Belief by the manual
Once again, something that’s been on my mind for a while has been dragged to the top of my shamefully long list of things I’d like to write about by a few conversations, here and elsewhere, which have made it seem particularly relevant to address it right now. This time, following on from my last post about what I termed “atheist fundamentalism” (a term I’m still not very happy with), it’s how much we can reasonably generalise about belief (both religious and non-religious) that’s got my attention.
There are two obvious ways of examining what a particular group believes. You can either take that group’s official position (if it has one) as definitive, or you can ask what people who belong to that group believe in practice. There are difficulties with both approaches – discussing the group’s official position is likely to define a rigid view that no one actually holds, but attempting to reflect the full variety of views held by people who count themselves as members of that group risks turning the most basic statement into a survey.
Even if you could easily collect information about the precise beliefs of each person who identifies with a group, working with the majority view would produce some very strange results if we go by what people actually believe. We’d end up saying that typical Christian belief is that Jesus didn’t physically rise from the dead (Q24), or that Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation. That’s plainly a nonsensical result, but if people’s actual beliefs are what matter, there doesn’t seem to be any good reason to exclude any views as outliers. The answer has to lie in the awkward middle ground.
I think political parties are a useful analogy at this point – we would have little hesitation in expecting a party’s position to be defined in terms of its official policies, but the situation is more complex for people. Party members, and especially elected representatives would be expected to agree with the broad thrust of their policies, and probably to explain and defend them even if they don’t personally agree, while for those who vote for a party there’s little expectation beyond thinking the party’s the best of a bad bunch. So at the risk of overextending the metaphor, which is appropriate?
At first, I thought that people people who identify with a religion should be expected to meet the “party member” standard – they’ve chosen to tie themselves to that belief system. But that tie is often related to family history (“my family’s always voted CofE”?) and unless you start your own religion, you’re effectively presented with a narrow choice of religions or belief systems, almost like a voting slip. Some may have a level of commitment equivalent to party membership, but that isn’t necessary, even for those who specifically identify with a certain religion or denomination.
So when discussing belief, we have something of a problem. To reflect the variety of beliefs associated with any group would effectively make it impossible to say anything meaningful about that group, but to ignore that variety looks like a great example of the No True Scotsman fallacy and risks an accusation of cherry-picking. The only solution is to adopt an appropriate strategy in each individual case. When speaking about the position of a church as a whole, it makes sense to examine that church’s official doctrine, but if you want to discuss people’s individual beliefs, the practice is more important than the theory.
That’s all very well, but the difficulty is in how to distinguish the different uses. It wouldn’t be controversial to say that Catholics believe in transubstantiation, but according to the evidence, it would strictly be untrue on an individual level. For formal accuracy, it would be better to speak of what official Roman Catholic doctrine says, but I think the meaning of the statement is clear enough for most purposes.
If the discussion centres around personal beliefs, though, especially if Catholics are being criticised for this supposed belief, the detail matters and the statement should be more clearly defined. When an aspect of religious belief is criticised, it’s surely fair enough for a believer to say that they don’t actually believe that. They’re entitled to have a discussion based on what they actually believe, not what other people believe, or what someone thinks they ought to believe. There’s only one person, so there’s no associated difficulty around speaking meaningfully about a group, and it’s basic courtesy.
It’s inaccurate in all but the most bizarre and extreme theoretical examples to say that all members of a group believe or behave the same, but what if the explicit word “all” is dropped? Can we fairly say that group X believe this, or group Y do that, with no further qualification? Dare I say it depends? The word “all” isn’t necessary to make it a gross overgeneralisation, but its absence does make a difference, marking an informal distinction between official and personal views. There’s a difference between “Christians believe Jesus was divine” (party manifesto) and “all Christians believe Jesus was divine” (personal views of members/supporters). Subject to the caveats above around relevance, importance and purpose of discussion, I think the former could be acceptable even if the latter isn’t.
There are problems, though, where the statement isn’t one that matches an official line associated with the group under discussion, or where it clearly reflects personal feeling rather than an institutional position. However many examples I’m aware of to support my statement, it would be inaccurate and unfair to say “Muslims oppose America”, because there’s no such Islamic doctrine. It would also be wrong to say “Muslims hate infidels” whatever the official doctrinal position, because the statement clearly describes personal feelings. As such, both statements are overgeneralising.
Unfortunately, there are huge grey areas. People will disagree over whether the views of people within a group or that group’s official pronouncements are more important. They may disagree over sources of authority, or their interpretation. They’ll even disagree over the circumstances in which it’s acceptable make statements using qualifiers such as “some”, “many” or “most”, a subject I’ve completely ducked. And sometimes I can be a little careless in this area, but I’m just trying to get my thoughts straight.
This is just me attempting to resolve the difficult issue of how to speak about varied groups. I think it makes sense, and this is roughly how I try to deal with general statements, but I don’t claim any great insight, and I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Photo by Damouns, used under Attribution License