What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[emjay]

(if Belacqua also lives in the US)

My passport says I'm American, but I've lived in Japan most of my life.

join a religion in name only, not out of belief but for other 'superficial/social' reasons

This raises important questions -- what is it that religions enjoin us to believe, and whether social reasons are really superficial. That is, are religions primarily their metaphysical theories, or are they practices?

Famously, the Bible contains very little metaphysics. John 1:1, and a few vague sentences by Paul. "In him we live and move and have our being," has certainly been used by immanentists, for example, but I'm not completely sure Paul meant it metaphysically. Nearly all of what the prophets and the NT urge has to do with how we behave towards one another.

This is why I say that even if most of the science-incompatible claims become untenable, I have no doubt that Christianity would continue. Whether this deserves the label "liberal" or not I'm not sure. Again, much of what we dislike about Christianity has to do with its adoption of bizarre radical politics in the US, and it might thrive without all of that baggage.

Or perhaps we have a Wittgenstein situation, in which "religion" is not a thing with an essence but is defined only by family resemblance. Whereas one religion, or one person's religion, is a question of metaphysical beliefs, another is simply practice.

Also (as I've mentioned before on this forum), the word "belief" has different meanings, and I think people should be careful about which they're using. In terms of metaphysical claims, we use "belief" to mean "assent to a proposition." As in "I believe in life after death." But in terms of moral issues, we use it as commitment to a principle. As in "I believe in equal rights for women." Obviously the two are different -- almost opposite, since we know that equal rights for women don't exist in the world. I think that most of Christianity is the second type, as in a commitment to principles we attribute to Jesus.

Commitment to the first type of belief may not be as essential to Christianity as we moderns (especially we Internet atheists) make it out to be.

Well, this has definitely been the strangest/most unique conversation I've ever had about religion... but thanks for sharing your viewpoint with me, it's certainly opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at religion, both in general and in the US.

You've actually been making me doubt my sanity... have I been using the word 'religion' wrong all my life? Looking it up I get: "religion, noun, belief in, or worship of, a god", so your perspective is actually kind of covered in that definition, by separating "belief in" from "worship of" by a strict OR condition and allowing for 'worship of' to be unaccompanied by 'belief in'. But for me, the way I would read the same definition is that the core of religion is 'belief in', OR "worship of (which entails 'belief in')". So my viewpoint, at least thus far, has 'belief in a god' as the core principle of religion, and anything else as secondary. Whichever is more accurate, nonetheless, thus far, the thought of religion without underlying belief is something I've never considered possible, or really considered at all.

But running with your perspective for a while, separating belief (in your first sense) from religion, all it seems we're left with is basically religious tradition, and whatever second sense belief the underlying source (ie the Bible and the philosophy around it in the case of Christianity) inspires in people. Clearly you see that as a very positive thing, and I don't disagree to a certain extent; ie I have no problem with some religious tradition... I'll happily sing hymns/carols at Christmas etc, nor do I have any problem with anyone inspired by the more positive messages of the Bible - forgiveness, charity, 'love thy neighbour' etc - but the problem comes in that for every person like that, there is another who is 'inspired' by the same book to do ill; to spread hate, bigotry and violence. So where you see a very positive and beautiful thing, I see a very depressing thing; the concept of a country which, under your thinking, would contain many Christians who didn't even believe (first sense) in God, yet still used the Bible to justify everything under the sun, good and bad. The division that is already apparent... and a consequence of the ability interpret the Bible in so many ways... is already bad enough, but to add no underlying belief (first sense) to the mix... thus making the associated actions in some sense seem less authentic/genuine, seems only to add insult to injury.

I mean it's interesting what you're saying, and I'm not condemning you for saying it, but just saying how I see it.