Belief and identity

[Tom 1]

Interested in people's thoughts about how belief is supported by identity and vice versa.

Some definitions:

I'd rather not get sidetracked into discussions of what belief means, so belief for this thread just means what you happen to think is true.

Identity - for this discussion everything that contributes to what you think about the world, where you were born, what your parents believed, your education and so on.

Some basics:

Where we are born clearly has an influence on what religion we might tend towards. I'm more interested in questions of identity and belief on a more personal level. To what degree do you think people are influenced by the beliefs of their parents, and by their level of education, and in what way? What kinds of things reinforce or weaken those beliefs?

There are many different Christian denominations. While there are some shared beliefs there are also varying degrees to which people firmly believe their denomination's particular teachings are the right ones. No church teaches 'only the bible' - every reading of the bible is an interpretation, and no church's teachings represent some universally objective true reading of the text. This being the case, what are the degrees of relevance of identity with the group vs conviction through argument or understanding?

To me it seems that people often identify with a particular denomination or set of doctrines for reasons wrapped up in their identity and sense of self, or because of some personal experience, and that arguments used by that denomination are employed more as a form of reassurance or to emotionally bolster something the person has already accepted as true.

Finally, when belief in something is shaken, how does this reconfigure a person's identity? E.g if people sideline doubts to maintain their identity as part of a group, or where a person undergoes a radical change in how they view the world and their own place in it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Interested in people's thoughts about how belief is supported by identity and vice versa.

Some definitions:

I'd rather not get sidetracked into discussions of what belief means, so belief for this thread just means what you happen to think is true.

Identity - for this discussion everything that contributes to what you think about the world, where you were born, what your parents believed, your education and so on.

Some basics:

Where we are born clearly has an influence on what religion we might tend towards. I'm more interested in questions of identity and belief on a more personal level. To what degree do you think people are influenced by the beliefs of their parents, and by their level of education, and in what way? What kinds of things reinforce or weaken those beliefs?

There are many different Christian denominations. While there are some shared beliefs there are also varying degrees to which people firmly believe their denomination's particular teachings are the right ones. No church teaches 'only the bible' - every reading of the bible is an interpretation, and no church's teachings represent some universally objective true reading of the text. This being the case, what are the degrees of relevance of identity with the group vs conviction through argument or understanding?

To me it seems that people often identify with a particular denomination or set of doctrines for reasons wrapped up in their identity and sense of self, or because of some personal experience, and that arguments used by that denomination are employed more as a form of reassurance or to emotionally bolster something the person has already accepted as true.

Finally, when belief in something is shaken, how does this reconfigure a person's identity? E.g if people sideline doubts to maintain their identity as part of a group, or where a person undergoes a radical change in how they view the world and their own place in it.

It's not the same across the board. There is all you said, but there is also truth.

Here's the thing about Christianity. (And not to say that all 'Christians' are true believers, but...) faith, that is, salvific faith, is not of the believer, but of the Spirit of God, (even if the believer is not aware of that fact). Thus, the TRUTH is there, regardless of, and correcting of, inadequate doctrine or worse, and the poor interpretation and poor delivery of scripture readings and so on. Christianity is unlike any other religion in this, and in one major other way: Who wrote the book? What is the book good for? How does the book work?

 

[Tom 1]

It's not the same across the board. There is all you said, but there is also truth.

Here's the thing about Christianity. (And not to say that all 'Christians' are true believers, but...) faith, that is, salvific faith, is not of the believer, but of the Spirit of God, (even if the believer does is not aware of that fact). Thus, the TRUTH is there, regardless of, and correcting of, inadequate doctrine or worse, and the poor interpretation and poor delivery of scripture readings and so on. Christianity is unlike any other religion in this, and in one major other way: Who wrote the book? What is the book good for? How does the book work?

I suppose you could say there are things that transcend identity. There are a lot of other things that are wrapped up in it though.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I suppose you could say there are things that transcend identity. There are a lot of other things that are wrapped up in it though.

Well, what I meant to get at is that the true believer is identified in Christ, and his true identity is as God sees him, not by how he sees himself. His identity is not transcended. It just isn't quite what temporal identities are made by.

We identify ourselves (and are identified by others) by family, nation, race, abilities, practices, beliefs, behaviors, personality, appearance and more, but in the end, that is not who we are.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I suppose you could say there are things that transcend identity. There are a lot of other things that are wrapped up in it though.

Maybe what I should have said is: Our eternal identity transcends our temporal identity.

 

[Tom 1]

Well, what I meant to get at is that the true believer is identified in Christ, and his true identity is as God sees him, not by how he sees himself. His identity is not transcended. It just isn't quite what temporal identities are made by.

We identify ourselves (and are identified by others) by family, nation, race, abilities, practices, beliefs, behaviors, personality, appearance and more, but in the end, that is not who we are.

Ah ok, I see what you mean. I suppose what I'm getting at is more mundane. More about the specific ideas people become convinced of.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah ok, I see what you mean. I suppose what I'm getting at is more mundane. More about the specific ideas people become convinced of.

Ok, maybe it was unfair of me to step past what you were obviously after, with your OP.

One thought that comes to me concerning temporal identity, has to do with pursuit of what some call "one's own truth" (I use the term for lack of a better description). All the other things you mention (and more) form the identity, but it is always migrating/ evolving. Even those that appear stagnant are changing.

"What you do is who you are", and what you do is always growing/ evolving. What you believe and think about, both causes and comes from what you do.

 

[public hermit]

What kinds of things reinforce or weaken those beliefs?

I think doxastic humility is sorely lacking among many Christians, and perhaps religious folks in general. Yes, we believe certain things, but we too often are unable to treat them as beliefs. Instead, we can treat beliefs, as you say, as part of ourselves so that if someone questions a cherished belief, we can have a tendency to treat that questioning as a personal attack instead of a question about a belief.

How should we treat beliefs? Well, as beliefs, which means they are always up for questioning. Christians hold to some wonderfully, astounding truth claims, e.g. the resurrection. To act as if such beliefs are beyond question is, in some sense, to make what is incredible and transcendent seem mundane and obvious, which is inappropriate.

More to the point, it is only through allowing ourselves the freedom to struggle and question that we grow. To treat beliefs as if they are settled and beyond question is to become stagnate and neglect the reality of the ultimate inscrutability of the divine. We like to bring God down to levels we can control, which can hamper our own potential growth. The Cappadocians, for instance, were excellent at acknowledging this inscrutibility, which I think is key in being able to disassociate one's identity from that which one believes. If I know God is far beyond my conceptions of God, I am free to be wrong and my fallibility is no longer a threat, but is significantly part of me being a creature.

 

[mama2one]

husband grew up Lutheran & I grew up Catholic
we're raising daughter Christian but not Lutheran/RC


always felt Catholicism was parent's choice, not mine
siblings and I had no choice but to go to "their" church

 

[mama2one]

Finally, when belief in something is shaken, how does this reconfigure a person's identity?

when abuse came out re Catholic church, there's no way I could take part any more

I volunteered at a domestic violence shelter for a year
find abuse stories horrible & absolutely would not raise our daughter in a church prone to abuse

 

[Tom 1]

Ok, maybe it was unfair of me to step past what you were obviously after, with your OP.

One thought that comes to me concerning temporal identity, has to do with pursuit of what some call "one's own truth" (I use the term for lack of a better description). All the other things you mention (and more) form the identity, but it is always migrating/ evolving. Even those that appear stagnant are changing.

"What you do is who you are", and what you do is always growing/ evolving. What you believe and think about, both causes and comes from what you do.

Yeah, I think I pretty much agree with what you are saying there. I do know some people however who are very rigid in their ideas, and resist any kind of questioning of them.

 

[Tom 1]

More to the point, it is only through allowing ourselves the freedom to struggle and question that we grow.

Well said!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah, I think I pretty much agree with what you are saying there. I do know some people however who are very rigid in their ideas, and resist any kind of questioning of them.

Lol, you are right, there, but even they, in honest introspection, realize their understanding of what they believe is in constant upgrade mode.

 

[jayem]

Just for some balance, here’s my story from the non-religious perspective. I never did connect with religion. My family is a mixture of Catholic, Protestant, and some Jewish. My parents weren’t particularly observant. We occasionally attended services on holidays, but not regularly. I went to Bible school for a time. But as I think about it, even at 8 or 9 years old, I had a deep down feeling that Bible stories weren’t much different from fairy tales. I’m apparently one of those people who are simply incapable of any kind of spiritual or supernatural belief. I’m familiar with the concept of the “God” part of the brain. Which most human beings supposedly have. But I guess I’m brain-damaged, and just lack that function.

 

[zippy2006]

To what degree do you think people are influenced by the beliefs of their parents, and by their level of education, and in what way? What kinds of things reinforce or weaken those beliefs?

Up to a certain age one is entirely the product of their upbringing and education. As one grows older these beliefs, which are based on arguments from authority, vacillate with respect to the level of authority accorded to parents and teachers in retrospect. Even so, much of what they have been taught will be too deeply seeded to scrutinize.

This being the case, what are the degrees of relevance of identity with the group vs conviction through argument or understanding?

I take it that true knowledge or understanding is very rare, but with respect to the difference between group-identity beliefs and personally-arrived-at beliefs, I think group identity predominates in our culture today. Those who spend more time away from the instruments of group identity and association will be more likely to have unique beliefs. Such instruments would be television, social media, radio, etc.

To me it seems that people often identify with a particular denomination or set of doctrines for reasons wrapped up in their identity and sense of self, or because of some personal experience, and that arguments used by that denomination are employed more as a form of reassurance or to emotionally bolster something the person has already accepted as true.

Sure, but this argument essentially boils down to Western "authenticity" or Eastern "no-self," which are both largely forms of group identity. Exchanging denominational group identity for existentialist or Vedantist group identity is only a mild variation. Usually when someone challenges beliefs it is on the basis of a new identity that is forming, and identities are supported by communities which share that identity. This is why pure secularism is so powerless against religion.

Finally, when belief in something is shaken, how does this reconfigure a person's identity? E.g if people sideline doubts to maintain their identity as part of a group, or where a person undergoes a radical change in how they view the world and their own place in it.

It sends stressors down the line to beliefs which are akin to the one shaken. So if someone has their belief in conservative fundamentalist Christianity shaken, they may begin to scrutinize all of the beliefs they categorize as conservative (family, politics, relationships, etc.).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think doxastic humility is sorely lacking among many Christians, and perhaps religious folks in general. Yes, we believe certain things, but we too often are unable to treat them as beliefs. Instead, we can treat beliefs, as you say, as part of ourselves so that if someone questions a cherished belief, we can have a tendency to treat that questioning as a personal attack instead of a question about a belief.

How should we treat beliefs? Well, as beliefs, which means they are always up for questioning. Christians hold to some wonderfully, astounding truth claims, e.g. the resurrection. To act as if such beliefs are beyond question is, in some sense, to make what is incredible and transcendent seem mundane and obvious, which is inappropriate.

More to the point, it is only through allowing ourselves the freedom to struggle and question that we grow. To treat beliefs as if they are settled and beyond question is to become stagnate and neglect the reality of the ultimate inscrutability of the divine. We like to bring God down to levels we can control, which can hamper our own potential growth. The Cappadocians, for instance, were excellent at acknowledging this inscrutibility, which I think is key in being able to disassociate one's identity from that which one believes. If I know God is far beyond my conceptions of God, I am free to be wrong and my fallibility is no longer a threat, but is significantly part of me being a creature.

I agree, but then, what one considers to be settled truth, is often the words of the matter, such as in a creed, or TULIP, for example, or the confessions. We may many of us believe the TRINITY to be settled fact, but what it means is beyond any of us. We trust the Scriptures AS WRITTEN to keep us from unwarranted extravagances of imagination or from what we hear that 'sounds right' but is new to us, and in the long run turns out to be false. God's Word is amazing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just for some balance, here’s my story from the non-religious perspective. I never did connect with religion. My family is a mixture of Catholic, Protestant, and some Jewish. My parents weren’t particularly observant. We occasionally attended services on holidays, but not regularly. I went to Bible school for a time. But as I think about it, even at 8 or 9 years old, I had a deep down feeling that Bible stories weren’t much different from fairy tales. I’m apparently one of those people who are simply incapable of any kind of spiritual or supernatural belief. I’m familiar with the concept of the “God” part of the brain. Which most human beings supposedly have. But I guess I’m brain-damaged, and just lack that function.

Sometimes, logic suffices. To me it would take more faith to believe in infinite regression of cause than to believe in simply logical First Cause.

 

[zippy2006]

I think doxastic humility is sorely lacking among many Christians, and perhaps religious folks in general.

I think it is much worse in political circles, primarily at the extremes.

How should we treat beliefs? Well, as beliefs, which means they are always up for questioning.

This claim essentially results in special pleading, claiming that your beliefs are right and others are wrong. For example, everything you claim in this post is a belief. Are your beliefs up for questioning? Here are a few of your claims:

• Beliefs are always up for questioning.
• Growth occurs only through struggle and questioning.
• Dogma is incompatible with God (the inscrutability of the divine).
• One must be able to dissociate identity from belief.

Is doxastic humility attached to these beliefs? In my opinion these beliefs you espouse, with the exception of #2, are basically Hinduism.

I don't think the idea that all beliefs must be tentatively held makes sense on any rigorous epistemology, foundationalist or coherentist. Indeed, this principle of quasi-skepticism is itself a form of the popular groupthink that the OP is asking about.

 

[public hermit]

I think it is much worse in political circles, primarily at the extremes.



This claim essentially results in special pleading, claiming that your beliefs are right and others are wrong. For example, everything you claim in this post is a belief. Are your beliefs up for questioning? Here are a few of your claims:

• Beliefs are always up for questioning.
• Growth occurs only through struggle and questioning.
• Dogma is incompatible with God (the inscrutability of the divine).
• One must be able to dissociate identity from belief.

Is doxastic humility attached to these beliefs? In my opinion these beliefs you espouse, with the exception of #2, are basically Hinduism.

I don't think the idea that all beliefs must be tentatively held makes sense on any rigorous epistemology, foundationalist or coherentist. Indeed, this principle of quasi-skepticism is itself a form of the popular groupthink that the OP is asking about.

Sure, I could be wrong.

 

[Tom 1]

This is why pure secularism is so powerless against religion.

I'm in favour of secular government, but if you mean atheistic political theories they certainly lack narratives that can account for all the variation in human behaviour. There's a kind of chicken and egg question in there, as in are the narratives that support today's civilisations there because they proved to be effective, or are they effective because people have accepted them.