The Johnston Center for Integrative Studies

I think the generalizations disregard the vastness of the American ideological landscape.  There is a very large population who might be categorized as "nonbelievers" who've adopted a convenient, easy God.  I'm generally in that category myself.  I found it all too easy to stop attending church on Sunday, something I'd been doing continuously for almost twenty years, because I disliked the Catholic church's active involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign here in California -- in other words, the church's violation of what I considered its proper civic role trumped any deeper beliefs or needs I thought were being addressed by my membership in the parish.  Alongside myself I place the enormous numbers of nonchurchgoing, irreligious and antireligious people around the country, as well as less conscious hedonists and consumers, and those who attend church because other members of their family do.

But the other side of the bet is that on both the right and the left, there are enormous populations of people whose ethics and morality are guided by their religious beliefs -- I'm indifferent in making this assessment to whether their beliefs end up being in support or opposition to the "prevailing system."  For these groups, I don't think Charles Taylor's picture of American/Western religious belief as fundamentally "optional" is really correct.  Rather, these groups (evangelicals on the left and right and fundamentalists, and as well as the most involved participants in liberal Christian groups like the Quakers and Unitarians) "dwell in" their beliefs.  The fact that most (though not all) of them might not experience Kierkegaardian terrors of the night doesn't invalidate the seriousness of their purposes and lives.

It's the very lack of perceived "optionality" in belief that convinces me that the low-grade civil wars over abortion and homosexuality in America won't end in this century. 

This is a great question, it touches on a lot that I've personally wondered about recently. I hope these "knowledge knockouts" continue.

On the one hand, yes: Americans do believe in God. If you believe the polls it ranges from 70 to 90 percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power. 

But a Pew poll of Christians also recently found that a surprisingly high number believe in things like ghosts, reincarnation and astrology. This certainly seems to lend credence to the idea that many believe in whatever is easy or convenient at the moment rather than any deeper conviction we might expect in more orthodox circles. 

And clearly, even in the most fundamentalist "literalist" groups, there is picking and choosing in terms of what in the Bible is taken as relevant truth (thank goodness)—very few people believe that children should be executed for disobeying their parents these days (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). And, of course, in addition to ignoring the verses society would now generally abhor, like the one just mentioned, the more idealistic, challenging verses are equally ignored, such as the call to give all of one's money (and not just a portion) to the poor (Matthew 19:16).

But I also don't think that fashioning God after one's own image necessarily makes one a "non-believer." I think it's only natural that people would generally believe in a God that agrees with them, at least on core issues. After all, what would be the alternative? Could I, as I am, be for gay marriage, believing that everyone has an equal right to love and form relationships, and at the same time believe in a God who was against it, or viewed gay marriage as an "abomination"? It would seem schizophrenic to say the least. 

Most people who believe in God have to believe in a God who shares their values. The theistic view tends toward that the idea that God is the SOURCE of these values. Disagreeing with God on key moral points as a theist, if that were the case, would be like saying "I believe the sky is orange but actually it's blue." One of the appeals of believing in God in the first place, I think, for many people is the possibility of some sort of "objective morality"—certainly that's part of the appeal of fundamentalism. Being able to KNOW that one is right, and not just think that one is right, must feel awfully empowering.

-Peter (Johnston Class of '02)