5 Levels of the Faith. My personal observation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd love to see you expound upon what is contained in the "had to learn too much for their own good" bit in category #2 sometime.

[Sal]

My view may be an exaggeration, or, at least, not describe all the believers that exist, but I think it's likely closer to the mark. The view advocated here seems to suggest that there is a significant discrepancy between what the person believes, what they represent themselves to believe, and what they are capable of realizing is true, if they'd only let themselves accept and acknowledge that truth. This is the view that religious belief involves cognitive dissonance, a lot of it, and that strong forces must be deployed to maintain that dissonance without reconciling it by acknowledging "The Real Truth[tm]." It is basically the view that all believers are either liars, mentally ill, stupid, or willful dupes, because any "normal" person would recognize the problems with their religion as problems and do something about it. I don't think this is accurate. I don't think being a religious believer requires significantly more cognitive dissonance than any other belief, from libertarianism to vegetarianism. This is a part of the warp and woof of the way humans and reality are, and attempting to explain it by inventing contorted positions to explain it just because it seems strange and inexplicable to you suggests to me that you are simply naive and ignorant. (Do you need to go to great lengths to remain ignorant on these points?) I think perhaps a more neutral example might clarify. As most here are likely to left of center, politically, most people will identify with this. Many times you will hear people maligning Republicans as liars and cheats, and suggesting that they are evil people because it's obvious (to the observer) that what they are doing is wrong; there's no way that someone could be stupid enough to do what that Republican is doing without knowing it's wrong. Are there likely Republicans who do fit this profile? I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are, but we tend to generalize about the whole class, not just those few exemplars. I think it would be unreasonable to believe that Republicans are somehow different than liberals (in meaningfully significant ways) such that Republicanism requires a special explanation for why the typical Republican continues to believe and act as they do (in spite of what "any normal person" would know is true). In the end, this appears to be a way of normalizing your own in-group, and explaining away the existence of people that disagree with you as flawed and defective. (Is it possible that these people, Republicans and believers do the same, and look at you and your beliefs as the abnormal ones?) In the final analysis, we no more need to have a "5 levels of belief" than we need a 5 levels of Republicanism or a 5 levels of Libertarianism or 5 levels of Liberalism; these are all just attempts to explain what you don't understand in terms of things you do understand, and I think they are all fundamentally flawed because they are infected by faulty assumptions and gross ignorance about human psychology, the psychology of religion, and social psychology.

Only someone not knowledgeable about the position of others might contend that because they don't have the same view as oneself, that they are immoral or whatnot for not sharing ones own views.

That's not what the five # are about. The way I interpreted them, they are about what sort of believers there are, as outlined in the 5 categories.

Cognitive dissonance is exactly what believers (or anyone for that matter) are confronted with when someone or something proves they are wrong in a particular position but continue to profess their original position and not align their beliefs to what we understand to be reality.

No more is this true in the pointing out internal inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible, compared to pointing out inconsistencies in science. People froth at the mouth for pointing these out, yet scientists welcome it, because it means we have advanced and refined our knowledge of reality as far as we can detect and observe it. This is also the reason why phlogiston or flat-earthism or the Aether or geocentrism isn't touted as champions of truth regardless of what we want to believe. Reality doesn't care what you think, it just is.

However, everyone has some model of reality and from that a set of values that align with that model, some might think that Republicanism is better or Democratic Party is better - this aren't faiths, but difference in opinion on methodology and values.

Cognitive dissonance is invisible to the one that has them (except from the willfully ignorant), which is why I, personally, discuss matters because I want differing views and reasoning to challenge views that I might have cognitive dissonance in. That and for entertainment value.

I'm an apostate, so I have a good understanding of what a believing mind-set consists of as I held it once myself - up until a point where I became painfully honest with myself and jumped all the hoops and faith entrapments that it consisted of. Do other believers do the same? I don't know, that's why I ask them.

[smax]

#n+1 The believer who finds the alternative, atheism, less than compelling or logically inconsistent. This type identifies belief in God as one choice between two diametrically opposed and plausible ideas about reality.

You are proposing a choice between Theism and Atheism. This post, however, examines the unspoken hierarchy of faith within Christianity.

With that, the question is, where do you fit it? Just because you feel it's logical to believe in god does not make it logical to believe in Christianity.

To answer the question accurately, you must first determine what the basis for your belief is in the first place.

---

I'd love to see you expound upon what is contained in the "had to learn too much for their own good" bit in category #2 sometime.

Sure, the first 17-18 years or so that I was Christian, I was merely someone who attended church, took part in fellowship, and occasionally spoke to others about my faith.

At some point, however, that didn't feel like enough, so I decided to get much more educated about the bible and the Christian faith. The eventual goal was to become a Christian teacher/pastor.

During the course of that education, I learned far too many disturbing things. I learned that what I thought was the "inspired and inerrant word of God", was actually a book filled with textual inconsistencies, scientific impossibilities, moral atrocities, and just plain bad and unreliable history.

Some people can stomach all of that and keep on professing their faith. I seriously doubt, however, that their faith hasn't been significantly compromised in the process.

I completed my education, but I'd say my faith had met it's inevitable demise about half way through.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...where do you fit it? Just because you feel it's logical to believe in god does not make it logical to believe in Christianity.

True. I do not think it possible to do an exhaustive comparison of all religions and their various sects and denominations. Most people naturally gravitate toward the dominant religion of their culture. I see nothing wrong with that. In my case, I have only a very shallow understanding of Eastern religions, Islam, and other non-Western practices. I do, however, have a fairly comprehensive understanding of various Christian doctrines. I was raised a Christian and studied until I settled on Swedenborgism because it makes sense to me. And I will persist in that faith tradition, until it no longer makes sense to me. So if you want to give in a name, then I would call myself a "Student of the Faith."

[FifthElement]

May I add one more to your list?

#6. The believers that know God is real. Because they took God up on the promises He made in the bible and He has answered their Asking Seeking and Knocking with everything He has promised 10 fold. These people have had their faith taken from them and it has been replaced with a solid belief because God has seen fit to to proof their faith in the fires of trials and hardships (Much like Job) and saw them through it when they were faithful to What God gave them. As a result nothing this world can offer up will be able to seperate the believer from his/her God.

Since we are adding more, here is:

#7. Total nut jobs who believe that by strapping bombs on their chests and killing little children with the sniper rifle, they are doing Gods work.

[smax]

Most people naturally gravitate toward the dominant religion of their culture. I see nothing wrong with that.

You don't? You don't think cultural influence over religious choices undermines the validity of religion in general?

---

Since we are adding more, here is:

#7. Total nut jobs who believe that by strapping bombs on their chests and killing little children with the sniper rifle, they are doing Gods work.

I feel like #4 may cover this type of individual, but I could see where you might feel differently.

Fortunately for me, I never met anyone so far gone during my time at the institution.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...You don't think cultural influence over religious choices undermines the validity of religion in general?

Not really. We all respond to the light we've been given. The world isn't black and white to me. I do not see One True Religion on one side and False Teachings on the other. Since God is the source of all goodness and truth, each religion has at least some validity at the most basic level. I believe God will be merciful to believers that sincerely respond to those teachings with love and goodwill. Now are all religions equal? No. I do not believe that. I think some are better than others at cultivating love and goodwill among their adherents. The Great Commission still applies, since Christians want to draw others into greater light.

[Whateverist]

In the final analysis, we no more need to have a "5 levels of belief" than we need a 5 levels of Republicanism or a 5 levels of Libertarianism or 5 levels of Liberalism; these are all just attempts to explain what you don't understand in terms of things you do understand, and I think they are all fundamentally flawed because they are infected by faulty assumptions and gross ignorance about human psychology, the psychology of religion, and social psychology.

I found this very interesting but I was especially inspired to explore this phenomenon in politics, since I can the feel tug to misinterpret the other side more plainly there. With religious belief I don't have a dog in that fight. So I started a different thread to invite discussion on this tangent. Here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-19000.html

[smax]

My view may be an exaggeration, or, at least, not describe all the believers that exist, but I think it's likely closer to the mark. The view advocated here seems to suggest that there is a significant discrepancy between what the person believes, what they represent themselves to believe, and what they are capable of realizing is true, if they'd only let themselves accept and acknowledge that truth. This is the view that religious belief involves cognitive dissonance, a lot of it, and that strong forces must be deployed to maintain that dissonance without reconciling it by acknowledging "The Real Truth[tm]." It is basically the view that all believers are either liars, mentally ill, stupid, or willful dupes, because any "normal" person would recognize the problems with their religion as problems and do something about it. I don't think this is accurate. I don't think being a religious believer requires significantly more cognitive dissonance than any other belief, from libertarianism to vegetarianism. This is a part of the warp and woof of the way humans and reality are, and attempting to explain it by inventing contorted positions to explain it just because it seems strange and inexplicable to you suggests to me that you are simply naive and ignorant. (Do you need to go to great lengths to remain ignorant on these points?)

LOL. You seem very offended by the fact that put an opinion out there, daring to question the faith of professing believers. And yet the Bible dares do that very thing:

Revelation 3:
15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

This is only one of many references the Bible makes to levels of faith.

Perhaps the writers of the Bible are naive and ignorant. Why do I immediately get the feeling you do not take that position?

Could it be that I touched a nerve here. Could it be that you fit one of these descriptions?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really. We all respond to the light we've been given. The world isn't black and white to me. I do not see One True Religion on one side and False Teachings on the other. Since God is the source of all goodness and truth, each religion has at least some validity at the most basic level. I believe God will be merciful to believers that sincerely respond to those teachings with love and goodwill. Now are all religions equal? No. I do not believe that. I think some are better than others at cultivating love and goodwill among their adherents. The Great Commission still applies, since Christians want to draw others into greater light.

Perhaps you ought to extend that courtesy to those that do not believe, and give the devil his due. Face it, without us skeptics you hookers would still be babbling about talking snakes, eh? I think you're just trying to draw the net wide so as to avoid the nagging feeling that if any one god might be horrendous bullshit - it could just as easily be your own.

But hey, what do I know, right? Hell, maybe your christianity actually -is- so vapid as to say "so long as there are ghosts it has to be at least a little bit true".......