• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Belief and identity

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I'm in favour of secular government, but if you mean atheistic political theories they certainly lack narratives that can account for all the variation in human behaviour. There's a kind of chicken and egg question in there, as in are the narratives that support today's civilisations there because they proved to be effective, or are they just effective because people have accepted them.

"Usually when someone challenges beliefs it is on the basis of a new identity that is forming, and identities are supported by communities which share that identity."​

My point was that pure secularism has no robust identity, and is therefore unable to challenge religions (which involve robust identities). Pure secularism is essentially about negative identities--things that are not held.

For example, the New Atheists want to claim a very thin definition of atheism ("lack belief in deities"). Now if and insofar as that thin identity holds there will be no group cohesion among the New Atheists. Old Atheists were very different, and I would argue that they had thick identities in large part because they wanted to challenge the dynastic power of religion (e.g. Feuerbach, Marx, Comte, Nietzsche...).
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Site Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,468
Tarnaveni
✟864,159.00
Country
Romania
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just for some balance, here’s my story from the non-religious perspective. I never did connect with religion. My family is a mixture of Catholic, Protestant, and some Jewish. My parents weren’t particularly observant. We occasionally attended services on holidays, but not regularly. I went to Bible school for a time. But as I think about it, even at 8 or 9 years old, I had a deep down feeling that Bible stories weren’t much different from fairy tales. I’m apparently one of those people who are simply incapable of any kind of spiritual or supernatural belief. I’m familiar with the concept of the “God” part of the brain. Which most human beings supposedly have. But I guess I’m brain-damaged, and just lack that function. :oldthumbsup:

I don't think any damage is involved.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jayem
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Site Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,468
Tarnaveni
✟864,159.00
Country
Romania
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Usually when someone challenges beliefs it is on the basis of a new identity that is forming, and identities are supported by communities which share that identity."​

My point was that pure secularism has no robust identity, and is therefore unable to challenge religions (which involve robust identities). Pure secularism is essentially about negative identities--things that are not held.

For example, the New Atheists want to claim a very thin definition of atheism ("lack belief in deities"). Now if and insofar as that thin identity holds there will be no group cohesion among the New Atheists. Old Atheists were very different, and I would argue that they had thick identities in large part because they wanted to challenge the dynastic power of religion (e.g. Feuerbach, Marx, Comte, Nietzsche...).

By pure secularism do you mean atheism?

Humanism has a decent track record I think but seems to lack the cohesion needed to draw people together. But it could be argued that it's up to individuals to make their own narratives.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,428
7,165
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟425,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

For example, the New Atheists want to claim a very thin definition of atheism ("lack belief in deities"). Now if and insofar as that thin identity holds there will be no group cohesion among the New Atheists. Old Atheists were very different, and I would argue that they had thick identities in large part because they wanted to challenge the dynastic power of religion (e.g. Feuerbach, Marx, Comte, Nietzsche...).

Speaking for myself, who cares about group cohesion? I have no desire to be a part of any movement. And I have no intention whatsoever to “convert” anyone to my way of thinking. I doubt that’s even possible. Once a group becomes organized, it tends to establish doctrines and dogmas that its members are expected to believe. Which is exactly what religion does. I want no part of that.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
By pure secularism do you mean atheism?

I am thinking of the professed value neutrality at the heart of secularism, and the thin identity of the New Atheists is similar to that. Humanists and Old Atheists aren't pure secularists in my opinion. They don't hold to value neutrality. But I agree that Humanists aren't as cohesive as religious groups.

Speaking for myself, who cares about group cohesion?

Europeans who do not want to be conquered by Muslims, for one.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,428
7,165
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟425,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Europeans who do not want to be conquered by Muslims, for one.

Neither do Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religious group. Including non-religious folks like me. Militant expansionism is more about political power than religion.

Besides, by the time such a scenario might occur, China will be the world’s #1 superpower. The Chinese have no love for aggressive Islam. It’ll be time for them to be the global police.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Neither do Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religious group. Including non-religious folks like me. Militant expansionism is more about political power than religion.

Besides, by the time such a scenario might occur, China will be the world’s #1 superpower. The Chinese have no love for aggressive Islam. It’ll be time for them to be the global police.

Who said anything about militant expansionism? Do you think military conquest is the only way to conquer a people? Why not just immigrate to a democratic country, reproduce, and establish a majority?

Militant expansionism is more about political power than religion.

That's a very western idea, not at all universal. There is nothing per se incompatible between militant expansionism and religion, nor is there any intrinsic division between religion and politics.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,428
7,165
74
St. Louis, MO.
✟425,031.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Who said anything about militant expansionism? Do you think military conquest is the only way to conquer a people? Why not just immigrate to a democratic country, reproduce, and establish a majority?

It verges on paranoia if you're really worried that Muslims will become a majority of the US population. But you and I will both be long gone. And anyway, the Muslims won't out-reproduce the Hispanic majority. Which is far and away more likely.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It verges on paranoia if you're really worried that Muslims will become a majority of the US population.

The U.S.? We're talking about the Europeans from post #25. Pay attention, man! :p

Once a group becomes organized, it tends to establish doctrines and dogmas that its members are expected to believe. Which is exactly what religion does. I want no part of that.

Except when a large group becomes organized in a democratic nation those "doctrines and dogmas" are called laws, and they will apply to you too. Democratic citizens should understand the importance of group cohesion better than anyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vap841
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
28,201
19,801
Colorado
✟553,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
....Democratic citizens should understand the importance of group cohesion better than anyone else.
Democracy just cant compete with the ideological excitement stirred up by religions.

Consumerism might have a shot tho.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Democracy just cant compete with the ideological excitement stirred up by religions.

Yes, we have all been taught that democracy is contrary to ideology and demagoguery, haven't we? :D

Plato knew better.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
28,201
19,801
Colorado
✟553,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Yes, we have all been taught that democracy is contrary to ideology and demagoguery, haven't we? :D

Plato knew better.
Thats not related to my point at all, which is: for ideological thrills, democracy is a loser.

To your point, what system of governance do you think can be best shaped to resist demagoguery?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Thats not related to my point at all,

Sure it is.

...which is: for ideological thrills, democracy is a loser.

Again, you seem to think that democracy is incompatible with ideology, or ideological thrills. I'm not sure why you would think that. Hitler's democratic election was based on ideological thrill.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
28,201
19,801
Colorado
✟553,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Again, you seem to think that democracy is incompatible with ideology, or ideological thrills. I'm not sure why you would think that. Hitler's democratic election was based on ideological thrill.
Incompatible? Did I say that? I only said its weaker than the alternatives.

Hitlers election was the perfect example of democracy suiciding itself in favor of something more thrilling.

Again: what system of governance do you think can be best shaped to resist demagoguery?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Incompatible? Did I say that? I only said its weaker than the alternatives.

Your posts seem to imply the idea that democracy is somehow opposed to ideology. For example, you claimed that consumerism can compete with the ideological excitement of religion but democracy cannot. The idea there is that democracy wants to compete with ideological excitement but finds itself unable to do so. Hence you are claiming that democracy is subverted by the foreign power of ideology. My point is that ideology and demagoguery are not foreign or unnatural to democracy.

Hitlers election was the perfect example of democracy suiciding itself in favor of something more thrilling.

Presumably if the democratic elections in Hitler's favor had continued it would have been democracy, not suicide, no? It's not clear to me why the democratic election of a demagogue would be thought to be anomalous.

Again: what system of governance do you think can be best shaped to resist demagoguery?

One not based on the demos. :D

Really anything. A system based on class or blood or education or wealth would be less susceptible to the kind of widespread ideology and demagoguery found in democracies. Democracy takes the person most susceptible to ideology--the common man--and makes him the king. In the modern world it creates a system where the powerful are fueled by ideology and opinion-manipulation, and they are just the ones with the wealth and power to procure that fuel.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
28,201
19,801
Colorado
✟553,001.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Your posts seem to imply the idea that democracy is somehow opposed to ideology. For example, you claimed that consumerism can compete with the ideological excitement of religion but democracy cannot. The idea there is that democracy wants to compete with ideological excitement but finds itself unable to do so. Hence you are claiming that democracy is subverted by the foreign power of ideology. My point is that ideology and demagoguery are not foreign or unnatural to democracy.
No. Just that the ideology behind democracy itself is weaker and less tittilating than the fervor that can develop around a theocracy or a hero-strongman who can brush aside fussy democratic institutional roadblocks.

Presumably if the democratic elections in Hitler's favor had continued it would have been democracy, not suicide, no? It's not clear to me why the democratic election of a demagogue would be thought to be anomalous.
Haha, yes, if democracy could have survived the rise of the hero strongman then we could say it was stronger in that case.

One not based on the demos. :D

Really anything. A system based on class or blood or education or wealth would be less susceptible to the kind of widespread ideology and demagoguery found in democracies. Democracy takes the person most susceptible to ideology--the common man--and makes him the king. In the modern world it creates a system where the powerful are fueled by ideology and opinion-manipulation, and they are just the ones with the wealth and power to procure that fuel.
Exactly. The demos is susceptible to ideological temptations that undermine democracy itself. Functioning democracies, with all their compromises and fussy checks on power just arent as thrilling as the strongman or strongcleric who can brush all that aside for the sake of a more enticing ideology like the mighty Superstate, or workers utopia, or a closer political walk with God.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
58
Center
✟73,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Interested in people's thoughts about how belief is supported by identity and vice versa.

Some definitions:

I'd rather not get sidetracked into discussions of what belief means, so belief for this thread just means what you happen to think is true.

Identity - for this discussion everything that contributes to what you think about the world, where you were born, what your parents believed, your education and so on.

Some basics:

Where we are born clearly has an influence on what religion we might tend towards. I'm more interested in questions of identity and belief on a more personal level. To what degree do you think people are influenced by the beliefs of their parents, and by their level of education, and in what way? What kinds of things reinforce or weaken those beliefs?

There are many different Christian denominations. While there are some shared beliefs there are also varying degrees to which people firmly believe their denomination's particular teachings are the right ones. No church teaches 'only the bible' - every reading of the bible is an interpretation, and no church's teachings represent some universally objective true reading of the text. This being the case, what are the degrees of relevance of identity with the group vs conviction through argument or understanding?

To me it seems that people often identify with a particular denomination or set of doctrines for reasons wrapped up in their identity and sense of self, or because of some personal experience, and that arguments used by that denomination are employed more as a form of reassurance or to emotionally bolster something the person has already accepted as true.

Finally, when belief in something is shaken, how does this reconfigure a person's identity? E.g if people sideline doubts to maintain their identity as part of a group, or where a person undergoes a radical change in how they view the world and their own place in it.
It think this is true for 95% of the people in the world. When I was growing up I didn't even know there was such a thing as Islam or Buddhism or Shinto. Everyone I knew was a Christian and there just wasn't any thought of being anything else. Most people were racist and looked down on "colored people".

But man has free will. He does not have to be shaped by his environment. I'm a good example of it. I have rejected most of what I was taught growing up and in early adulthood. It can be done. It's hard and I think that's why most just accept what they are taught. I've come to understand that this is because they are concrete bound, stuck at the perceptual level of consciousness. They are fine as long as everyone they know thinks the same thing as they do.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0

Hazelelponi

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
11,975
11,361
USA
✟1,066,201.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Interested in people's thoughts about how belief is supported by identity and vice versa.

Some definitions:

I'd rather not get sidetracked into discussions of what belief means, so belief for this thread just means what you happen to think is true.

Identity - for this discussion everything that contributes to what you think about the world, where you were born, what your parents believed, your education and so on.

Some basics:

Where we are born clearly has an influence on what religion we might tend towards. I'm more interested in questions of identity and belief on a more personal level. To what degree do you think people are influenced by the beliefs of their parents, and by their level of education, and in what way? What kinds of things reinforce or weaken those beliefs?

1) I think people are influenced by their parents belief-sets to a large degree just by being surrounded by it from birth. Because they were intimately taught it from a young age, memorized it, shown it as a lifestyle.

2) I don't think education has a large impact on faith, although those with a higher education may have different opinions on things such as how evolutionary processes were a part of, and built into God's creation, versus those who are less educated.

3) Society at large can serve to reinforce someone's belief, and it can cause people to question it. Those who question it often are stronger for the questions through the answers they find.

There are many different Christian denominations. While there are some shared beliefs there are also varying degrees to which people firmly believe their denomination's particular teachings are the right ones. No church teaches 'only the bible' - every reading of the bible is an interpretation, and no church's teachings represent some universally objective true reading of the text. This being the case, what are the degrees of relevance of identity with the group vs conviction through argument or understanding?

I'm not sure I understand what exactly your asking here.

To me it seems that people often identify with a particular denomination or set of doctrines for reasons wrapped up in their identity and sense of self, or because of some personal experience, and that arguments used by that denomination are employed more as a form of reassurance or to emotionally bolster something the person has already accepted as true

I can't say for me personally that I agree with you here. For me, my identity is wrapped in Christ, and the denomination is secondary to that. I don't feel tied to the denomination, it's just the group I most agree with, what I'm tied to as an identity, is Christ.

Finally, when belief in something is shaken, how does this reconfigure a person's identity? E.g if people sideline doubts to maintain their identity as part of a group, or where a person undergoes a radical change in how they view the world and their own place in it.

As someone who converted to Christianity (not born), I can say it turns everything upside down. It's major. It takes a while to feel settled into the new set of beliefs and requires much careful study, while at the same time, your forced to do so rather quickly, because unknowns frequently occur in the beginning that must be well understood. So it's a race to learn and understand everything fast.

I don't know how to describe it outside of that really, other than these are major changes and your entire worldview changes, turning all you previously believed on it's head.

In reading some of the posts in the thread it is perhaps, that I misunderstood your entire line of questioning.. I apologize for this, you can probably just ignore me..
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Site Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,468
Tarnaveni
✟864,159.00
Country
Romania
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure I understand what exactly your asking here.

I was just wondering whether people are drawn to certain types of churches because of a connection with their sense of identity, preferring one way of worshipping over another for personal rather than theological reasons, things like that.

In reading some of the posts in the thread it is perhaps, that I misunderstood your entire line of questioning.. I apologize for this, you can probably just ignore me..

No not at all, your comments are interesting and useful, thanks.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,774
3,916
✟307,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No. Just that the ideology behind democracy itself is weaker and less tittilating than the fervor that can develop around a theocracy or a hero-strongman who can brush aside fussy democratic institutional roadblocks.

Okay, but what if a democratic nation elects the same hero-strongman every four years? In that case you have a conjunction of the two things.

Exactly. The demos is susceptible to ideological temptations that undermine democracy itself.

Why think that ideology needs undermine democracy?

Functioning democracies, with all their compromises and fussy checks on power...

Why do you think there is a necessary connection between democracy and checks on power?

All along it has felt like you are using a definition of democracy that is off. So yes, if democracy is supposed to check the power of leaders, then the "hero-strongman" is incompatible with democracy. I just don't see where in the definition of democracy that check occurs. Sure, the hero must be re-elected on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean the voters need to check his power or vote him out.

...just arent as thrilling as the strongman or strongcleric who can brush all that aside for the sake of a more enticing ideology like the mighty Superstate, or workers utopia, or a closer political walk with God.

I don't see how democratic socialism is an oxymoron. The demos could decide in favor of a superstate, or a workers utopia, or a strongman, etc.
 
Upvote 0