Growing up in a religion means absolutely nothing about your knowledge of said religion.

[Me Myself]

Hmm. The "no true scotsman" fallacy is coming to mind for me here. What is a religion, if not the association of individuals who have experience under what they consider to be that religion? Aren't they they ones who define what it is? If not, who is defining it? Some detached panel of experts?

This reminds me a lot of some massive arguments I've seen in the Neopagan community about who has the right to call themselves something or another. "Oh, you're not a real Wiccan because real Wiccans do this." I am very leery about taking sides in arguments like that. They represent genuine theological disputes within the religion in some cases.

Just something to consider.

another thought that comes to me abuot this is that a person who does not belong to the religion but knows the most popular visions of such religion for those that practice it still knows more than the individual people practicing it that ignore the demographics of their religious beliefs.

For example, let´s say a buddhist that simply says vegetarianism is a ncesesary part of buddhism, he is a mahayana. Now a non buddhist tells him "no, according to this text buddha said this, buddhists of all these denominations agree that vegetarianism is not needed, you belong to this specific branch of buddhism who says it is needed, but this is just since this date, before they said this other and this is only in this country..." etc, etc , etc. This non buddhist knows the religion much better than that buddhist. Sure, he cannot know the way in which that SPECIFIC buddhist approeaches his religion, but he can say with the authority of his knowledge how much his own individual way fits or not with the general intrpretations of "buddhism".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A lot of people that are allegedly catholic know too little about their faiths.

That's rather specific to Catholicism, in that it can't be extended to any other Christian denomination/sect or any other religion. Not that this means people raised in other religions or as non-Catholic christians are somehow necessarily more informed than Catholics (and likewise for other religions), just that there is a rather specific reason Catholics tend to be uninformed. For centuries, not only was the Catholic bible in Latin (as was the mass), but Catholics remained uneffected by sola scriptura. The Church was the ultimate source of knowledge, and even though the bible was the inspired word of god, the church was/is the "mouth" of god and the only institution which can guarentee correct biblical interpretation. So reading the bible was discouraged unless one had the right training (i.e., seminary), and catholics in general were supposed to be taught what catholicism was by their priests (hence the homilies).

However, things became rather worse when the use of Latin was dropped in all but the "official" Vatican documents. Readings which used to be incomprehensible were now in the vernacular, and Church-going catholics (even those who attended irregularly) were exposed to parts of the bible ripped from context every time they attended. The importance of homilies and the role of the priest as the source for religious understanding decreased, while a familiarity with the bible did not.

 

[Quiddity]

That's rather specific to Catholicism, in that it can't be extended to any other Christian denomination/sect or any other religion. Not that this means people raised in other religions or as non-Catholic christians are somehow necessarily more informed than Catholics (and likewise for other religions), just that there is a rather specific reason Catholics tend to be uninformed. For centuries, not only was the Catholic bible in Latin (as was the mass), but Catholics remained uneffected by sola scriptura. The Church was the ultimate source of knowledge, and even though the bible was the inspired word of god, the church was/is the "mouth" of god and the only institution which can guarentee correct biblical interpretation. So reading the bible was discouraged unless one had the right training (i.e., seminary), and catholics in general were supposed to be taught what catholicism was by their priests (hence the homilies).

However, things became rather worse when the use of Latin was dropped in all but the "official" Vatican documents. Readings which used to be incomprehensible were now in the vernacular, and Church-going catholics (even those who attended irregularly) were exposed to parts of the bible ripped from context every time they attended. The importance of homilies and the role of the priest as the source for religious understanding decreased, while a familiarity with the bible did not.

Catholics weren't affected by sola scriptura because there never have (or ever will) subscribed to such a doctrine. The shift you speak of is of a more recent nature and had little to do with the shifts you speak of. In fact, one could argue catholics were better informed before, then they ever were when they had access to everything. The invention of the printing press and the rise of literacy had more of an impact then anything you mentioned. Most of which happened during th Middle Ages which triggered the reformation and then the Enlightenment.

 

[Me Myself]

[youtube]w8v3yTlVKL4[/youtube]
What Americans Do and Don't Know About Religion - YouTube

I found this relevant

 

[Penumbra]

I was raised in a blend of the Catholic church and my mother's New Age beliefs, and although I went through the sacraments and went to Sunday School and mass, I didn't actually learn anything about Catholicism or Christianity or other religions until I went out and learned stuff on my own through academic sources.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Catholics weren't affected by sola scriptura because there never have (or ever will) subscribed to such a doctrine.

Yes, hence my statements about the Church being

the ultimate source of knowledge, and [that]...the church was/is the "mouth" of god

The shift you speak of is of a more recent nature and had little to do with the shifts you speak of.

What shift? The switch to the vernacular? Did you read how I introduced that part?

However, things became rather worse when the use of Latin was dropped in all but the "official" Vatican documents.

If it became worse, then it was bad before. All knowledge about religion was supposed to be (and largely was) mediated through the Church, which necessarily limits the familiarity of the individual with her or his religion (after all, if it did not, then the priest would not have any more knowledge than members of his church).

In fact, one could argue catholics were better informed before, then they ever were when they had access to everything.

Which is what I said.

The invention of the printing press and the rise of literacy had more of an impact then anything you mentioned.

No, it didn't. Because the Catholic church forbade the dissemination and reading of translations, and thus the increase in literacy and literature (including biblical translations) had relatively little influence on Catholics (unless they could read Latin). What the printing press did is create an ever-increasing familiarity with the bible among an ever-growing number of protestant sects/denominations. America is perhaps the best example of this effect, as Catholics were and are not only the minority compared to Protestants, but were frequently the subjects of discrimination (even as recently as the protests against having a catholic president when JFK ran).

Most of which happened during th Middle Ages which triggered the reformation and then the Enlightenment.

How did the Middle Ages "trigger" the Reformation? Or the Reformation the so-called "Englightenment"?

 

[dgirl1986]

I grew up in a religious absent household. I discovered God when they sent me and my sisters to a christian school in year 7. Became a christian in year 8.

I didnt really begin to really learn about christianity or even some of what the bible taught until I left it, and I was a Christian for about 11 years. I went to church, I went to bible study and I went to youth group. I still felt like a complete noob and only managed to grasp the basics.

Im not sure if it was from lack of maturity but now I know more than I ever did. They did encourage us to read our bibles, but as a teen I found it all very hard to try and interperate. I didnt really get what I was supposed to do with it. And the message from the people around me at that time was that you should trust the church to teach you how you are meant ot live, be, act, think etc. It put expectations on you sure, but I didnt really learn all that much. Just learnt what the expectation was from other christians really.

I think I have gone on a bit of a tangent there. lol.

 

[Ulteriority]

But I think the idea that one should know one's religious tradition, specifically as a historical tradition, and grasp it intellectually, is an imperative today that obviously hinders religion being transmitted as a received tradition.

I don't know that they're mutually exclusive. Knowing this history of a conversation or dialogue or tradition doesn't make it any less of a received tradition. Did Hegel end history just because he understood it?

I'm also not sure it's an imperative today; I think churches tend to love naive believers without meta-awareness, as long as they don't say anything positively contrary to officialdom. It would be quite a leap to identify benign ignorance with positive heresy.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I never said that they are mutually exclusive, only that it hinders its transmission as a received tradition. There is now always a deep scrutiny of the gift before it will be accepted. It's no longer enough to say "I worship the God of my fathers" and to leave it there as though that might justify one's decision. Yet, this aspect of inheritance/ heritage/ authority of custom was something, a powerful something, (though not the only thing) that held the religious community together once.

That is the very force of tradition as such, it's handing on. But in a relay race, one does not stop and take the time to confirm that what he was handed is indeed the correct baton.

That we have to be prepared to give an account to the stranger for the "why" of our belief means that we begin now with an assumed evangelical posture. Of course, there are exceptions to this and I am generalizing. But I am speaking of the tendency that I think is prevailing and will continue to do so for obvious reasons. Of course, there is the possibility of a willful shutting out the presence of the inquiring stranger, but that constitutes a different dynamic, in my opinion.

I think churches tend to love naive believers without meta-awareness, as long as they don't say anything positively contrary to officialdom.

Well, one receives mixed signals here. The entire ethos of Catholicism was reformulated in order to in calculate a particular awareness; there was a sense of horror that the people might not have a clerical understanding of what they were doing. This is still present in the pendulum swing back to the right. I've heard many priests from the pulpit exhort us to look within, purify ourselves, ask ourselves if we really believe, heard them exhort against empty ritual gestures and ask ourselves if "we really believe". Of course, this has a long tradition in the Church, and is never intended to provide an exit point from orthodoxy. Nonetheless, this is a powerful call to self-consciousness which inevitably exceeds the boundaries imagined by the speaker. In a sense, naiveté is both wanted and condemned. Full, conscious active participation binding one to the body of doctrine by nothing other than internal motivation. There is a modern notion of individuality present here, I think, which might have roots right back down the centuries in the Abrahamic demand for reflexivity.

 

[Ulteriority]

I never said that they are mutually exclusive, only that it hinders its transmission as a received tradition. There is now always a deep scrutiny of the gift before it will be accepted.

I'm not sure this is true. As I understand it, in my experience, one converts first and asks questions later. For the most part, the "true believers" seem to have faith first, and find out that it accords with reason afterward. I'd imagine that is how it has to work. Reflection on the process doesn't paralyze the process except for paranoiacs. In fact, this reflective process seems to be what the whole thing IS. I'm not sure dogma should be understood in a "static" sense, but rather as something like "the rules of the conversation."

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Well, we're talking about different things then because you're talking about "true believers" whereas I'm just talking about people.

The proliferation of all the elments of the "spiritual/ religious" quest industry, including even websites like this, testify to a very different model of religious membership than what was present in the past. Self consciousness about one's traditions and the reasons for accepting it are expected. At the least, once one is exposed to this standard as a standard, it's nearly impossible to refuse.

 

[Ulteriority]

But the (self-appointed) "true believers" are the ones who feel (and, to some degree, try to "enforce") this imperative. "Just people" are not necessarily affected by it in the same way. We're also expected to be more informed about the political process and, indeed, educated in science and history. This is certainly a change from the past.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

But the (self-appointed) "true believers" are the ones who feel (and, to some degree, try to "enforce") this imperative.

Probably because they are the ones who doubt the most.

My point is today only "true believers" are acceptable.

 

[Ulteriority]

To each other maybe. And even then, not completely. Some certainly look kindly upon benign ignorance. What I think they object to most would be not the genuinely ignorant person, but the educated dissenter, the person who knows the tradition is on one side who nevertheless favor the other. But that's very different than benign ignorance. I see very little that the latter is causing a moral panic. In an educated society, however, it seems odd that people would know about all sorts of things and then just turn off their intellectual curiosity regarding religion.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

This is really Charles Taylor's analysis and not so much mine: that the need to make individuals the right sort of Christian was a "disembedding force" that broke the bonds of "human respect" and helped to generate a whole series of alternative moral and spiritual horizons.

 

[Ulteriority]

That's really fascinating. Though, I'm unsure how exactly you intend it to speak to the original point of this thread.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Well, it's in response to questions you addressed to me when I remarked that knowledge of a religious tradition can be had in more than one way, and that I think contemporary discourse privliges a certain kind of knowledge of religious tradition; a privliging that is impacting the landscape of religious membership today.

 

[Ulteriority]

I think my questions were directed more at the value judgments that seem hidden in your original response. It's hard to tell though, it was written in an oddly "political" tone that begs a sort of "why don't you tell us what you REALLY think" response. You have clear disdain for the original poster's attitude, but won't say it in so many words. Your "objective" statements, however, leave one wondering "What alternative do you propose then?"

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Well you know what I really think as regards the things you care to hear from me about. I think the obsession with dogma on the part of "true believers" contributes to a religious discourse that is thinning out Church membership, especially in today's religious marketplace.

 

[Ulteriority]

Some people think that is a good thing, of course. Not me. But some.