A Christian revival

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So when you quoted  " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising" , you thought it was a completely pointless thing to quote.

No, I think a distinction between inherited religion and religion committed to in later life is a discussion point.
Davey's definition of inherited religion, effectively that when an adult chooses say christianity and was "brought up a christian they haven't really chosen it   ut inherited, is in my opinion wrong and is a subser in the errors of his methodology.
In the case thT Davey proposes.I would argue that although they may have different inherited religions they both have the same new religion, namely they are born again.

I think Davey's problem is trying to have different religions in his methodology, they all have to perform in the same way within that methodology.

A symphony of all this is to give people biographies that they don't recognise, but I have discussed this with him.

I take it you support the methodologies Davey supports?

[Nearly Sane]

No, I think a distinction between inherited religion and religion committed to in later life is a discussion point.
Davey's definition of inherited religion, effectively that when an adult chooses say christianity and was "brought up a christian they haven't really chosen it   ut inherited, is in my opinion wrong and is a subser in the errors of his methodology.
In the case thT Davey proposes.I would argue that although they may have different inherited religions they both have the same new religion, namely they are born again.

I think Davey's problem is trying to have different religions in his methodology, they all have to perform in the same way within that methodology.

A symphony of all this is to give people biographies that they don't recognise, but I have discussed this with him.

I take it you support the methodologies Davey supports?

And yet in agreeing with Alan you would be saying it's not worth a discussion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet in agreeing with Alan you would be saying it's not worth a discussion.

Alan has taken part in the discussion.
We have all considered the phrase “inherited and chosen religion”. Are you confusing “not discussing” with “not agreeing”?

[Nearly Sane]

Alan has taken part in the discussion.
We have all considered the phrase “inherited and chosen religion”. Are you confusing “not discussing” with “not agreeing”?

And Alan wrote in reply to Prof D, dismissing the validity of the distinction,
T"here are many different paths people have undergone to discovering the truth of God's love for us in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is the end result which matters - not the route they have taken" 

You then agreed with that, which means you agree with dismissing the distinction you had raised in the first place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And Alan wrote in reply to Prof D, dismissing the validity of the distinction,
T"here are many different paths people have undergone to discovering the truth of God's love for us in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is the end result which matters - not the route they have taken" 

You then agreed with that, which means you agree with dismissing the distinction you had raised in the first place.

I don’t think he dismisses the distinction. Don’t you think Davey tends to dismiss the distinction between inherited Christian religion nd chosen Christian religion?I do.

I can disagree with Davey because he’s quite obvious about what he argues.

[Nearly Sane]

I don’t think he dismisses the distinction. Don’t you think Davey tends to dismiss the distinction between inherited Christian religion nd chosen Christian religion?I do.

I can disagree with Davey because he’s quite obvious about what he argues.

And it's quite obvious Alan dismisses the distinction

As to Prof D, don't care.

[jeremyp]

Alan has taken part in the discussion.

In the sense that he posted a message on this thread, yes. But what he actually said (and I paraphrase) is that the discussion is pointless.

We have all considered the phrase “inherited and chosen religion”. Are you confusing “not discussing” with “not agreeing”?

What's your definition of inherited versus chosen then?

[Gordon]

Seems to me that there are three descriptors that apply.

1. People who acquire religious allegiance via either familial or cultural exposure, or as a matter of personal choice.

2. People who having acquired religion decide, as a matter of personal choice, to reject it.

3. People who never acquired any religious allegiance in the first place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems to me that there are three descriptors that apply.

1. People who acquire religious allegiance via either familial or cultural exposure, or as a matter of personal choice.

2. People who having acquired religion decide, as a matter of personal choice, to reject it.

3. People who never acquired any religious allegiance in the first place.

Point 1. Conflates two things.
To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.

In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.

[Outrider]

Point 1. Conflates two things.

It explicitly distinguishes between two things but states, for the purposes of that particular discussion, that those distinctions don't make a difference. You could argue that, but you can't claim a conflation when it explicitly identifies the two elements.

To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.

Unless you have some differentiation to make which is relevant to the discussion, why shouldn't they be treated as such? I think it's explicitly part of the teaching of the Ba'hai faith, if I recall correctly? (Happy to be corrected on that if it's not so).

In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.

Are the beliefs necessarily different? Is the commitment necessarily different? Is the absolute lack of any credible justification any different?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Point 1. Conflates two things.
To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.

In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.

So now you disagree with Alan. You seem very confused.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don’t you think Davey tends to dismiss the distinction between inherited Christian religion nd chosen Christian religion?I do.

I don't disregard the distinction - I just think that is cannot be considered without a clear definition and I provided just that, a clear definition. Now you don't like my definition - but your alternative is complete non-sense as it suggests a complete equivalence between a person with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult as a result of a deliberate choice and someone with a muslim upbringing who ends up christian as an adult as a result of a deliberate choice.

You cannot consider these to be equivalent as you are completely ignoring the most important aspect that defines the likelihood of an individual having a specific religious belief as an adult - namely their upbringing. As I pointed out previously upbringing is so critical that 98% of adult christians in the UK had a christian upbringing. And actually this is similar for other religions.

You bang on about the importance of being 'born again' (something not recognised as important in some major christian denominations) yet being 'born again' is nearly always being 'born again' into the religion of that individual's upbringing. It is upbringing that is critical as in virtually all cases religious beliefs seem to be unbelievable to those not brought up to belief the claims of that religion - hence the tiny proportion of adult christians that did not have a christian upbringing.

[Gordon]

Point 1. Conflates two things.

Nope.

To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.

In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.

There seems to be different 'brands' of your own religion - Anglican, Roman Catholic etc: that seems self- evident.

So are 'born again' Christians mutually exclusive from common or garden ones, and if so in what ways?

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope.
There seems to be different 'brands' of your own religion - Anglican, Roman Catholic etc: that seems self- evident.

So are 'born again' Christians mutually exclusive from common or garden ones, and if so in what ways?

As far as I'm aware the RCC doesn't recognise the notion of being 'born again' in the manner that it is used by evangelical protestants. I think the RCC considers that baptism provides an indelible spiritual mark of belonging to christ that cannot be erased. So once baptised you are christian and cannot be born 'again', so to speak. The short research report I linked to actually makes this point in the footnotes:

'according to the Church’s formal teaching, even those who no longer regard themselves as Catholics remain part of the Church by virtue of their baptism: e.g., ‘Baptism incorporates us into the Church’; ‘Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging
to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation’ (Catechism 1267, 1272).'

[ad_orientem]

As far as I'm aware the RCC doesn't recognise the notion of being 'born again' in the manner that it is used by evangelical protestants. I think the RCC considers that baptism provides an indelible spiritual mark of belonging to christ that cannot be erased. So once baptised you are christian and cannot be born 'again', so to speak. The short research report I linked to actually makes this point in the footnotes:

'according to the Church’s formal teaching, even those who no longer regard themselves as Catholics remain part of the Church by virtue of their baptism: e.g., ‘Baptism incorporates us into the Church’; ‘Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging
to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation’ (Catechism 1267, 1272).'

This is indeed true. Add Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Lutheranism to that and various other churches that adhere to similar sacramental theology.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is indeed true. Add Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Lutheranism to that and various other churches that adhere to similar sacramental theology.

Which makes Vlad's only true scotsman obsession with the need to be born again even more spurious, given that most christians (I would have thought considering this list of denominations) don't even recognise the notion of 'born again'.

Now there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the nature of belief and non-belief as we grow up as a child in terms of our upbringing and the nature of belief and non-belief that we settle into as an adult. There is, of course, a relationship between the two but clearly the belief/non-belief of a 10 year old is not the same as the belief/non-belief of a 30 year old.

[ProfessorDavey]

To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.

Not really - all they are asking about is whether someone considers themselves to be religious as an adult and if so to provide some detail on their level of religiosity (e.g. in this case mass attendance). And also to compare that with their upbringing in terms of religion. In both cases people may lie, they may subjectively have a different opinion on their upbringing etc, but you cannot really factor the out.

In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.

Except you haven't been able to adequately define what you mean by these terms and your definitions seem to consider a person with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult to be completely equivalent to a person with a christian upbringing who (at best) re-converts to christianity as an adult after some ill defined 'born again' event (something that wouldn't even be recognised in many christian denominations).

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you and I have different definitions of "christian household" professor and the ability to categorise different religions.

Vlad - I think most people will understand what is meant by a christian upbringing.

My understanding is that the BSA survey uses a face to face approach where those participating in the survey answer a set of questions. The one for upbringing is:

'In what religion, if any, were you brought up?'

So the response is largely self defined, but the researchers are able to probe to understand a little more if necessary. Now I don't know what their structured probes might be, but presumably they may ask about elements of upbringing that might be considered to form part of a religious upbringing. The most obvious would be.

1. Did your parents choose a formal initiation ceremony into a particular religion (e.g. baptism for christians).
2. Did you complete any further initiation events (e.g. first communion, confirmation for christians)
3. Did you attend voluntary extra-curricular religious instruction classes as a child (e.g. Sunday school for christians).
4. Did you attend religious worship as a child, outside of special occasions as weddings, funerals and baptisms or as a requirement from schooling.
5. Did your parents choose to send you to a school with a particular religious faith ethos where this was a reasonable choice (i.e. available locally and non fee paying).

Now perhaps Vlad will just claim that these were all societally and culturally expected aspects of any upbringing back in the day and therefore nothing that signifies a specifically religious upbringing. But he'd be wrong. I'd accept that 1 was societally and culturally the norm back when I and Vlad were kids. But none of the others were. Most parents in the 50s, 60s and more recently did not choose 2-5 on my list for their children. This is what parents did who wanted a religious/christian upbringing for their child.

[ad_orientem]

I don't really see the problem with the suggestion that upbringing has an affect on belief as an adult. It's not a moral judgement. Neither does it take anything away from your belief as an adult. It's just a statement of the obvious.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't really see the problem with the suggestion that upbringing has an affect on belief as an adult. It's not a moral judgement. Neither does it take anything away from your belief as an adult. It's just a statement of the obvious.

I agree and I'm not implying any value judgement, merely using it in the context of providing some evidence around Vlad's (undefined by him) distinction between 'inherited' religion/non-religion and 'chosen' religion/non-religion.

And in terms of upbringing - a religious upbringing is so important to the likelihood that someone will be religious as an adult that about 98% of current christians in the Uk had a christian upbringing. Without that christian upbringing, I would argue, the claims of christianity are largely unbelievable for individuals considering them as an adult without having been brought up to believe them.

And religions have known this for centuries - hence the creation of complex rituals etc aimed at inculcating belief into children at an early age.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree and I'm not implying any value judgement, merely using it in the context of providing some evidence around Vlad's (undefined by him) distinction between 'inherited' religion/non-religion and 'chosen' religion/non-religion.

And in terms of upbringing - a religious upbringing is so important to the likelihood that someone will be religious as an adult that about 98% of current christians in the Uk had a christian upbringing. Without that christian upbringing, I would argue, the claims of christianity are largely unbelievable for individuals considering them as an adult without having been brought up to believe them.

And religions have known this for centuries - hence the creation of complex rituals etc aimed at inculcating belief into children at an early age.

So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.

[Gordon]

So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.

To sum up your position, Don Vlad: you seem to be frantically tilting at windmills (mostly imagined).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.

That's quite the list of straw men you've posted there. It's very simple: people who come to a faith as adults are far more likely to have been brought up in the same faith and then returned to it than they are to have arrived at it as an impartial choice.

Now you might want to persuade yourself that that's just a remarkable co-incidence, but you can't change the fact of it. 
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's quite the list of straw men you've posted there. It's very simple: people who come to a faith as adults are far more likely to have been brought up in the same faith and then returned to it than they are to have arrived at it as an impartial choice.

Now you might want to persuade yourself that that's just a remarkable co-incidence, but you can't change the fact of it. 
   

I disagree that they return to the faith they had.It is a different faith. As a child you just have faith. To take up a faith, any faith in adult hood is chosen.

Would you say you had a religious upbringing? Is your agnosticism inherited or chosen?

[ad_orientem]

So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.

No one said any such thing.