Christian value confusion

[Jack of Spades]

This study was published last year, it's about changes of opinion on a value question among major religious groups during 5 years time period:

Spoiler

In 5 years period of time, Christian groups have changed their answer 42%(!), 22% and 16%. The religiously unaffiliated 3%. The 3% change of non-religious could be actually explainable by factors like generational replacement without anyone actually changing their mind in 5 years.

Because all the groups were exposed to the same campaigning and news coverage, it seems to me like Christian value commitments are by far much more superficial and more likely to flip around with political trends, while the values of religious nones (atheists, apatheists, spiritual-not-religious etc) are deeply held and remain unchanged under such political pressure.

Also, Christians typically claim to have absolute values. To both claim to have absolute values and yet have more shaky values than the people who don't even claim that, is a double-failure.

I think that the conclusion here appears to be that the Christian value system does not in practice create the kind of people who actually have deeply held, let alone absolute, values. Quite contrary, it appears to work the opposite way and create people who's values are easily shaken by political trends, far more so than the values held by non-religious people.


Please note: The question is neither about whom people intend to vote, nor it's a hot political issue - question. It's a timeless value question, whatever someone answers to that, would be true for an ancient Roman Emperor as well as for 21th century president.

 

[Near]

Because all the groups were exposed to the same campaigning and news coverage, it seems to me like Christian value commitments are by far much more superficial and more likely to flip around with political trends, while the values of religious nones (atheists, apatheists, spiritual-not-religious etc) are deeply held and remain unchanged under such political pressure.

Also, Christians typically claim to have absolute values. To both claim to have absolute values and yet have more shaky values than the people who don't even claim that, is a double-failure.

I think that the conclusion here appears to be that the Christian value system does not in practice create the kind of people who actually have deeply held, let alone absolute, values. Quite contrary, it appears to work the opposite way and create people who's values are easily shaken by political trends, far more so than the values held by non-religious people.

I don't think you can conclude that Christian value commitments are superficial or loose based off the study.
Let's say X is the percentage of the groups who say "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life."
I don't see how X would therefore say that Christian value commitments, universally or traditionally, are superficial and loose. It could say that those who identify as Christian believe that an immoral act in the life of a person doesn't prevent them from doing a good job in life, and profession overall. Perhaps they just believe in redemption, and are forgiving of past transgressions, and are willing to think that perhaps the elected official, or candidate can do a good job having turned a new leaf. I don't see the implication you've described at all.

As for the Christians' claim of absolute values, I don't see a double failure here. It hasn't been established that Christians' have shaky values and even if they (the ones who responded to the survey) did, it wouldn't suggest that biblical truths proclaimed long ago aren't true, nor does it say that we think our own views on morals are subjective and not rooted in scripture.

Nothing in the survey ought to conclude anything about the Christian value system as a whole, since it's not wrong to think that a person can turn a new leaf and do a good job, and that people interviewed don't influence an ancient religions core dogma even if they were to give traditional responses.

 

[Near]

Oh, and I didn't even mention how it the poll targets 2 subgroups of a subgroup, and all of Catholicism. It says nothing about Asian, Black, Mexican evangelical or mainline protestant groups.
The headline says, "White Evangelicals grow more accepting of Politicians' Personal Indiscretions".
White Evangelicals don't define orthodox doctrine on morals, and the claims you've made simply don't follow from what's learned from the study. If anything they only speak for white people who are of those subgroups. I find it kinda funny how there's an emphasis on "White" in that study.
Christianity isn't the problem... maybe it's just white people. Sorry whities!
(I jest, please pardon that last satirical line.)
I ain't white

 

[Jack of Spades]

I don't think you can conclude that Christian value commitments are superficial or loose based off the study.

The point is not which way they answered, yes or no. The point is that so many people answered the different way after 5 years. If your values are clear and absolute, you're supposed to answer the same way to the same question.

If 42% of a group changes their mind about their values in 5 years, chances are that their commitments were very confused to begin with. If the same group markets itself by saying that they have absolute values, that is also hypocritical. (The dictionary definition of hypocrisy being "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case".)

Nothing in the survey ought to conclude anything about the Christian value system as a whole, since it's not wrong to think that a person can turn a new leaf and do a good job, and that people interviewed don't influence an ancient religions core dogma even if they were to give traditional responses.

In theory yes, but in practice it doesn't work. What theoretically absolute values are worth if they don't work that way in practice?

For comparison, think of communism. Communists say that Pol Pot and Stalin were not real communists and that is partially correct, but it's nevertheless a failure of communism itself that people like Stalin and Pol Pot were so often able to raise to power, because communism put so much trust in the ruling party and had no effective mechanisms to check the party leaders power. What it's worth that theoretically communism is for equality and freedom if it in practice ends up in tyranny?

When one has high ideals, but they fail to work in practice, that suggests that there are some major flaws somewhere in those ideals.

Oh, and I didn't even mention how it the poll targets 2 subgroups of a subgroup, and all of Catholicism. It says nothing about Asian, Black, Mexican evangelical or mainline protestant groups.

If anything they only speak for white people who are of those subgroups. I find it kinda funny how there's an emphasis on "White" in that study.
Christianity isn't the problem... maybe it's just white people. Sorry whities!
(I jest, please pardon that last satirical line.)
I ain't white

Majority of US non-religious people are white:

“Nones” on the Rise

Because white evangelicals answer so differently than largely white religious nones, this is clearly not about race.

While white evangelicals make the headline, all three polled Christian groups show the same phenomenon when compared to the religiously unaffiliated. I would imagine that Catholics, mainline protestants and white evangelicals all put together do represent the majority of US Christians.

 

[Near]

The point is not which way they answered, yes or no. The point is that so many people answered the different way after 5 years. If your values are clear and absolute, you're supposed to answer the same way to the same question.

I haven't been able to find the exact chart from PRRI, but your statement doesn't follow from the phenomena of people changing their minds on a subject.

"An elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life."
Let's say they answered yes, or no, according to you it doesn't matter.
Here's my interpretation of what you conclude, "since they changed that must mean ... that Christian values as a whole, from the time of Jesus, all the way up til today, are not clear or absolute."
If that's what you mean, I'll just say that l see no reason to think that, it doesn't logically follow at all. I think you're missing a few premises. I'd say your conclusion doesn't seem to be relevant towards the study. So what if people change their minds about whether or not politicians can serve? That doesn't say anything about an ancient value system, all it might say is that people have grown to be more forgiving. It doesn't seem to state anything about values apart from forgiveness. All I can say is that it looks like many individuals who are white and Christian have become more forgiving in recent times.

If 42% of a group changes their mind about their values in 5 years, chances are that their commitments were very confused to begin with.

What commitments were confused to begin with, and what do you mean by "to begin with"?
Are you referring to 2000 years ago across countries and peoples, or just White-Christian America?

If the same group markets itself by saying that they have absolute values, that is also hypocritical.

So being more forgiving means being hypocritical? I don't see what you mean.

In theory yes, but in practice it doesn't work. What theoretically absolute values are worth if they don't work that way in practice?

So, if I used to be a drunkard, I can't possibly turn a new leaf and be a better man and have a good job? huh... I don't think you're right. I know of plenty of people who've had flaws who have done well at work.

When one has high ideals, but they fail to work in practice, that suggests that there are some major flaws somewhere in those ideals.

Are we still referring to the original study? How have they failed to work in practice, and why is the fault not on the people, but the ideals themselves? If I ideally would like to be a very honest person but for some reason or another, am not, does that mean the ideal of being a very honest person is flawed? Nothing seems to logically follow.

Majority of US non-religious people are white:

“Nones” on the Rise

Because white evangelicals answer so differently than largely white religious nones, this is clearly not about race.

While white evangelicals make the headline, all three polled Christian groups show the same phenomenon when compared to the religiously unaffiliated. I would imagine that Catholics, mainline protestants and white evangelicals all put together do represent the majority of US Christians.

Actually 2 of the christian groups were indicated as being white, and Catholics were included in addition to that. I don't think a change of mind on the subject indicated reveals anything about the orthodox belief system. I was actually poking fun at the fact that of those christian groups, "white" was targeted, but perhaps being both white and christian increases the likelihood of changing one's mind due to identifying with conservative media, fox news, or InfoWars both of which have prominent white individuals. Still, this is a lesser issue, and my main point is that most of what you said doesn't logically follow.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I haven't been able to find the exact chart from PRRI, but your statement doesn't follow from the phenomena of people changing their minds on a subject.

The chart can be found here:

Clinton maintains double-digit (51% vs. 36%) lead over Trump | PRRI/Brookings Survey | PRRI

If that's what you mean, I'll just say that l see no reason to think that, it doesn't logically follow at all.

In my opinion it follows, and my belief is that you simply fail to see the logic.

X claims to have absolute values.
X changes his mind about a value question.
X has just proven that his values were not in fact, absolute, not in any meaningful sense.

All I can say is that it looks like many individuals who are white and Christian have become more forgiving in recent times.

Just to be clear, are you seriously suggesting that to be the reason? Like, for real?

So being more forgiving means being hypocritical? I don't see what you mean.

Yeah, if that's the new trend. A decade ago the trend was character, today the trend is forgiveness. That's not solid values, that's fashion trends. People with solid, deep values don't care about such trends and are not so easily convinced to flip-flop.

Are we still referring to the original study? How have they failed to work in practice, and why is the fault not on the people, but the ideals themselves? ....

If I ideally would like to be a very honest person but for some reason or another, am not, does that mean the ideal of being a very honest person is flawed? Nothing seems to logically follow.

At certain point, when the failures are common and consistent enough, the real problem could very well be that your value system as a whole is unrealistic and is a part of the reason for your failure.

No True Scotsman only works so far. Sometimes the problem is trying to put in practice a value system that is dysfunctional or produces unintended results.

...but perhaps being both white and christian increases the likelihood of changing one's mind due to identifying with conservative media, fox news, or InfoWars both of which have prominent white individuals.

That I can agree with. And it's in the line with my point. The Christian value - crew does not have solid values, but are instead at the mercy of what is made fashionable by their media.

 

[Near]

X claims to have absolute values.
X changes his mind about a value question.
X has just proven that his values were not in fact, absolute, not in any meaningful sense.

That doesn't follow, and it seems that your taking that conclusion and applying it universally as proof that the value system as a whole is flawed.

I'll demonstrate your argument with real examples to show how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
1) I believe that adultery is absolutely wrong.
2) However, I change my mind about Trump being able to be president. I used to think he'd be so bad because he was such an immoral guy, but now I think he can do the job.
3) Therefore it must not be true that my value was absolute, or meaningful in any sense.

Premise 1 and 2 are both possible, even at the same time, but there's no reason to think that the conclusion is true based off of those 2 premises.

When I'm referring to Christian values, I'm not referring to personal values, but certain values mentioned in the bible which we may or may not fulfill in our own lives. The standards exist, regardless of whether we meet those standards.
So, that conclusion of yours simply makes no sense.

At certain point, when the failures are common and consistent enough, the real problem could very well be that your value system as a whole is unrealistic and is a part of the reason for your failure.

What does that even look like?
Let's say God commands us not to lie, and people out there lie anyways, therefore the system is unrealistic and part of the reason for failure?
I can't get straight A's, that must mean the grading system is rigged?

That I can agree with. And it's in the line with my point. The Christian value - crew does not have solid values, but are instead at the mercy of what is made fashionable by their media

I didn't know that there was a crew of individuals that decided what values all Christians must adhere to and regard as absolute. It seems to me that you are making similar conclusions derived from a conclusion that doesn't logically follow in the first place, and you seem to misunderstand where Christian values are derived, and the relationship between predetermined standards, and personal choices made by fallible creatures.

Secondly, what does the question in the poll have to do with absolute values in the first place? I don't see it.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'll demonstrate your argument with real examples to show how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
1) I believe that adultery is absolutely wrong.
2) However, I change my mind about Trump being able to be president. I used to think he'd be so bad because he was such an immoral guy, but now I think he can do the job.
3) Therefore it must not be true that my value was absolute, or meaningful in any sense.

Premise 1 and 2 are both possible, even at the same time, but there's no reason to think that the conclusion is true based off of those 2 premises.

False equivalence. That's not the kind of situation that happened in the poll in the OP.

I didn't know that there was a crew of individuals that decided what values all Christians must adhere to and regard as absolute. It seems to me that you are making similar conclusions derived from a conclusion that doesn't logically follow in the first place, and you seem to misunderstand where Christian values are derived, and the relationship between predetermined standards, and personal choices made by fallible creatures.

I'm not interested in some ideal, theoretical version of Christianity, I'm interested in how Christianity exists in the real world, and how it's put in practice by real people. That is the Christianity there actually is and that is the Christianity that ought to be compared to the other world views, as they exist in practice.

In the large scale, the failure of Christians is indeed the failure of Christianity, just like the failure of communists to create the kind of society they said they would create, was indeed the failure of communism itself. If something sounds great, but just fails to work in practice that means it's flawed and unrealistic to begin with.

Secondly, what does the question in the poll have to do with absolute values in the first place? I don't see it.

If you think having shaky values is somehow not a problem when one claims to have absolute values, I can't help you. To me that is a very obvious problem.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Strange that people are still placing faith in polling and statistics after they were shown dramatically in error recently, not only in the US election but also the British referendum on leaving the EU.

We don't have confidence intervals, statistical analysis methods or sufficient data to make any statistivally significant conclusion here, I would wager. After all there are three types of lies: Lies, damned Lies and Statistics.

As such, this is casuistry on moral matters, nothing more.

 

[Near]

False equivalence. That's not the kind of situation that happened in the poll in the OP.

Okay then what happened in the polls?
From what I can tell there was a change of mind about whether or not a politician could do his job despite having done an immoral act in life.

I'm not interested in some ideal, theoretical version of Christianity, I'm interested in how Christianity exists in the real world, and how it's put in practice by real people. That is the Christianity there actually is and that is the Christianity that ought to be compared to the other world views, as they exist in practice.

When referring to Christianity, one is referring to the beliefs(Christ is risen, God made the universe) and prescribed practices (be holy, thou shall not murder, etc).
I think you're referring not to Christianity, but Christians, or at least those who identify as Christians, and their apparent failure somehow demonstrated by their change of opinion, which I really don't see at all.

In the large scale, the failure of Christians is indeed the failure of Christianity, just like the failure of communists to create the kind of society they said they would create, was indeed the failure of communism itself. If something sounds great, but just fails to work in practice that means it's flawed and unrealistic to begin with.

I don't see any reason to blame communism for it's failure. It's a failure of execution.
If I fail to keep the ten commandments, it's not the commandments that are at fault, but me.
The same goes for the rest of the practices taught in Christianity.
Perhaps it's just personal opinion that the failure of individual members is equal to the failure of a belief system. If that's the case quit trying to pass it off as truth for everyone.

If you think having shaky values is somehow not a problem when one claims to have absolute values, I can't help you. To me that is a very obvious problem.

You misunderstand the meaning of what absolute values are.
One can believe in absolute values, i.e lying is wrong, regardless of personal opinion or choices.
Yet a person can chose to lie, thus he himself isn't living up to that standard.
While it's a personal problem, it isn't logically irreconcilable, which is what I was getting at.
It isn't a logical issue, but a personal one. As far as I can tell, I don't think changing answers to the question in the study is a big deal at all. Seems more like a change of attitude and forgiveness if anything. It's not like they all changed their opinions on whether or not stealing is okay.
So, the study isn't all that big of a deal.

 

[juvenissun]

Also, Christians typically claim to have absolute values. To both claim to have absolute values and yet have more shaky values than the people who don't even claim that, is a double-failure.

I definitely have much much more absolute values than you do.
Want to try?
We should not murder. Agree?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is consistent with the predictions of my hypothesis:

Religion is like a parasitic organism (without a host it surely cannot exist) and its ideal environment is an ignorant society. It is dying in our information age.

Two or more religions can form a daughter religion and over time a religion will reproduce itself with variation in a population according to selective pressures (known scientific facts).

This model predicts that many religions should appear spontaneously in ancient history (no selective pressures) despite low population and that religion should go extinct in the near future despite high population.

Another selective pressure resulting in religious evolution is highlighted in the OP.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think you can conclude that Christian value commitments are superficial or loose based off the study.
Let's say X is the percentage of the groups who say "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life."
I don't see how X would therefore say that Christian value commitments, universally or traditionally, are superficial and loose. It could say that those who identify as Christian believe that an immoral act in the life of a person doesn't prevent them from doing a good job in life, and profession overall. Perhaps they just believe in redemption, and are forgiving of past transgressions, and are willing to think that perhaps the elected official, or candidate can do a good job having turned a new leaf. I don't see the implication you've described at all.

As for the Christians' claim of absolute values, I don't see a double failure here. It hasn't been established that Christians' have shaky values and even if they (the ones who responded to the survey) did, it wouldn't suggest that biblical truths proclaimed long ago aren't true, nor does it say that we think our own views on morals are subjective and not rooted in scripture.

Nothing in the survey ought to conclude anything about the Christian value system as a whole, since it's not wrong to think that a person can turn a new leaf and do a good job, and that people interviewed don't influence an ancient religions core dogma even if they were to give traditional responses.

Overall I agree with everything you said, except for the fact that it is moronic to believe anything said by any politician ever for any reason.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This study was published last year, it's about changes of opinion on a value question among major religious groups during 5 years time period:

Spoiler

In 5 years period of time, Christian groups have changed their answer 42%(!), 22% and 16%. The religiously unaffiliated 3%. The 3% change of non-religious could be actually explainable by factors like generational replacement without anyone actually changing their mind in 5 years.

Because all the groups were exposed to the same campaigning and news coverage, it seems to me like Christian value commitments are by far much more superficial and more likely to flip around with political trends, while the values of religious nones (atheists, apatheists, spiritual-not-religious etc) are deeply held and remain unchanged under such political pressure.

Also, Christians typically claim to have absolute values. To both claim to have absolute values and yet have more shaky values than the people who don't even claim that, is a double-failure.

I think that the conclusion here appears to be that the Christian value system does not in practice create the kind of people who actually have deeply held, let alone absolute, values. Quite contrary, it appears to work the opposite way and create people who's values are easily shaken by political trends, far more so than the values held by non-religious people.


Please note: The question is neither about whom people intend to vote, nor it's a hot political issue - question. It's a timeless value question, whatever someone answers to that, would be true for an ancient Roman Emperor as well as for 21th century president.

Why is this surprising? Didn't Jesus indicate there there are some complex psychological processes going on in the heads of each individual who encounters the Gospel? Remember the Parable of the Sower?

And, somehow, we're all surprised at the cognitive fluctuation and diversity among "Christians." It's not surprising to me.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid