iano writes:
... "what constitutes a Christian?" Clearly God is the final judge of who is and who isn't actually a Christian. 'Christians' of every other hue would not in fact be real Christians - they'd just bear a hollow name. The obvious follow up question is...
First off, if by some chance it turns out that the Christian God (whatever version) doesn't exist, then who is the final judge of who is/is not actually a Christian? Secondly, regardless of the previous point, isn't it the case that a significant number of Christians have in fact taken it upon themselves to draw this distinction?
Frankly, I've always considered the issue of "validating" a person's Christianity as being perhaps the most difficult and puzzling aspect of this religion. I'm sure and do not doubt that there are people who have had some sort of experience that absolutely validates, for them personally, their own Christianity. But two questions are still left wide open:
1. What proportion of people who consider/call themselves (or are called by others) "Christians" have really had that sort of personal religious experience, as opposed to simply associating themselves with (declaring membership in) a particular group?
2. Looking just at the people who have had such an experience, how many immutably distinct groups do they fall into, such that each group would look at the others and say "those people cannot be
real Christians, because their beliefs are wrong"?
Your argument could equally be applied to atheistic morality btw - without any possibility of anyone being right. One atheist can find it perfectly moral to commit acts of rape. The other finds otherwise. There are no objective standards.
Whoa. No objective standards? Only if you want to deny the concept of objectivity altogether. (I seem to recall that you've been known to do that here at EvC, iano. Really, it's not much use as a debate tactic.) Are you suggesting that the "golden rule" is strictly a religious concept and has no basis in objectivity? If so, well, we must just disagree on that, and I'll honestly and consistently assert that you're wrong. Maybe you or some of the religiously devout will not accept anything as proof of my position, but there is rather a lot of evidence that religious faith is not a prerequisite for a good and firm system of ethics.
So, whatever set of beliefs you choose to adopt, at least 84% of the world's population say you're wrong. Isn't it bizarre that people who trumpet the wonders of democracy, reject utterly the precepts of democracy in terms of religion?
What precept are you talking about?
I think you're right to question the OP's statement (and terminology) here. Perhaps ugolino was not expressing his thoughts clearly enough. There are notable differences in how people adopt and act on political affiliations as opposed to religious ones.
In politics, people will tend to accept a situation, and make a choice, where there are relatively few available alternatives (e.g. effectively only two parties in the U.S., and few nations with more than four viable political parties). Also, they tend not to view their party affiliation as a monolithic, all-or-nothing decision: it's clear that each party contains factions that are pulling in different directions on various issues, and people have no difficulty with "crossing party lines" with regard to a specific candidate or proposition.
Contrast that with religious affiliation, where the tendency is always in the direction of fracturing into smaller groups (which can only grow in size if evangelism by group members is successful, never by merging with other groups), and declaring membership in any one group tends tends to be an exclusive, all-encompassing acceptance -- people don't tend to base their religious practice on making choices like "well, I like this bit about Judaism, and that part of Islam, and these other things from Catholicism, and those Lutherans are pretty good on some points..." (and similarly for rejecting the particulars that they don't like).
I accept the majority view - most think me wrong. Now what would you have me do? Democracy doesn't demand that I change my view anymore than the majority voting Conservative means a Labour MP should give up Labour views.
Now you're the one who isn't expressing thoughts clearly enough. That first sentence sounds like a complete self-contradiction. If you accept the majority view, then you are accepting the view that most people think is right. If most people think you are wrong, it must be that you are not actually accepting the majority view, but are expressing or supporting some other view instead. I guess it hinges on what you mean by "accept" here.
Atheists are a tiny, tiny minority.
Well, if you want to try to treat the 16% who are not religious adherents as being somehow fractured into subgroups, only one of which is "atheist", okay, fine. But no matter how you slice it, the subdivisions within that 16% are of no consequence, in comparison to the rifts that split up the 33% "Christian" and 21% Islam. (Numbers based on the chart referred to in ICANT's reply.) I think "tiny, tiny" is a bit far fetched. And the non-religious 16% are not shrinking, and are not fracturing into further subdivisions, in contrast to the bigger pieces in that pie chart.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.