There’s lots of news about the Pew Forum report, especially the data concerning religious mobility in America. The NY Times says that “If shifts among Protestant denominations are included, then it appears that 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations.”
What these data really imply is that religious belief is essentially a matter of personal taste.
Which in turn implies that religious doctrine is less a reflection of the reality that God wrought than of wishful thinking.
Well, I’m not so convinced. The data may be fine, but the implication you draw seems a bit under-supported.
It was once fashionable to denigrate choice of religion on the grounds that we just believed what we were taught to believe. (By the way, I think this is often true, and is good reason to take care that we teach our children both well and accurately, by word and more importantly by example). The implication was that it was more about tribalism than truth, and thus the arguments could and should be discounted.
Now, with data that suggests a fluidity not expected by that theory, the theory is advanced that religion is not about truth but personal taste, and doctrine therefore may be discounted; the evidence being that people switch affiliations.
It seems “people staying put” and “people not staying put” are both used as support for the idea that their religious beliefs are not a reflection of truth, or a search for, or a desire for it.
At least in my quick read of the report, I see no data speaking to the “Why” of the changes, simply the reality of them. It could be as easily a flight from wishful thinking toward hard-edged sound doctrine (as that person defines it) as a flight towards wishful thinking. I’m not arguing that this is so, only that the data presented appears silent on that point. Many could be fed up with doctrine that believes itself true in an absolute sense, and prefer easy answers by feel-good motivational speakers, or it could be the converse.
Religious choice may indeed be a matter of personal taste, but such is not supported by the results I read. I could also be a matter of personal conviction, even if I disagree with those convictions, or a number of other theories.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t understand your reasons for “what these data really imply…” It would seem that such certainty cannot come from this study, as it seems silent on this point, and must be imported from a prior conviction.
Eric, the key fact here is that people apparently can change religious beliefs without real-world consequences.
Suppose I were to experience what I believed to be a divine revelation, that touching a hot stove would be pleasurable. If I were to act on that revelation, I would quickly experience real-world consequences.
In contrast, if I were to adopt the belief that Jesus’ death has rescued me from my inherent sinfulness, or that I should baptize my ancestors by proxy in imitation of the Mormons, there would be no discernible real-world consequences, at least no material ones.
You defeat your own argument when you say that “[i]t could be as easily a flight from wishful thinking toward hard-edged sound doctrine (as that person defines it) as a flight toward wishful thinking” (emphasis added). If hard-edged sound doctrine is in the eye of the beholder, then it’s a matter of personal taste, Q.E.D.
D.C., I certainly appreciate the distinction you make between truth, and ones opinion of truth. I think (as I believe you do) that that distinction is vital. I don’t remember the source or the exact quote, you may, but something to the point that we should hold the Truth tightly, and our opinions of the truth lightly. Sounds like GK Chesterton.
I made a distinction between taste and truth. There are quite a few things I assert because I believe them true, even though I find them unpalatable, and wish they were not. Damnation is such. For “taste” I would include (along with style, music and a host of other things) doctrine that makes me feel good, or that I wish to be true. Of course actual truth is not in the eye of the beholder, but different people can pursue truth in preference to taste even though they do not yet agree as to what that truth is. This is essentially how I see you vis-a-vie myself, and is the basis for the respect with which I regard you.
My point was that while some may, in my dichotomy, move in preference to their taste, others may move because they believe the doctrine more true, and that it matters.
I would also agree that a doctrine that produces no effect is not worth disagreeing about. I often wonder, in respect to the “filioque” just what real world consequence hangs on it. But Bishop C. Fitzsimmons Allison’s book “The Cruelty of Heresy” convinced me that how we understand God defines what/who we actually worship, and through that worship become imitators of. I think my doctrine actually does have real-world consequences. My re-marriage after divorce (to the same woman) is almost purely the fruit of a doctrinal root –doctrinal, not church discipline. I intend to write more on that some other time.
Some real world consequences are immediate, such as your example of a hot stove. These things we learn at a young age. Others, such as the inadvisability of creative accounting, the negative consequences are more removed. Other real consequences may be still further removed without becoming unreal. In order to avoid those consequences, sometimes even paid by others, we try to instill character in our children. We do this in the hope that they choose well because it is right and true; not just that it avoids pain.
I can see that there are no real-world consequences such as loss of social standing, income, respect, all that sort of thing, unless you are running for president! and I think we are better that it is so. But I don’t think that is quite what you mean. I do think it matters in the non-material aspects of our life, and would argue that those are the more important aspects. Further, I think they are of immense importance eternally. Not that we will have to pass a celestial exam, but am I willing to be united to the truth as it actually is, not as I believe it to be. I see that as a challenging thought to all of us with strong opinions, myself no less than you.
The center of my objection still remains for me: on what basis do you see that this fluidity in religious belief is due to simple taste, and not a search for truth? At least according to the study, and as I have defined the terms truth and taste, it could be either, or something else. If I understood you correctly, it is the seeming lack of real-world consequences that convinces you that it is for personal taste. Now, knowing something of human nature by virtue of being one, I don’t disagree too strongly. But I don’t think it supported by the facts in evidence, only by a general opinion of human nature.
Leave a Reply