(June 18, 2022 at 9:21 am)Belacqua Wrote: Yes, it's always disappointing to see how many Christians settle for this magic friend version. And of course the magic friend always agrees with them on all the current political trends, as well.
Christianity is capable of being so much better. There are, within its traditions, paths which could challenge the believers far more, and make the world better for the rest of us. For example, mystical Christians from Teresa of Avila to William Blake say that Jesus only exists and acts in the world through the actions of people. Someone who agreed with this wouldn't simply pray after a school shooting -- they would feel the duty to act.
I looked at the poll data and I didn't see a breakdown of education levels for those who believe in a non-prayer-answering god. That would be interesting to see -- whether these are people who get their beliefs from Plato or Spinoza or some other respectable thinker who would also fall in the 11%.
Unlike many people, I tend not to blame Christianity itself for the naivety of its majority. I mean, they could do better, but it may not be fair to demand that in society as it is. To me, the issue is part of a larger trend of dumbing-down, of distraction and consumerism. A smarter society would have smarter Christians.
As to the education level, the only breakdown I see on that is not specific to the 11% - just the "college" vs. "non-college" for belief overall. Belief leans to the non-college educated, but not as strongly as some of the other categorizations. Not much to take from that one, and no further breakdown, unfortunately.
On the naivety, I agree with what you say as a big factor. Although, the direction of the overall poll does encourage me that, as I alluded to originally, the widespread availability of information and alternate ideas may be causing more people to think critically.
However, I also think there's plenty of blame to go around. I would also not say I blame "Christianity itself", in that this would be hard to pinpoint - who or what exactly is that? From a historical standpoint, the Catholic church certainly, and other institutions as well, but as a blanket over all of it, that's tough.
In my own situation, I bear much of the blame in that I was not inquisitive or intellectually honest enough. Also, though, I harbor a lot of resentment towards clergy and other people whose life's work this entails. I have interacted over the years with many I now hold negative thoughts about for willful obfuscation of information that would have challenged my assumptions. I think this is fair - these are people with a fiduciary trust over "souls", and releasing only the bits of information - all of which they are well aware of if they went to and paid attention in any reputable seminary - is akin to a stockbroker only highlighting the positive aspects of a company investment and intentionally not mentioning its pending bankruptcy. I'm not saying they need to preach all aspects of every issue from the pulpit every Sunday, but I have had innumerable one-on-one meetings with many, many pastors and theologians over the years over both trivial and weighty issues. I've had them to dinner at my house with my family. I've spoken to them on the phone, written letters and emails, etc, etc, etc. How is it then, that after *decades* in the church, I only now am really learning about the Johannine comma and other disputed scripture passages, for instance? (One example among many - textual, theological, etc).
