_Protestants, grouped together, make up the largest religious group in the 110th Congress. But the largest single denomination is Roman Catholics._The freshman class of the House has the first Muslim and the first two Buddhists to serve in Congress. The rest of the class comprises 45 Christians and six Jews. Of the Christians, there are 18 Roman Catholics, 17 Protestants, six nondenominational Christians, three Greek Orthodox Christians and one Mormon.
This from an article in the Washington Post linked to in title of this post about the makeup of the 110th Congress that starts today.The need exists for us to work harder to educate and organize for a rational government made up of servants who are capable of thinking for themselves and do not blindly follow what they were told as children.Peter Nuhn
tc, according to this:
“Professing Christianity does not equate to being a Christian. They are different categories. Professing Christianity is a simple verbal statement. Being a Christian, is primarily life style and behaviors that are integrated with one’s professed beliefs.”, I have never met a christian. From the first time I was introduced to the non-sense of god, etc., I thought religion in any form was such and so far it has been just that. NON-SENSE.
tc-
did you read the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy? The whole point was that the definition is too wide to accomodate narrow behavioral functions (suh as what a ‘true christian’ is). It is exactly what we are talking about.
Speaking of Lincoln’s letter to his dying father, Colonel Lamon says:
“If ever there was a moment when Mr. Lincoln might have been expected to express his faith in the Atonement, his trust in the merits of a Living Redeemer, it was when he undertook to send a composing and comforting message to a dying man. But he omitted it wholly
“Lincoln went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard: he shocked me. I don’t remember the exact line of his argument — suppose it was against the inherent defects, so called, of the Bible, and on grounds of reason. Lincoln always denied that Jesus was the Christ of God, as understood and maintained by the Christian Church. The Rev. Dr. Smith, who wrote a letter, tried to convert Lincoln from Infidelity so late as 1858, and couldn’t do it.” (Lamon’s Life of Lincoln, p. 488.)
Maybe not an atheist but certainly not a Xtian.
tc-
again, I don’t really care if you are persuaded by my argument. I am not out to persuade. I want to show you that you explicitly made an illogical argument. A fallacious argument.
I am not making up definitions of what a christian is. By poses behavioral limits on such a definition, you are setting up a fallacy. you said:
I don’t think I am misrepresenting that quote.
the fallacy, as defined, explicitly uses that example:
Its not an apple and oranges category issue. It is exactly this reasoning.
I am not trying to create a straw man here. I am trying to show that your line of reasoning is explicitly illogical and fallacious. I have no sympathy for ‘persuasion’ so you can choose to accept the critical evaluation or not.
here is a line by line clarified replay.
1 – That is a kind of strange approach to the contents of the mind.
Trying to equate certain imposed behavioral standards with criterion for belief is strange in as much as beliefs, especially definitional beliefs are better suited in propositional form.
2 – If someone says they believe, they probably believe. Having a belief is just that. Thats the best inductive evidence we have. No one is perfect, certainly not theists.
Since we cannot take an empirical stance on the contents of the mind, we are dependent on inductive methods. Propositions are the most clear evidence in as much as they have truth values. True, someone may be confused or lying, but I think when your hypothetical congressman professes theism, for sake of argument, I assume the subject is professing something they believe to be true. Certainly no one has perfect transparent access to their psyche, and of course they might be lying, but that is a different argument, than whether self professed theists believe themselves to be theists.
3 – To take a stronger stance on that is to attribute a metaphysical component to the status of their belief.
That is, to claim that being a ‘True Theist’ is someone who functionally fulfills a narrow definition of some essential theistic qualities, one, seems to implicitly rely on the existence of essential qualities and, two, denies the legitimacy of belief as a mental phenomena. Hence my example of a religious acting person who is, indeed, an atheist or denies a personal God (like Einstein)
4 – It also smacks of the fundamental attribution error.
from wikipedia.
5 – Having a hunch because you suspect people aren’t ‘acting like theists’ (whtever that means) Is an extrememly weak epistemic position with regards to belief.
this didn’t seem contentious.
6 – Unless you are a hardline behaviorist.
I should have added: unless you have the relevant supporting data and are also comfortable with the reduction it implies. further, self attribution is an empirical form of behavior.
7 – Even a functionalist or a cog psy would avoid such a strong claim.
Even a functionalist approach to the mind would count self attributionas legitimate behavior, or function of belief, and wouldn’t solely rely on outward physical behavior.
8 – Its bad footing philosophically and scientifically.
For the reasons elaborated above and the explicit use of the fallacy I stated later.
phreedm-
I care about Truth, although I usually spell it truth. That is my opinion as far as I have researched. Thank you for the link to the second inaugural address. Very interesting. I still remain unconvinced Lincoln was any sort of Christian, especially while in office. Perhaps it is a little strong to call him an atheist in the contemporary sense. I mentioned my opinion on this blog because it is a conversation. Not an agenda driven soapbox.
phreddy:
Here’s a link you may be interested in:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html
Before you cry ‘confirmation bias’, I’d point out that (in another chapter) it talks about G. Washington as an attendee at a communicant church (yet never took the communicance [sp?]).
I have read elsewhere, that AL converted to xtianity at Gettysburg.
Given the RR’s penchant for revisionism, I have my qualms about that.
But a politician rebuking the religion of his constituents? Career suicide, as illustrated by Paine’s exile.
Painting each president as a good xtian, is a masturbatory effort at hoisting your national petard.
Nixon was a Quaker, as a good analogy.
I would guess that a good 20 percent of congress would tell you they are atheists if they could. The rest don’t actually believe the deity stuff anyhow. It’s just window dressing for the deluded American voter.
I don’t know what the hell that first sentence means… but the Nixon example speaks to tc and Zac Hunter’s debate. If Quaker = pacifist, and Nixon ordered bombings in Vietnam, then Nixon =/= pacifist =/= Quaker. We might say that Nixon was not a “true Quaker” if we want to suggest that his self-professed Quakerism was a sham… but otherwise, the truth value adheres in the definition of “Quaker.” He’s simply a Quaker or not a Quaker, depending in this example on whether Quakers are strictly not allowed to preside over wars (which I don’t know to be the case).
So what truth value adheres in the definition of “Christian?” Considering that Christians of various sects have all kinds of ways to break the Ten Commandments and then atone within the purview of their religion, I’d say the only thing we’d agree on is that a Christian must acknowledge Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior.
JP:
Sorry, wasn’t clear.
Phreddy consistently uses past presidents to illustrate how xtianity has been a guiding force in our history in the US. He paints a picture of strong, religious patriots w/nary a blemish of character.
They were all men, all imperfect, & few of them were the paragons of purity that our textbooks paint them to be.
Phreddy’s in love w/the romantic myth of the superior xtians running an xtian country, is all.
Actually, a # of presidents changed denomination, whether upon inception to political office and/or presidency, I am unsure.
Quakers view the bible as dead letters, as I understand it.
True enough.
I tend to point out to the ‘original intent’ crowd, that if the US were founded as an xtian nation, at least 1 of our documents would mention YHVH, jay-sus, the resurrection, etc.
A few more muslims, and I’m pretty sure we will get few seperation of church/state laws passed by the religious right.
maddogstu:
Or cause a massive “backlash” that will endanger us all.
However, I think the military tribunal act of ’06 was intended to go after non-evangelical heathens and not terrorists. So I might be a little paranoid.
Paranoid because it hasn’t happened, YET…..
Would that be Communion? Seems a certain apostate isn?t quite as well versed in things liturgical as he presents himself to be?
zac
Let me further clarify since my intended proposition is somewhat different than what you are making it out to be. It is my error for not being clearer. I do appreciate the information about the various psych. terminology, however.
The statement “I am a Christian” certainly incorporates a belief system, but it is also about how one spends his time.
For example, if a friend made the statement “I love my kids more than anything”, but it was found that he spends a total of 10 minutes a week with them, I would argue that his professed belief is not very central to his life. This is the context in my reference to professed Christians in our culture.
THE DATA: Time audits done on professed Christians show similar lack of centrality in belief as in the father example above. In other words, if one looked at how an individual spends his time during the week i.e. his work, his play, his reading, his recreation, his music, his hobbies, his relationships, his browsing, his communication, etc.; one could not discern that the majority of “professed” Christian were Christian. That’s my point. I simply applied this data to professed Christians in Congress.
How much time a week do you spend thinking about, writing about, discussing, acting on your worldview? (I assume it is atheism). I would guess a significant amount of your waking hours??
I am not saying a professed Christian has to attain certain moral standard of perfection and follow exact behaviors to meet my criteria of being a Christian. As I said, it was more about how one spends his time that reflects where his heart and mind is.
tc,
I’ve been following the conversation between you and zac about the difference between a professing xian and a true xian.
From my point of view the ‘not true Scotsman’ fallacy certainly seems to apply to you defined distinction.
Further you latest post seems to reinforce some quantitative criteria for establishing the distinction between professed and true xianity. This seems to me rather inappropriate. The litmus test for xianity is surely whether of not one believes in jesus as a god etc. There is no compulsion for outward displays of fealty, merely an internal belief.
In other words I think you measurement criteria is fundamentally flawed, irrespective of the degree of integrity in you distinctive categories.
HeathNZ,
Opinion noted.
However, I believe I have made my case.
1. I have defined a “professing christian”
2. i have clarified my proposition.
3. I have justified and defended my proposition adequately.
Pathetic, is what that is.
tc,
Are you doing this for some philosophy project?
There are no xians if one uses the gospels as the criteria. No one can live up to the standards. The only one who ever came close was St, Francis.
It all seems to be a futile argument.
So…..Are you a Christian?
In a way it is a bit of a compliment. He is searching for the tiniest flaw to make himself feel superior and this is the best he can do.
HeatheNZ, I just took a quick look at your website, looks interesting and probably helpful (to me at least).
In response to your comment to tc, how would you account for a congress critters need to deceive? I kinda think most of them will say lots of things they don’t really believe to get elected or to stay in office.
On the first day of Congress,
the electorate gave to me,
A Muslim with a Koran
On the second day of Congress,
the electorate gave to me,
Two Jews with Torahs
and A Muslim with a Koran
On the third day of Congress
the electorate gave to me,
Three Mormons with six wives
Two Jews with a Torah
and A Muslim with a Koran
…work in progress…..
Couldn’t help it. That was my very first thought when I read this posting………and I’ve been singing versions in my head ever since…….
tc-
thanks for clarifying. Those examples are clearer too, but they are open to debate.
The man who says he loves his children example, without supporting contextual evidence, along with these ‘time-audits’ seem dubious. Are you referencing a study? I am not saying they don’t work, but they seem incomplete without more contextual info, or actual empirical data. I am mostly concerned that it is just your impression of Christians? What is often amenable to to the mind (ie, what often just seems right, quite often isnt, especially regarding in and out groups). Regardless, I am not here to bully you, so I apologize if I pursued that debate a little too doggedly (old habits die hard). I just appreciate someone willing to really hash it out.
Remy-
I was a philosophy major in college and I am warming up to apply to grad school, so when I saw a reasonable opponent, I thought it would be fun to spar with tc. My guess is he is not a Christian (am I right tc? you don’t have to answer obviously)
Part of the reason I am so ornery about the idea of a ‘true’ anything, and why I reference the No True Scotsman fallacy is that it is quite often utilized by both sides of the religion/ethics debate. If there is one thing I can’t bare, its unfair argumentation and over- generalization. When a theist comes here and makes similar claims about how a ‘true atheist’ would/should act (a true muslim would never blow up a crowd of innocent people, a true atheist has no reason to be ethical, a true scotsman never puts sugar on his porridge), I give them the same arguments. To cherish reason demands it be applied equally.
Bones:
Awesome! However, be careful with those pesky little voices singing tunes in your head…next thing you know, you may be hearing gawd’s voice spake to you…
“I used to be the chosen one.”
Zac, tc, and others,
I agree that using the “true xian” argument is pretty weak.
I think rather, you might talk about whether someone is a “good” xian. (Although, that could be argued, as well – what is the definition of a “good” xian?)
Probably best to ask if someone is living according to their own ideals – whatever that may be. Do you DO what YOU believe is right in all or most cases? If you are a xian, for example, and YOU believe that you should follow the 10 commandments – do you follow them?
I take people at their word. If they SAY they are a xian, muslim, or whatever – I trust that they are what they say.
I have been told that I wasn’t “really” an atheist before, (because I have good morals, so can’t “really” be godless – because morals come from god!) and that REALLY burns me. I KNOW what I am and I don’t want anyone defining me.
Zac,
—–The man who says he loves his children example, without supporting contextual evidence, along with these ‘time-audits’ seem dubious. Are you referencing a study? I am not saying they don’t work, but they seem incomplete without more contextual info, or actual empirical data. I am mostly concerned that it is just your impression of Christians? What is often amenable to to the mind (ie, what often just seems right, quite often isnt, especially regarding in and out groups). Regardless, I am not here to bully you, so I apologize if I pursued that debate a little too doggedly (old habits die hard). I just appreciate someone willing to really hash it out.——-
comments appreciated. You have several good points, if i read your post as you intended. The father analogy may not hold up, if his motives and intentions for his behaviors in some way did demonstrate that his kids were his highest prioritiy. Motives and intentions are difficult to access, from an objective sense(scientific) and subjective sense (first hand reporting).
The study was done by a Paul Cox PhD, I don’t have the exact reference at this time.
I didn’t feel “bullied” but appreciate the thoughtfulness. I don’t mind bullying if it leads to better thinking and truth (no capital “T”). Let me make a guess–I would imagine you prefer to think in terms of “knowledge” rather than “truth”, even without a capital “T”. (Not that the guess/question is really that relevant.) Just attempting to correlate some things in my mind.
Personally, I profess to be a Christian and am not sure I would be in the minority group of Dr. Cox’s study. My point was not inclusion or exclusion of any groups or subgroups. I think the point I was trying to make was it is not a simple matter to assign a particular “worldview” to any particular individual, regardless of what they profess.
there are no real atheists or christians in gov’t because both groups value honesty.we have people who worship themselves in gov’t.
Krystalline — I e-mailed a similar statement to the local Gannett newspaper, pointing out that the Constitution is Godless. An editor e-mailed back to ask if I really wanted it printed, as one of the amendments is dated “in the year of our Lord.” I had to point out to him that the phrase doesn’t just imply theism, but refers to a Christ. Apparently, fundie Christians use it as a back door entrance to their dreamed theocracy.
jp you used the right word dreamed.because the record of history is that theocracy is a hell for theists.
tc-
very interesting food for thought. I will look up Dr Cox study too.
I sometimes think in terms of truth. In as much as propositions can have coherent truth values etc. And I think when we find out certain solid theories and laws about the universe, we can call them truths too.
Knowledge or truth. Same endeavor in the end I suppose. I am simultaneously seeking knowledge, and the proper means of sifting through and sorting that knowledge via good inference, logic, reasonableness, parsimony etc.
Seems like you are too.
Z