Referring to Religious People as "Believers"

[Quintessence]

There's a habit, at least in my observation, that people in my culture sometimes refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith." In reading a book on the subject of religion yesterday, it was pointed out by the author that these terms, while perhaps somewhat appropriate synonyms for certain religious demographics, are ill-suited to describe religions. Although the most familiar religious demographic to your typical caucasian Westerner, Christianity, is primarily orthodoxic (emphasis on belief, faith, and/or creed), this is not the case for other religions. But Judaism and Islam tend to place a greater emphasis on practices or law instead of belief, as do various Paganisms, Eastern religions, and even some branches within Christianity. It begs a question:

Why refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith" when this is not an accurate description for most of them? Should we start adjusting our vocabulary to be more accurately representative of the world's religions? Is this just semantics, or is our choice of words here important? If you've referred to religious people in this way before, did you give it much thought?

I'm not sure where I sit on this myself, because I don't have a tendency to refer to religious adherents as "believers" or "people of faith" in the first place. Perhaps this is because my own religion emphasizes neither of these two things, so I wouldn't have a tendency to project that onto all other religions?

 

[ChristineES]

When it comes to non-theist religions, you couldn't call them "believers", if the word believer was used about believing in God.

You make a great point. What you say is the main reason I call what I have a "faith" rather than a "religion", although I do follow a religion. Faith is the belief in God and religion is the following of the doctrine and/or dogma. I've met many religious followers, even in my own religion/faith who care more about following the rules rather than the belief in God.
Calling someone a "believer" in a lot of cases, is inaccurate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Labels aren't perfect, but "believer" & "faithful" are useful.
I presume that we wouldn't include atheistic/agnostic Jews (for example) in those groups.
But even religions without dogma would believe & have "faith" in something.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I prefer practitioner. While I will admit some people actually just believe and don't practice the tenets of their religion, there is still the element of practice in these religions.

 

[Revoltingest]

I prefer practitioner. While I will admit some people actually just believe and don't practice the tenets of their religion, there is still the element of practice in these religions.

That seems useful in the context of a subset of believers, ie, those who do more than believe.

Hmmm....am I a "dispractioner" because I don't practice any atheism?
Or am I a "practioner" because I practice atheism's lack of practices?
And why do we park in a driveway, but drive on a parkway?

 

[StarryNightshade]

I prefer practitioner. While I will admit some people actually just believe and don't practice the tenets of their religion, there is still the element of practice in these religions.

^^This.

Being a part of a religion or spiritual path involves action and practice in addition to belief; or, at least, it does in theory.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, the words we choose can have power and subtle impact. We need to consider both the definition, and the connotation of our words. Believer(s) is an appropriate word in some situations, but to use it in every situation is likely just laziness.

So what other words could we use in other situations? Practitioner? Adherent? Follower?

 

[Pastek]

Why refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith" when this is not an accurate description for most of them?

Why not ?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I usually call people, in general, who follow religion "religious people." I tend to reserve the term "believer" for various, more specific contexts. However, is there a specific harm you are worried about in regards to people referring to religious people as "believers?" Particularly, in light of the fact that atheists/agnostics/etc. are usually grouped together as "non-believers."

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it has a lot to do with the demographics of an area where it's simply convenient to reference people as being believers.

 

[nazz]

"Believers" is a term used in the Christian community and I do use it in that context. But I don't generally use it as a general term for religious people. I certainly would not use it to contrast with non-religious people as all people have beliefs of one sort or another.

I do want to point out in reference to Islam that the word "believer" appears quite often in the Qur'an.

 

[fantome profane]

Suckers?

If the situation calls for it and you believe that word best conveys what you wish to convey, sure.

 

[Quintessence]

That seems useful in the context of a subset of believers, ie, those who do more than believe.

I don't know if I'd phrase practice as "more than" belief, because there's a subtle (perhaps unintended) implication there that orthopraxy is superior to orthodoxy. Oh boy, has that caused some arguments in schisms in the world's religions throughout history (i.e., good works are required for salvation vs. acceptance of Jesus as the only requirement was/is a major dividing line in Christianity)! It's a different emphasis, and sometimes "belief" isn't really a part of what they do.

I usually call people, in general, who follow religion "religious people." I tend to reserve the term "believer" for various, more specific contexts. However, is there a specific harm you are worried about in regards to people referring to religious people as "believers?" Particularly, in light of the fact that atheists/agnostics/etc. are usually grouped together as "non-believers."

Nothing in particular was coming to mind; it was an interesting observation that was brought to the forefront of my mind while reading this particular book. I think use of the term to describe all religious people is not technically correct and represents a generalization that can become an obstacle to truly understanding religions and their diversity. "Harm" might be a stronger word than I would prefer to use.

With respect to the term being used to describe non-theists, it makes a little more sense, but only if we avoid using the term "non-believer" as a foil to religion as a whole. Non-theists can (and do in many cases) have a religion, and if we think "non-belief" is in opposition to any and all religion, miscommunication can result.

 

[technomage]

There's a habit, at least in my observation, that people in my culture sometimes refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith." In reading a book on the subject of religion yesterday, it was pointed out by the author that these terms, while perhaps somewhat appropriate synonyms for certain religious demographics, are ill-suited to describe religions. Although the most familiar religious demographic to your typical caucasian Westerner, Christianity, is primarily orthodoxic (emphasis on belief, faith, and/or creed), this is not the case for other religions. But Judaism and Islam tend to place a greater emphasis on practices or law instead of belief, as do various Paganisms, Eastern religions, and even some branches within Christianity. It begs a question:

Why refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith" when this is not an accurate description for most of them? Should we start adjusting our vocabulary to be more accurately representative of the world's religions? Is this just semantics, or is our choice of words here important? If you've referred to religious people in this way before, did you give it much thought?

I'm not sure where I sit on this myself, because I don't have a tendency to refer to religious adherents as "believers" or "people of faith" in the first place. Perhaps this is because my own religion emphasizes neither of these two things, so I wouldn't have a tendency to project that onto all other religions?

Good questions. I have heard members of praxis-based religions as "practitioners," but I wonder if there is a single word that would encompass all religion. Adherents, perhaps?

 

[Tumah]

I assume since most religious people are believers in a god-based faith that it just became synonymous.

Also, I'm not sure I would say that Judaism places a greater emphasis on practice and Law rather than faith as the latter is a pre-requisite for the former. Although I guess since faith is one of the Laws, maybe you are correct.

 

[Swordfall]

Why refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith" when this is not an accurate description for most of them?

You either don't believe in God or you do, and all people fit one of those descriptions.

People try to be in between, a great example would be a great deal of atheist Jews. They don't believe in God, but at the same time- don't tread on Judaism while they are around. *Don't talk about Jesus or Allah*, because *reasons*.
That is not religion. That is atheism trying to be something more then atheism, without forsaking.. atheism.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Good questions. I have heard members of praxis-based religions as "practitioners," but I wonder if there is a single word that would encompass all religion. Adherents, perhaps?

Wouldn't an Adherent have to adhere to the tenets of their religion and not just believe? Adhering to the tenets often involves practice too unless the religion says you just have to give mouth service in order to be saved. Like Tarvuism or some circles of Evangelical Christianity.

Tarvuism is so easy to join. And you get to talk to an octopus.

 

[Quagmire]

There's a habit, at least in my observation, that people in my culture sometimes refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith." In reading a book on the subject of religion yesterday, it was pointed out by the author that these terms, while perhaps somewhat appropriate synonyms for certain religious demographics, are ill-suited to describe religions. Although the most familiar religious demographic to your typical caucasian Westerner, Christianity, is primarily orthodoxic (emphasis on belief, faith, and/or creed), this is not the case for other religions. But Judaism and Islam tend to place a greater emphasis on practices or law instead of belief, as do various Paganisms, Eastern religions, and even some branches within Christianity. It begs a question:

Why refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith" when this is not an accurate description for most of them?

Well from what I've observed, it's a handy term to label all theists with and thereby shunt them into categories they don't belong in, which, from the perspective of a particularly spineless and dishonest segment of the non-theist camp, opens up all kinds of opportunities for using pre-fab arguments whether they apply or not.

Observe:

Theist: Yes I believe in God.

Non-theist: So you're a believer.

Theist: I suppose.

Non-theist: So you think the earth is 6000 yrs old.

Theist: What? No. Look: I believe the Universe is sentient. That's pretty much as far as my personal dogma goes. I don't subscribe to or identify with any religions or their doctrine/dogma.

Non-theist: Well you can't have it both ways.

Theist: What? Have what both ways?

Non-theist: You can't call yourself a believer and then deny what your Bible says.

Theist: It isn't my Bible. Like I told you: I don't follow any established religion of their doctrine.

Non-thiest: So you're a hypocrite.

Non-theist_2, Non-theist_3, Non-theist_4, _5, and _6: Yeah! you're a hypocrite, you hypocrite!

Theist: Wow.

Non-Theist: So are you going to explain how the earth can only be 6000 years old?

Theist: Just wow.

 

[Penumbra]

There's a habit, at least in my observation, that people in my culture sometimes refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith." In reading a book on the subject of religion yesterday, it was pointed out by the author that these terms, while perhaps somewhat appropriate synonyms for certain religious demographics, are ill-suited to describe religions. Although the most familiar religious demographic to your typical caucasian Westerner, Christianity, is primarily orthodoxic (emphasis on belief, faith, and/or creed), this is not the case for other religions. But Judaism and Islam tend to place a greater emphasis on practices or law instead of belief, as do various Paganisms, Eastern religions, and even some branches within Christianity. It begs a question:

Why refer to religious people as "believers" or "people of faith" when this is not an accurate description for most of them? Should we start adjusting our vocabulary to be more accurately representative of the world's religions? Is this just semantics, or is our choice of words here important? If you've referred to religious people in this way before, did you give it much thought?

I'm not sure where I sit on this myself, because I don't have a tendency to refer to religious adherents as "believers" or "people of faith" in the first place. Perhaps this is because my own religion emphasizes neither of these two things, so I wouldn't have a tendency to project that onto all other religions?

I just use "religious people" or "theists" when relevant.

I think "believers" is a reasonable term that would apply to most theists.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well from what I've observed, it's a handy term to label all theists with and thereby shunt them into categories they don't belong in, which, from the perspective of a particularly spineless and dishonest segment of the non-theist camp, opens up all kinds of opportunities for using pre-fab arguments whether they apply or not.

Observe:

Theist: Yes I believe in God.

Non-theist: So you're a believer.

Theist: I suppose.

Non-theist: So you think the earth is 6000 yrs old.

Theist: What? No. Look: I believe the Universe is sentient. That's pretty much as far as my personal dogma goes. I don't subscribe to or identify with any religions or their doctrine/dogma.

Non-theist: Well you can't have it both ways.

Theist: What? Have what both ways?

Non-theist: You can't call yourself a believer and then deny what your Bible says.

Theist: It isn't my Bible. Like I told you: I don't follow any established religion of their doctrine.

Non-thiest: So you're a hypocrite.

Non-theist_2, Non-theist_3, Non-theist_4, _5, and _6: Yeah! you're a hypocrite, you hypocrite!

Theist: Wow.

Non-Theist: So are you going to explain how the earth can only be 6000 years old?

Theist: Just wow.

I go through that all the time.