• Epicero
    3
    Today, many religious believers (especially in the West with different denominations of Christianity) might fall into the category of what one could call a culturist. This makes what might seem like a subtle distinction between belief in God and belief in belief of God. A culturist wants to be a part of the religious culture. They may have grown up in a specific religion or have many family members or friends pushing them toward the religion. They do not actually believe but instead only think they do. They never assert truth values related to religious propositions or make an effort to understand them. They usually do so out of fear of concluding these propositions false. If they found them false, they would have to forgo their place in the religious culture. Culturists tend to view any doubt of religion or theism as hostile. Their religious culture becomes too close to their identity. They will end up valuing their culture and what is connected to or accompanies their theistic beliefs instead of the theistic belief itself. The argument against such a state goes as follows:

    P1: If one believes A, then one takes A to be true.
    P2: If one takes A to be true, then one will act as if A is true.
    C: Therefore, If one believes A, then one will act as if A is true.

    This argument can be translated into the following:
    If culturists believe in God, then they take God's existence to be true
    If culturists take God's existence to be true, then they will act as if God exists.
    Therefore, If culturists believe in God, then they will act as if God exists.

    Culturists do not act as if God exists. Therefore, culturists do not believe in God. If culturists believed in God's existence, then they would assess and assent to truth propositions they take for granted when claiming belief. Moreover, they would not avoid confrontation or evaluation of their religious beliefs. The truth has nothing to fear from investigation. If they believe in what is true, then there should be no concern from investigators who doubt the religion. There is, however, fear of investigation. Fear that would only exist if they themselves doubted what they believed to be true.
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k
    Can you clarify - can you identify how a 'true believer' would behave and how you can tell if someone believes in god, other than making an inference based on what you believe you have observed?
  • Art48
    477
    My name for Christian culturist is "Jesus fans." The don't actually follow his teaching, but they say he's a really great guy.
  • jgill
    3.9k
    My name for Christian culturist is "Jesus fans." The don't actually follow his teaching, but they say he's a really great guy.Art48

    George W. Bush when asked who was his favorite philosopher answered, "Jesus Christ". Then, I thought, How ridiculous. Now, not so much.
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k
    You're right but that's religion in a nutshell, a community of folk who often know little about their traditions. That's why there are priests and pastors to gatekeep the material.

    But how do we avoid a No True Scotsman fallacy on this?

    I personally hold to the view that a Christian is anyone who believes they are a Christian. No matter how twisted or emasculated the faith might seem to someone else. After all, Christians have counted among their adherents Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu and cheerful members of the KKK. Contradiction and absurdity are every bit as connected to faith traditions as prayer and worship.
  • Baden
    16.3k


    Modern ideologies, religious or otherwise, tend to function like this. They believe for you so you don't have to. There's a sense in which it must be so because the only ideology we really believe in (if you look at our actions, which is the salient point of your OP I think) is capitalism. We act like we believe in capitalism (because we have to) but we don't act like we believe in our ideologies (like religions) because we can't act like good capitalists and act like good believers at the same time. Something must give and since some kind of religion is almost ubiquitous (in its widest form, including New Age stuff, humanism etc) and capitalism is the foundation of our personal security and survival, what must give is the real practice of religion and what stays is its social shell which provides our sense of unity, purpose, belonging and egotistical self-righteousness without interfering too much in our economic functioning. It's a nice neat human solution, i.e. foundational hypocrisy.
  • Art48
    477
    I personally hold to the view that a Christian is anyone who believes they are a Christian.Tom Storm
    Of course, no one has a patent or trademark on the word "Christian" but most self-described "followers" of Jesus don't even know everything Jesus said, much less follow it. Rather, they follow their preachers.

    Two examples.

    1. Matthew 5:33-37 has Jesus in the plainest, strongest terms saying "Don't take oaths." which most "Christians" (i.e., Jesus fans) cheerful ignore, when they testify in court, assume political office, join the armed forces and, if they are schoolchildren in the U.S., daily recite the pledge of allegiance, which is, in fact, an oath. They are fans of Jesus (they think highly of him) but they are followers of their preachers.

    2. But I don't mean to say that everything Jesus says is good, or should be followed. Jesus endorses OT commands about killing a child who curses a parent. This is Jesus speaking.
    • For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Matt 15:4
    • For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Mark 7:10

    In Matthew, 15:1-4 is as follows.

    1Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands before they eat.” 3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother' and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if anyone says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he need not honor his father or mother with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

    So, Jesus says the Pharisees "nullify the word of God" by not killing children who curse parents.

    Most "Christians" don't have the vaguest knowledge about some of the things their "lord and master" said.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    IME (as a disbeliever), there seem to be four stances with respect to 'religious belief':
    • make-believers (most)
    • unbelievers (many)
    • true believers (few)
    • disbelievers (fewer)
    Maybe it's always been this way and that the secular modernity of recent centuries helps to make these 'cultural' differences more explicit. Ergo, the waxing of various reactionary fundamentalisms (especially, though not exclusively, among the Abrahamic "axis of evil") in the last several decades.
  • Bylaw
    559
    This argument can be translated into the following:
    If culturists believe in God, then they take God's existence to be true
    If culturists take God's existence to be true, then they will act as if God exists.
    Therefore, If culturists believe in God, then they will act as if God exists.

    Culturists do not act as if God exists. Therefore, culturists do not believe in God. If culturists believed in God's existence, then they would assess and assent to truth propositions they take for granted when claiming belief. Moreover, they would not avoid confrontation or evaluation of their religious beliefs. The truth has nothing to fear from investigation. If they believe in what is true, then there should be no concern from investigators who doubt the religion. There is, however, fear of investigation. Fear that would only exist if they themselves doubted what they believed to be true.
    Epicero
    A few reactions to this:
    1) it seems to treat belief as binary. If you believe, you have no doubt. If you believe you will spend time arguing with people about what you believe. If you don't like that situation, you do not believe. Either yes or no.
    2) I don't see a lack of interest in debating one's belief to necessarily entail I don't believe in something. I can think of secular beliefs I have that I have very little interest in debating people about. How about evolutionary theory. I won't claim 100% belief in this, given the complexity of it nowadays, but the core ideas I believe in. I have no interest in debating it's truth with a non-believer. I'd wanna brush up on epigenetics, have a good argument ready for how the eye came into being and gaps in the fossil record and all the stuff that would come up. And apart from any rustiness on my part, I don't think there is either a moral compulsion to engage in those discussions nor some more fundamental entailment that if I believe something then at the least I have no objection to being available to defend my belief.
    3) What does it mean to act like one believes in God? I see you mention some things, but I am not sure how I would identify culturalists or have any idea what percentage of identified Christians, say, were culturalists. I suppose if they said they believe in God and admitted under interrogation that they don't attend church, don't pray, never call out to Jesus in need, don't read the Bible, don't think about biblical rules and lessons and stories, etc., I might want to ask them what they do given that they believe there is a God. But I wouldn't feel like it is my place to tell them they don't really believe. Perhaps it's some vague, I feel that there is a higher power who cares and will take care of me. Period. Shall I consider myself having solved the problem of other minds and I can say, no, you really don't believe?
    4) And then let's aim this the other way: How should I act if I believe in evolutionary theory, for example? If you follow me for a year with a documentary team, what would prove one way or the other that I am a mere culturalist, checking off a box because my social life and parenting was with people who also believe this? Or take a philosophical position like the one raised the The Ship of Thebes. If I say I don't believe it will be me in 25 years who gets to experience my retirement because all the matter in my body will be replaced, what would demonstrate I am a mere culturalist around this belief? That I save money for retirement? Perhaps I say that I still feel an affinity for the future other, I wish him well. How do I act if I believe in the Big Bang? How do I act if I am a physicalist or more to the point, how do we rule out that I believe in physicalism by pointing at my behavior? How many people here at the forum would be called culturalists if we studied their behavior to find proof they acted like they believed?

    I do think there are people who just sort of check off a box, perhaps when entering a prison even, as a theist. They aren't atheists, it's a bit like checking off their race. It's just something that fell on them. It has little to do with their internal lives or behavior. But I don't think we get to tell them they aren't Christians, say, given our research. And not just because of the interpersonal issues involved, but we shouldn't even think we can tell from the outside. I also think this is possible for secular people to be culturalists. I have no idea how many are that. I do think people can be confused about what they believe. I don't have good criteria for demonstrating who is confused or dishonest.

    I do think we can on occasion question someone's binary self-labeling. A man who proclaims himself a feminist, say, but can be shown to only call on boys in his classes, could be confronted with what seems and likely is a contradiction. He may well be shocked by his own behavior and admit there is not a binary yes to feminism in him. But this wouldn't rule out that he also believes things would be better if women were treated more like x and experienced less Y. We can be pretty complicated creatures. And his being shocked and dissapointed would be a sign, if that was his reaction, that there is or might be some truth to his identification.
  • Tom Storm
    9.1k
    Most "Christians" don't have the vaguest knowledge about some of the things their "lord and master" said.Art48

    Indeed. Sounds like we are in agreement.
  • Art48
    477
    :smile: Yes
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.