Gallup Poll for 2022

[Orbit]

If you have an interest in polls that track belief in God etc over time, Pew Research Center is great (and searchable).

[Belacqua]

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).

I'm very much an outsider. Where I live is about 2% Christian, and I've never attended a church service in my life. From this distant perspective, it sort of looks to me as if American Christianity breaks down into two styles: community members and scholars. (Which is not to say that the scholars are necessarily good scholars.)

Probably for the majority, it's about community, group identity, pep talks on Sundays, some kind of sense that they are part of something that's aimed at the good. I suspect if you ask most of these people about the Johannine comma, they'd be happy to admit that it's above their pay grade. The experts can argue that, but we're working on the bake sale. 

The only Christian in my immediate family is my niece, and she's very much this way. She does a lot of the music stuff for the church and has youth picnics, etc. She's at a liberal church in a biggish city, so they work on material support for new immigrants. They have gay weddings and state on their web site that they are welcoming to LGBT+ people. I doubt very much if she could point to a single textual issue that scholars debate. 

The scholarly types are no doubt in the minority. So it doesn't surprise me that you came to this late. Probably your pastors didn't consider the textual issues to be crucial to how you lived your life as a Christian.

[Jehanne]

Many of the so-called Christian scholars would also state that the Johannine comma is above their pay grade; a fair number of them are closet unbelievers, even atheist.

[TheJefe817]

The scholarly types are no doubt in the minority. So it doesn't surprise me that you came to this late. Probably your pastors didn't consider the textual issues to be crucial to how you lived your life as a Christian.

True, and that encapsulates exactly the problem I have with them (generalizing the "them", of course).  They started with the conclusion and excluded anything which might subtract from that conclusion.  No devotion to truth or to even letting anyone evaluate truth - just more marketing.  Some might say that's their job, and I understand that viewpoint, but it's a dishonest job if this is to be accepted.  They're no different than any other snake oil salesmen if they know these things and hide them away.

[Jehanne]

The scholarly types are no doubt in the minority. So it doesn't surprise me that you came to this late. Probably your pastors didn't consider the textual issues to be crucial to how you lived your life as a Christian.

True, and that encapsulates exactly the problem I have with them (generalizing the "them", of course).  They started with the conclusion and excluded anything which might subtract from that conclusion.  No devotion to truth or to even letting anyone evaluate truth - just more marketing.  Some might say that's their job, and I understand that viewpoint, but it's a dishonest job if this is to be accepted.  They're no different than any other snake oil salesmen if they know these things and hide them away.

They are scholastics, which is why they have a moden-day appeal. Once upon a time, all Western scholars thought this way; today, hardly any academician does:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_qu...ntellectum

[TheJefe817]

They are scholastics, which is why they have a moden-day appeal.  Once upon a time, all Western scholars thought this way; today, hardly any academician does:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_qu...ntellectum

Thanks for posting that.  I was of course aware of this in concept, but not in terminology.  I know I'm continuing to splinter us away from the original message of the thread as I post, but I had to follow up on this.  When I clicked through, the first thing I noticed was that definitionally it is "faith seeking intelligence" (or reason) and not "faith seeking evidence".  Interesting, and important, given that I could probably "reason" my way into an argument that my dog is a reincarnated Civil War general, but would never have evidence for that.  Seems like all of intelligent design (for instance) falls here, in that it starts with creator and works backwards to reasoning but with no testable/falsifiable premise.

It's a useful term and spot-on.  It describes a lot of the people I know.  Actually, it's pretty generous to many of them.  I have a lot of family members who just start and end with the faith part and never even seek the intelligence backfill.  I guess to tie this into my gripe about clergy, I would say the primary reason for this faith (in tandem with reward/punishment aversion) is that they base it on the argument from authority.  The pastor studied all this and understands it better than me, so I don't need to worry about it, right?

[arewethereyet]

It makes me wonder if some of the people who responded as believers really are.

Or is it that they are affiliated with a particular church but not necessarily due to a real belief.

There came a point in my life where I wondered if I believed in the faith or was told I believed. I guess that's why I wonder if there's always a connection between belief and affiliation (that often comes from family tradition).

[Belacqua]

They are scholastics, which is why they have a moden-day appeal.  Once upon a time, all Western scholars thought this way; today, hardly any academician does:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_qu...ntellectum

Thanks for posting that.  I was of course aware of this in concept, but not in terminology.  I know I'm continuing to splinter us away from the original message of the thread as I post, but I had to follow up on this.  When I clicked through, the first thing I noticed was that definitionally it is "faith seeking intelligence" (or reason) and not "faith seeking evidence".  Interesting, and important, given that I could probably "reason" my way into an argument that my dog is a reincarnated Civil War general, but would never have evidence for that.  Seems like all of intelligent design (for instance) falls here, in that it starts with creator and works backwards to reasoning but with no testable/falsifiable premise.

It's a useful term and spot-on.  It describes a lot of the people I know.  Actually, it's pretty generous to many of them.  I have a lot of family members who just start and end with the faith part and never even seek the intelligence backfill.  I guess to tie this into my gripe about clergy, I would say the primary reason for this faith (in tandem with reward/punishment aversion) is that they base it on the argument from authority.  The pastor studied all this and understands it better than me, so I don't need to worry about it, right?

It's good to know the terms. Having the faith come first, and using reason to support it, is certainly a normal situation for Christians.

It's not sufficient to define someone as a Scholastic, however. Scholastics were a particular kind of theologian with a particular kind of training. Merely having the faith come before the intellect is not sufficient to be defined as a Scholastic. 

If your pastor was a Catholic who engaged you in dialectic using strict Aristotelian logic, then he might well have been a Scholastic. Otherwise, not.

[TheJefe817]

It's a useful term and spot-on.  It describes a lot of the people I know.  Actually, it's pretty generous to many of them.  I have a lot of family members who just start and end with the faith part and never even seek the intelligence backfill.  I guess to tie this into my gripe about clergy, I would say the primary reason for this faith (in tandem with reward/punishment aversion) is that they base it on the argument from authority.  The pastor studied all this and understands it better than me, so I don't need to worry about it, right?

It's good to know the terms. Having the faith come first, and using reason to support it, is certainly a normal situation for Christians.

It's not sufficient to define someone as a Scholastic, however. Scholastics were a particular kind of theologian with a particular kind of training. Merely having the faith come before the intellect is not sufficient to be defined as a Scholastic. 

If your pastor was a Catholic who engaged you in dialectic using strict Aristotelian logic, then he might well have been a Scholastic. Otherwise, not.

Sorry, reading back I realize that I was imprecise.  The term I was referring to as spot on (at least based on the linked article) was specifically "Fides quaerens intellectum", not "Scholastic".  I want to read more on both, though, as they are concepts I admit I am not deeply knowledgeable of and do not want to use incorrectly.  Thanks for pointing out that distinction on Scholastics - that's helpful.

[Mister Agenda]

I know (and am related to) a lot of fundagelicals IRL. For a lot of them, if not most, a God who hears and answers prayer is their evidence for the reality of their version of God. They know God is real because he answers their prayers (even if sometimes the answer is no).