, by people of various faiths, to examine their religion - with the expectation that doing so would lead me to convert to their belief. But every time, an examination of the religion showed its core tenets to be nonsensical. In my experience, the bits of religion that are worth keeping (the best of the ethical and social rules) can be derived without reference to any Gods; and the core teachings (the information about who God is, what He wants, why He wants it, and why I should care) are an illogical mess of contradictory nonsense, that invariably is invalidated by observation of the real world, and frequently is invalidated by other parts of the same religion's teachings.

I have no recollection of ever believing in any God or Gods; Nor of ever being asked to abandon my faith (quite the reverse, I have frequently been asked - and occasionally TOLD - to take up a faith); Nor of ever deciding to give up on my faith of my own accord. I have no more abandoned belief in any God than I have departed from Beijing - I have never been to Beijing at all.

I can understand how someone who was born and raised in Beijing might have the misapprehension that everyone was born in Beijing, and that those who don't live there now must have left at some time. But clearly that would be a mistake - just as clearly as it would be a mistake to imagine that everyone - or even most people - was born believing in a God. The evidence says otherwise - unless you are restricted to examining only a very small patch of the world, where everyone you know is a native Beijinger.

 

[Philos]

DR Z,

A core function of philosophy is questioning our own beliefs. I do not see that as a core function of Christianity, unless it is to question any beliefs that do not support Christianity.

A.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DR Z,

A core function of philosophy is questioning our own beliefs. I do not see that as a core function of Christianity, unless it is to question any beliefs that do not support Christianity.

A.

I fall back on sociological definitions of religion. What those theories have in common is that they focus on religions functionally. What is it that religious people do when they are religioning, and why. I think the function of religion is to manage our emotions. They're not about learning the truth or gaining great insights into the reality of the universe. I think their only function is to be an emotional support, to give us strength to do great things. Compare it with how athletes prepare for competition. It's a lot of mental trickery in order to perform better. I think that is all religion is. I think it's possible to believe in God emotionally while being an atheist rationally. I see no conflict.

With my definition of religion Christianity's, and Islam's insistence on believing the right thing becomes absurd.

 

[another1]

For all I know, some people might be born believing in Gods of one kind or another, but all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Children are spititual no matter what. They have a certain energy that is sapped out by the time they're using language and whatnot.

people rarely believe in Gods unless told about those Gods by others; Nobody grows up in a 100% Buddhist village, and then suddenly becomes a Muslim or a Christian without having first been approached by a Christian or a Muslim, or exposed to their texts/TV shows/Radio broadcasts/etc.

I've never been to a village like that but children are the same anywhere. There is a slap-happy kind of belief in something strange and magic no matter what. It is stripped away quickly but you'll notice that before they become aware of any Religion or faith they are already very strange. It doesn't matter what they fall into after eveything is stripped away from them. They had it to begin with, so it isn't hard to turn them into believers once they believe life is a certain way. As for changing their belief I don't see that as a hard thing to do, as long as it is something completely off the wall and insane. I know plenty of satanists who live by a stricter moral code than anyone else. They may as well be Christians and they aren't happy to hear that chemically they worship the same God as any other Religious person.

My parents (both atheists themselves) decided before I was born that they were not going to indoctrinate me into any religion or superstition. That's not to say that I was not aware of these things - At school we were required by law to participate in a daily act of Christian worship, and of course such myths as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were endemic in society in 1970s England, and my parents made no attempt to obstruct my access to information about these things in any way - but they were always scrupulously honest with me and my siblings, and never told me that these things were real - only that some people think that they are real

.

Right, my parents were exactly the same. Family members intervened with Jesus and my parents made sure I lived in my own reality for as long as they could. But reality swallows people and it is impossible to live in your own, separate reality. Eventually something gets ahold of everyone. Most of my life is was spent in staunch disbelief, which I believe stirs the same parts of the brain as the opposite. I've seen nothing to prove or disprove this, but that is what I think. I'm aware of two chemicals in the brain. That is all I know about. I think they light up the same spot, and that is essentially where God lives. Zap it with some electricity for the love of God. Figure out how to shut it down, right? It definitely needs to be put in check. Whole lot of bs over nothing.

I figured that the Jesus character, like Santa, was just a pretense that adults indulged in to keep their children in line - Don't be naughty or Santa won't bring you presents; Don't be bad or you won't go to heaven.

Yeah, that holds my society together. I don't know about anywhere else but right or wrong that is how things are. For all I know these people convince themselves that they are going to Heaven, and when they die they DO go to Heaven. It all may happen in the mind, and shortly before death they slip away into the illusion they created their whole lives. God or no, there could still be a Heaven. It may be the right thing with the wrong reasons.

I still find it passing strange that grown people still haven't worked out that it's all just make-believe.

I find that strange, too. Anyone I bother to speak with hasn't "worked that out" yet. Most people are working it out as disbelievers. Most of my life was spent in total disdain of Religion until I started thinking that my energy was being wasted, and it was essentially the same, no matter what I think. Like, yes there is no God, and yes there is God right there. It is a part of life no matter what. I was sending my grievances to the same letterbox people prayed to. There is probably a way to prove this in neurology, and that was my main point when I took the time to post. I fully agree that any impression of God is wrong. I see a brain phenomenon that occurs without the help of magic. But it is a real phenomenon.

My only interest in religion is to care about the negative influence it has on the society in which I must live.

Well that is decent of you.

I think about Gods only when debating their existence in forums such as this one; And I have always been aware of them as purely fictional constructs - there are no real Gods, just as there's no real man in the moon, or Jack frost, or Santa.

Pretty deep, and probably brings you closer to an actual God than a thousand Sundays in Church. Who knows? God probably likes people who know he is full of shit. Either way, God thrives in our world because people question it too much. People aren't allowed to think when they are kids. Even I was forced into a certain way of thinking when I was in my teens. It was inescapable in my life, once I started thinking that thinking is the actual point. What I thought about was what became real. My only interest was in "the negative influence it has on the society in which I must live". Then it was thinking about thinking, which always came back to the same chemicals, which I believe cause the same mind state - even if they seem to be polar opposites.

I have no recollection of ever believing in any God or Gods; Nor of ever being asked to abandon my faith (quite the reverse, I have frequently been asked - and occasionally TOLD - to take up a faith); Nor of ever deciding to give up on my faith of my own accord. I have no more abandoned belief in any God than I have departed from Beijing - I have never been to Beijing at all.

Then for all you know Beijing isn't there at all. I was raised to not care at all, but it just didn't turn out that way. I probably would have been better off if I were raised in a vacuum, devoid of any spititual meaning. I would have made up my own tics and habits. Those tics and habits would light up the same area of the brain I'm referring to. I think the energy I put out will always end up in Beijing, huh.

I can understand how someone who was born and raised in Beijing might have the misapprehension that everyone was born in Beijing, and that those who don't live there now must have left at some time. But clearly that would be a mistake - just as clearly as it would be a mistake to imagine that everyone - or even most people - was born believing in a God. The evidence says otherwise - unless you are restricted to examining only a very small patch of the world, where everyone you know is a native Beijinger.

Are you sure that Beijinjg is there? I was born in West Virginia. I'm pretty sure that West Virginia is there/here. Like you I'll never go to Beijiing because it sounds disgusting. I was raised believing that Geography books are right. Most of the people around me agree that Beijiing is out there. But who knows? They believe in God, too. For all I know everything is an elaborate illusion once I cross the West Virginia border. In my life there may be no place other than West Virginia. All other places are definitely disgusting. But yes I understand what you were trying to say there.

 

[ronburgundy]

Zoidberg is correctly recognizing that there is an objective and even scientific difference between what you are talking about, which is basically social labels and whether one is recognized by others as technically belonging to a particular group versus accurately identifying the contents of one's sincere beliefs and attitudes. Going to Church is closer to just circling "Christian" on a survey form than it is to actually holding a particular set of beliefs tied to Christian doctrine.

Saying that you are a Christian doesn't make you one in the belief sense any more than saying you are a butterfly makes you an actual butterfly. Contrary to the rampant misuse of the phrase "No True Scotsman", what one actually sincerely believes is a neccessary feature in determining whether one is a Christian in any meaningful psychological sense of the word, beyond wanting to utter "I am Christian" because of the social response it gets.

A valid analogy would be the phrase "Libertarian". There is a huge difference (in fact almost no relation) between being a formal member of the Libertarian party and saying "I am a libertarian" versus actually holding beliefs and values that cohere with an identifiable set of principles we can refer to as a libertarian philosophy.
Likewise, a conservative can utter the phrase "I am for small government" because they want to be thought of a belonging to that group "small government", even if their actual beliefs and values are not all about small government but rather a large intrusive authoritarian government that simply doesn't do anything to protect the poor against abuses by the rich.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If there isn't an objective criteria (that works and we can agree on) to judge whether somebody is Christian or not, then it is subjective.

Just because we won't all agree on a criterion doesn't mean that there won't be groups of people who do. Each group will of course disagree with other groups. Since agreement can only be among a subset of all human beings, i.e. groups, this apply to pretty much everything we can possibly disagree about and that includes science. So either everything is subjective or everything is objective.

Or both.

Being Christian is not so different from being a member of a club. I'm not clear why that could possibly be purely subjective.

If it is subjective then it is meaningless.

My ideas are undoubtedly entirely subjective and I can assure you they are not meaningless to me. If they are meaningless to other people it's probably bad for them, not for me.

Possibly, you are echoing the habit of materialist ideologues who want to insist that if you can't measure it, it's somehow meaningless. I see this attitude as totalitarian. But, hey, it's just my idea so it must be meaningless. But then, this is precisely why this attitude is totalitarian, as you can basically deny meaning to whatever other people are trying to say as soon as it's not somehow measurable.

If it is meaningless we can and should ignore anything anybody says about Christianity, or spoken from the perspective of a Christian.

We're not going to do that, are we?

I think there's an unsupported assumption here that somebody who is Christian is necessarily talking with a Christian perspective. My guess is that most people are essentially parroting the ideologies that influence them. In the case of Christianity, people learn the Catechism so parroting is made exceedingly easy and even tempting. But this doesn't mean everything they say will be so tainted, including when talking about Christianity or the Church.

Furthermore, we are human beings and ignoring what other people say is not so easy and possibly not for us to decide. And I don't mean God here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We can't because we are designed to recognize and react to difference. Putting that aside is something philosophers need to do. Unfortunately there is philosophical study of religion so philosopher's aren't going to put aside tribalism in interpretation. That being the case, maybe we should first establish what being tribal by nature means.

Someone here wrote Christians are different from other religions. Can the one who said that flesh out what she means.

Christianity and Islam is unique in that they care about what the believer thinks. Most gods can't read minds. All the other gods (including the Jewish God) only cares about what the religious person does. The god wants sacrifices, or that the correct magical words are said, or it's more like a smorgasbord of guidance the believer can pick from, for their own benefit. Most gods are largely indifferent toward humans. We have to make an effort to be noticed and get favour. Or make an effort to offend them. Most religion's god concepts are formulated in a way that they can be interpreted metaphorically if you like, and the meaning is intact. Their holy texts are written on many different levels at once.

That's what's so funny about calling other religions for "faiths" or "beliefs". You've already loaded the dice with the question.

Christianity and Islam are perhaps the least sophisticated religions ever devised.

The philosophy of Christianity is to posit an all powerful God whose function is to accomplish this incredible miracle of resuscitating the faithful at some point in the future. Almightiness allows for simplicity. Once you have an all powerful God there's really no need to explain anything. God will resuscitate you just because He can, and He can just because He is almighty. Of course, the Church needs you to love the Church so if you want to be resuscitated you really need to go to church, just to show that you love God. And that's it. So being Christian is to attend church to show you love God so that you can be sure to be resuscitated. The rest is accessory and essentially cultural.

Now, your point about belief may perhaps explain that parallel to the simple philosophical scheme I just outlined, there's been a secondary but very strong development of the theology, which has become very sophisticated but that only the priesthood need to be interested in. The explanation is that once the early Church had somehow opted for a relatively strong requirement on belief by comparison to other religions, then belief takes on a life of its own. It becomes the focus of interest and communication between priests, it becomes a bargaining chip between members of the high clergy, it becomes the currency by which to decide who is going to lead the Church. It may also work as a substitute for the middle ranks of the priesthood, who have to forfeit their right to a normal life, give up on feeling they are a member of the civil society, especially since they have to give up on married life. Theology works then as a substitue for the culture that comes with taking part to the life of the city. It's a fantasy to occupy the mind of the priest and stop him feeling cut off from the real life. And there's a need for that so it develops until it becomes too complicated and absurd. And there would be no purpose asking ordinary Christians to take an interest in that.
EB