Who are Christians? Muslims? Objectivists?

[softwareNerd]

*** Mod's note: Split from the "Osama bin Laden" thread. - sN ***

... ... Islam is a specific religious ideology (just as is Christianity, just as communism, just as capitalism). The nature of the ideology is not determined by what the majority of it's so-called followers hold it to be, but by reference to the ideology itself — what it holds as well as what it would lead to in practice. Islam is not a religion of peace regardless of Obama's (among many others') declaration and willful blindness. In this sense, the leaders of an ideology are those who act to lead most consistently towards the logical outcome of the ideology.

... ... Do we identify Objectivism as the philosophy that most people who claim to be Objectivist hold it to be? Is it merely a numbers game?

Of these three examples, I think it is easiest to "chew" on the Christian one, since there are "nominal Christians" all around any American. I fine with using the term "Christianity" to refer to a very specific ideology. I'm also fine with saying that we need a term or a concept to identify people who are (at least fairly) committed to that ideology of Christianity. However, we also have many millions of Christians who compartmentalize to a fair extent. They will go "tut tut" about people forgetting the "true spirit of Christmas" while they themselves mostly just have fun during that time. The epistemological question is: do we need a special term to distinguish this larger group of "nominal Christians" people from the smaller core of "real Christians"? I would claim that one does need a term. If one wishes to call the core (simply) "Christians" and call the rest "fake-Christians" or "pseudo-Christians" that is fine, as long as one somehow has a term that identifies this larger group, thus allowing one to conceptualize and integrate facts about this larger group.

The essence of the larger group is that they do not follow Christianity consistently; yet, part of the essence is that they do try in many ways and in many contexts. They really have multiple ideologies (often implicitly). Unknown to them, there are a significant number of contexts where they follow people like Locke more than they follow Augustine. Along with some parts of Christianity, followed inconsistently and in some contexts, they also follow some mix of rational and more self-oriented/happiness-oriented ideologies...again, inconsistently and in some contexts. So, if we do not call them Christians and we do not call them Rational-Secularists, do we need some other term for them? I suggest that we do. Even if one contends that the more consistent "real Christians" will be the ones who will move history [i do not think so, but that's a separate topic], we are still surrounded by the nominal ones and have reason to think about them, and thus need to "label" them (actually, form a concept that includes them).

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean, and you actually count these millions as "Christians", and have some different (perhaps hyphenated) label for the consistent core. Either way, unless we have clear concepts and terms for these different groups, thinking about them will be hindered, and any discussion about them will be prone to equivocation.

[Trebor]

I suppose that is true, but it merely confuses things. Islam is a specific religious ideology (just as is Christianity, just as communism, just as capitalism). The nature of the ideology is not determined by what the majority of it's so-called followers hold it to be, but by reference to the ideology itself — what it holds as well as what it would lead to in practice. Islam is not a religion of peace regardless of Obama's (among many others') declaration and willful blindness. In this sense, the leaders of an ideology are those who act to lead most consistently towards the logical outcome of the ideology.

I need to clarify what I stated poorly, as how I said it, "Islam is a specific religious ideology (just as is Christianity, just as communism, just as capitalism)," implies that capitalism (or even communism, although fundamentally similar to a religion) is a religious ideology. Capitalism is not a religious ideology; it's not based upon an other-worldly metaphysics or faith, and doesn't hold that one should sacrifice oneself for something greater than oneself.

Of these three examples, I think it is easiest to "chew" on the Christian one, since there are "nominal Christians" all around any American. I fine with using the term "Christianity" to refer to a very specific ideology. I'm also fine with saying that we need a term or a concept to identify people who are (at least fairly) committed to that ideology of Christianity. However, we also have many millions of Christians who compartmentalize to a fair extent. They will go "tut tut" about people forgetting the "true spirit of Christmas" while they themselves mostly just have fun during that time. The epistemological question is: do we need a special term to distinguish this larger group of "nominal Christians" people from the smaller core of "real Christians"? I would claim that one does need a term. If one wishes to call the core (simply) "Christians" and call the rest "fake-Christians" or "pseudo-Christians" that is fine, as long as one somehow has a term that identifies this larger group, thus allowing one to conceptualize and integrate facts about this larger group.

The essence of the larger group is that they do not follow Christianity consistently; yet, part of the essence is that they do try in many ways and in many contexts. They really have multiple ideologies (often implicitly). Unknown to them, there are a significant number of contexts where they follow people like Locke more than they follow Augustine. Along with some parts of Christianity, followed inconsistently and in some contexts, they also follow some mix of rational and more self-oriented/happiness-oriented ideologies...again, inconsistently and in some contexts. So, if we do not call them Christians and we do not call them Rational-Secularists, do we need some other term for them? I suggest that we do. Even if one contends that the more consistent "real Christians" will be the ones who will move history [i do not think so, but that's a separate topic], we are still surrounded by the nominal ones and have reason to think about them, and thus need to "label" them (actually, form a concept that includes them).

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean, and you actually count these millions as "Christians", and have some different (perhaps hyphenated) label for the consistent core. Either way, unless we have clear concepts and terms for these different groups, thinking about them will be hindered, and any discussion about them will be prone to equivocation.

To "chew" on your example, Christian, I do understand that there are people who are nominally Christian (etc.), who don't really take the ideology very seriously or are quite inconsistent, and I'm sure the same is true for any ideology. The error is not one that needs a new name or concept, in my view. I'm not sympathetic to accommodating people's irrationality; rather, it's appropriate hold people accountable to what they themselves profess. Individuals have a responsibility for the (ideas and) ideologies (system of ideas) which they accept, for understanding just what the ideology is and deciding whether or not they agree with it and if they will act in accord with it. Even if they are raised in a culture dominated by Christianity, even if they accept it as a child in error on the basis of the fact that most everyone advocates the religion, etc., they ultimately have the responsibility for the ideals that they accept.

If I came to this forum and announced that I was a Christian, I would expect others to hold me to what I have stated, that I am a Christian. I would not expect them to, or hold that they have some obligation to, treat me with kid gloves and draw me out to see whether or not I really was a Christian. Though some might do so, asking me to explain just what I mean by Christianity and why I consider myself to be a Christian, I don't think anyone has such an obligation to me. Given that I've stated that I'm a Christian, I think people should hold me responsible for being a Christian, taking me at my word. Over time, in discussions it may become apparent that I'm not really serious about being a Christian. In time I will have to make a decision, am I or am I not a Christian, not am a "nominal Christian" or an "inconsistent Christian" etc.

I see no reason to form a new concept or word for those who are inconsistent with or do not take seriously the ideology they profess. I think the thing to do is to use qualifiers, such as "inconsistent," or "nominal." "You're only a Christian nominally" or "You're an inconsistent Christian" or "You're a hypocrite" etc. They're not introducing a new, distinct ideology; they're just not taking the ideology seriously or being consistent, etc.

Ideas do count. Fundamental ideas are critical. Individuals have a responsibility for the ideas they hold, for the ideologies that they accept.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Trebor

[Grames]

This is an instance of the "broken unit" issue. The Nature Of Broken Units

This is also related to the principle of two definitions.

"Broken units" and "two definitions" are themselves two perspectives on the same problem.

We can have a "bottom-up" criteria for who is a Christian based on similarity due to an enumeration of a large number of characteristics such as church attendance and holiday observance, or we can have a "top-down" criteria based on a normative standard for how a Christian ought to behave based on a selection of an essential characteristic(s).

[softwareNerd]

If I came to this forum and announced that I was a Christian, I would expect others to hold me to what I have stated, that I am a Christian.

To me, whether I need a separate term is not primarily an ethical question; not a question of ethical judgement. First and foremost, it is an epistemological question. I would not classify someone as "Christian" or "pseudo-Christian" or "Easter Sunday Christian", unless it serves a purpose. This is true of any classification of things and people... true of any concept we come up with.

For example, suppose I label someone as being "sneaky". This is a short hand to allow me to hold in mind what that person is, without having to think: "this is a person who will say one thing to me and another thing behind my back, who might take a loan from me and not pay it back, who might ... on and on". In this thread, I'm not concerned with whether I call him sneaky to his face. Nor am I concerned about whether I tell other people that he is sneaky. My primary concern here is how I think of them in my own mind. I would label them in a way that is consistent with my knowledge of them. (If I'm not certain, I may say to myself that "this person might be sneaky".)

The primary purpose of labeling people thus is similar to the purpose of describing inanimate things: to summarize their nature in our own minds, in order to know what they are without keeping that knowledge in the form of a long laundry list. It also allows us to predict likely causal chains. E.g. once I call something "liquid" all my knowledge about a liquid's ability to swish around, to be poured, to be swallowed, etc. is integrated into that identification.

Of course people are responsible for their choices. However, using their choice of labels will not tell me what they are. If I am thinking about classifying a person in some way, I presumably have a reason for doing so. Let's take the "Christian" example. Suppose someone tells me he is a Christian. Is it rational for me to assume that he will act according to the tenets of Christianity? Let's say I'm waiting to be interviewed for a job and another candidate is present. She is wearing a cross and happens to mention that she heard about the opening through someone at her church. Should I assume that if I tell her I really want this job, she will walk away because she is fundamentally altruistic. Or, if a colleague tells me that someone from his church wants to rent an apartment that I own, would it be rational for me to skip doing a credit check because he is a Christian; or, alternatively would it be rational for me to be worried that he will open a soup kitchen in my apartment and invite every hobo in?

[Trebor]

If I came to this forum and announced that I was a Christian, I would expect others to hold me to what I have stated, that I am a Christian.

To me, whether I need a separate term is not primarily an ethical question; not a question of ethical judgement. First and foremost, it is an epistemological question. I would not classify someone as "Christian" or "pseudo-Christian" or "Easter Sunday Christian", unless it serves a purpose. This is true of any classification of things and people... true of any concept we come up with.

I agree, first and foremost it (whether or not someone is a Christian) is an epistemological question. I guess that it came across that I was saying that first and foremost, or most importantly, it's an ethical question, or that I was stressing ethical evaluation of Christianity, but that's not what I intended. I thought that I was stressing cognitive classification, and I did not see a reason to form new concepts for people who are not what they claim they are (as may be revealed to me over time).

Before I could evaluate someone on the basis of their stating that they are a Christian, yes, I'd first have to know what a Christian is and have some estimate of the moral significance of Christianity.

I either know what a Christian is (what it means to be a Christian) or I do not. And my understanding or knowledge has a range. It could be slight or great.

If I do not know what a Christian is, and someone informs me that he's a Christian, I will not know what he is claiming or revealing about himself (and I will have no way of forming any evaluation of him on the basis of what he's revealed). (Just stating the obvious.)

If I do know what it means to be a Christian, depending upon the degree of my understanding of what it means to be a Christian, I will assume that he is telling me that he is one (a unit of the concept "Christian") as I understand a Christian to be. If in time I realize that he's not really a Christian, that he's only a Christian nominally, in superficial ways, then, in response to the issue you raise, that of how to classify them, I do not think that I need a new concept or category for him with respect to his position in relation to being a Christian. I would simply use some qualifier, such as "devout Christian" or "nominal Christian" or "superficially Christian," etc. I would simply be identifying whether he is or is not a Christian or to what degree, etc. The classification is "Christian." Does he fit the classification or not. (This is all prior to any ethical evaluation.) The degrees or distinctions can be handled, I think perfectly well, using such qualifiers. (But, every "is" implies an "ought," and identification has evaluative significance, to me, as an issue of their potential impact upon me, good or ill.)

Of course people are responsible for their choices. However, using their choice of labels will not tell me what they are. If I am thinking about classifying a person in some way, I presumably have a reason for doing so. Let's take the "Christian" example. Suppose someone tells me he is a Christian. Is it rational for me to assume that he will act according to the tenets of Christianity? Let's say I'm waiting to be interviewed for a job and another candidate is present. She is wearing a cross and happens to mention that she heard about the opening through someone at her church. Should I assume that if I tell her I really want this job, she will walk away because she is fundamentally altruistic. Or, if a colleague tells me that someone from his church wants to rent an apartment that I own, would it be rational for me to skip doing a credit check because he is a Christian; or, alternatively would it be rational for me to be worried that he will open a soup kitchen in my apartment and invite every hobo in?

I'm not saying that if someone tells me that they are a Christian I then know that they are a serious or devout Christian striving to act consistently with their religion. But, if someone tells me that they are a Christian, I assume (at first, unless there's some initial reason to disbelieve them) that they are telling me that they are in fact a Christian, that they know what they mean, and I take them at their word, and I assume that they are serious, all other things considered, depending on the context. That's just the starting place for me in classifying them. Depending upon my expectations of dealing with them from then on, again, I may want to ensure that I understand just how serious of a Christian they are and put forth the effort (by asking, discussing the issue with them) to gain a better understanding of just how much of a Christian they are. Still, again, the primary issue is a matter of classifying them (epistemological) in relation to being a Christian, in relation to the concept "Christian."

So, again, first I have to know what it means to be a Christian. Determining whether or not someone is a Christian and to what degree and what the significance is will depend on whether or not I think it's important to me to get a better understanding.

My point about people being responsible for the ideas they hold (accept as true) or the ideologies they embrace was to simply stress the fact that a person is responsible for his own thinking and conclusions (primarily an epistemological issue), and that if someone tells me that they are a Christian, then they should know what they are talking about. That's not the end of it, but it's an important beginning, epistemologically and then ethically.

If someone is presenting themselves as a Christian, there is a obligation on them to know what it is that they are claiming to be. After that, knowing that people can lie in a range of consistency and seriousness in relation to being Christian , depending on the context, there's an obligation on me to understand just where they stand in relation to Christianity and what the significance is to me.