"Moralistic therapeutic deism"

A colleague sent me a link about this after his pastor attended a conference in which this was discussed. Knew nothing, and so I Googled. The term was coined by two sociologists in 2005 in reference to American youth. And, from Wiki, here are the tenets of this brave new pseudo-theology:

The authors find that many young people believed in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is this combination of beliefs that they label Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Moralistic therapeutic deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would Bonhoeffer say?

nota bene said:

A colleague sent me a link about this after his pastor attended a conference in which this was discussed. Knew nothing, and so I Googled. The term was coined by two sociologists in 2005 in reference to American youth. And, from Wiki, here are the tenets of this brave new pseudo-theology:

The authors find that many young people believed in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is this combination of beliefs that they label Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Moralistic therapeutic deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would Bonhoeffer say?

Click to expand...

3-5 if actually not part of much religion, almost none other than perhaps some forms of bhuddism believe 3, almost none believe 4, and some christians and muslims believe 5, many christians don't though, only beleiving in a ressurection to a new earth.

This attempt to make a universal theology and make everyone fit is rediculous.

Its as much a valid theology as your own beliefs. Many people my age don't like what they consider the negative aspects of religion especially when it comes to treatment of women or persecution of gays. However, they still desire some kind of spiritual beliefs and thus create a loose kind of philosophy to follow. It is rather appealing compared to traditional religions, as it provides the comfort of an afterlife and personal deity looking out for you without imposing ancient prejudices and rituals.

Personally I find the whole thing rather annoying as an atheist as I would hope that those who have overcome religious conditioning would turn to empiricism rather than creating their own feel-good concepts.

rathi said:

Its as much a valid theology as your own beliefs. Many people my age don't like what they consider the negative aspects of religion especially when it comes to treatment of women or persecution of gays. However, they still desire some kind of spiritual beliefs and thus create a loose kind of philosophy to follow. It is rather appealing compared to traditional religions, as it provides the comfort of an afterlife and personal deity looking out for you without imposing ancient prejudices and rituals.

Personally I find the whole thing rather annoying as an atheist as I would hope that those who have overcome religious conditioning would turn to empiricism rather than creating their own feel-good concepts.

Click to expand...

The idea is to find things common in all faiths, I don't think that is desierable or possible, there are fundemental differences, God is revelaed through different ways in different faiths, but I think religion who's purpose is purely functional (i.e. get along and feel happy) totally misses the point of spirituality, spirituality is not a self-help concept, it's transcendant.

I don't think the concept itself is all that new, though I have never heard that term before. Seems as likely/unlikely to be true as any of the other religions out there.

RGacky3 said:

The idea is to find things common in all faiths, I don't think that is desierable or possible, there are fundemental differences, God is revelaed through different ways in different faiths, but I think religion who's purpose is purely functional (i.e. get along and feel happy) totally misses the point of spirituality, spirituality is not a self-help concept, it's transcendant.

Click to expand...

Followers of MTD don't exhaustively scour all the ancient holy texts looking of similarities to incorporate into their religious doctrine. Rather they simply go with the concepts they find appealing from religions they are familiar with, which mostly means Christianity in the U.S., but also a bit of Buddhism as well. Rigorous theological examination is not a primary concern. As far as calling it a self-help concept, I'd argue that applies to all religions. It might be rather lazy to simply define your spiritual beliefs as whatever makes you feel happy, but its no more lazy than simply letting an ancient book/organization tell you what to believe.

RGacky3 said:

3-5 if actually not part of much religion, almost none other than perhaps some forms of bhuddism believe 3, almost none believe 4, and some christians and muslims believe 5, many christians don't though, only beleiving in a ressurection to a new earth.

Click to expand...

Three and four are both pretty common amongst non-monotheistic faiths.

nota bene said:

A colleague sent me a link about this after his pastor attended a conference in which this was discussed. Knew nothing, and so I Googled. The term was coined by two sociologists in 2005 in reference to American youth. And, from Wiki, here are the tenets of this brave new pseudo-theology:

The authors find that many young people believed in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is this combination of beliefs that they label Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Moralistic therapeutic deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would Bonhoeffer say?

Click to expand...

it is not a news



l have been interpreting holy books this way for years

l always believe good people will go to a place like heaven one day

nota bene said:

A colleague sent me a link about this after his pastor attended a conference in which this was discussed. Knew nothing, and so I Googled. The term was coined by two sociologists in 2005 in reference to American youth. And, from Wiki, here are the tenets of this brave new pseudo-theology:

The authors find that many young people believed in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is this combination of beliefs that they label Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Moralistic therapeutic deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I've never heard of that but that set of belief seems to be popular with the younger set. I think the third belief is the key: The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself

The restrictions placed by organized religion is usually the underlying reasons why people stay away for it. They want to be able to do whatever they please. "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone." or "It's between consenting adults." It's relativistic.

tosca1 said:

I've never heard of that but that set of belief seems to be popular with the younger set. I think the third belief is the key: The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself

The restrictions placed by organized religion is usually the underlying reasons why people stay away for it. They want to be able to do whatever they please. "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone." or "It's between consenting adults." It's relativistic.

Click to expand...

bigots may not understand this......

rathi said:

Followers of MTD don't exhaustively scour all the ancient holy texts looking of similarities to incorporate into their religious doctrine. Rather they simply go with the concepts they find appealing from religions they are familiar with, which mostly means Christianity in the U.S., but also a bit of Buddhism as well. Rigorous theological examination is not a primary concern. As far as calling it a self-help concept, I'd argue that applies to all religions. It might be rather lazy to simply define your spiritual beliefs as whatever makes you feel happy, but its no more lazy than simply letting an ancient book/organization tell you what to believe.

Click to expand...

Either a holy text is the word of God or it is not, I believe the bible is the inspired word of God, and the texts of other faiths simply are not.

If you believe all of them are then you have to do some pulling together and extremely difficult theology to make it work.

If you believe none of them are, then I don't see what the point is in giving them any weight whatsoever?

It doesn't apply to all religions AT ALL, infact the Abrahamic faiths are extremely anti-egoistic, buddhism kind of is, but when you look at the fundementals of it, it is rather egoistic in a way.

The ethic of christianity is self-sacrificing love, not self enlightenment or trying to actualize yourself. (of coarse I understand that buddhism and other dharmic religions are very diverse and not all of them have the same ethical system).

nota bene said:

A colleague sent me a link about this after his pastor attended a conference in which this was discussed. Knew nothing, and so I Googled. The term was coined by two sociologists in 2005 in reference to American youth. And, from Wiki, here are the tenets of this brave new pseudo-theology:

The authors find that many young people believed in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is this combination of beliefs that they label Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

Moralistic therapeutic deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would Bonhoeffer say?

Click to expand...

Sounds like just cherry-picking to make a worldview with all the perks and none of the disadvantages.

tosca1 said:

The restrictions placed by organized religion is usually the underlying reasons why people stay away for it. They want to be able to do whatever they please. "As long as it doesn't hurt anyone." or "It's between consenting adults." It's relativistic.

Click to expand...

So, you have a problem with people doing things that don't hurt anyone and are between consenting adults? If so, why? Can you provide examples of what you mean?

RGacky3 said:

Either a holy text is the word of God or it is not, I believe the bible is the inspired word of God, and the texts of other faiths simply are not.

Click to expand...

Considered that Christianity is expressly based on some parts of Judaism, you at least tacitly accept the validity of some other religious texts.

If you believe all of them are then you have to do some pulling together and extremely difficult theology to make it work.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is point of superficial similarities between the major religions and declare that means they are all facets of a greater whole. Sure its vague and lacking in internal consistency, but that applies to all theology.

If you believe none of them are, then I don't see what the point is in giving them any weight whatsoever?

Click to expand...

The point is that it makes the believer feel that they are more tolerant and worldly. In addition, its easier to rationalize their pre-existing behavior if they have multiple belief systems to pick from when spiritually justifying their actions.

It doesn't apply to all religions AT ALL, infact the Abrahamic faiths are extremely anti-egoistic, buddhism kind of is, but when you look at the fundementals of it, it is rather egoistic in a way.

Click to expand...

Given the self absorbed nature of western society, anti-egoistic concepts tend to be glossed over.

The ethic of christianity is self-sacrificing love, not self enlightenment or trying to actualize yourself. (of coarse I understand that buddhism and other dharmic religions are very diverse and not all of them have the same ethical system).

Click to expand...

The ethic of Christianity is whatever its followers want it to be. It can be a social club that meets every Sunday or a charity or a way to make a buck or a million other purposes.

rathi said:

Considered that Christianity is expressly based on some parts of Judaism, you at least tacitly accept the validity of some other religious texts.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I accept the tanakh and the Christian greek scriptures as the word of God, i.e. the Bible. They arn't "other religious texts" for me.

All you have to do is point of superficial similarities between the major religions and declare that means they are all facets of a greater whole. Sure its vague and lacking in internal consistency, but that applies to all theology.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't apply to all theology, that's just an assumption.

You can point to superficial simililarities between Nazi fascism and American liberalism (I don't mean democrat/conservative, I mean liberalism being the philosophy of the founding fathers), You can find superficial similarities between Stalinism and Thatcherism .... it doesn't mean anything, what matters is the fundemnetals.

The point is that it makes the believer feel that they are more tolerant and worldly. In addition, its easier to rationalize their pre-existing behavior if they have multiple belief systems to pick from when spiritually justifying their actions.

Click to expand...

Ok .... Then forget religion, if you're going to treat religion as such then it's useless.

Given the self absorbed nature of western society, anti-egoistic concepts tend to be glossed over.

Click to expand...

Then your missing the whole point of genuine spirituality.

The ethic of Christianity is whatever its followers want it to be. It can be a social club that meets every Sunday or a charity or a way to make a buck or a million other purposes.

Click to expand...

Not if you seriously study the New Testament and it's implications, if you want to use it to make a buck, you have to twist the scripture considerably and ignore most of it.

I personally don't relate to most of what's on the list, and I'm someone who has an ecclectic spiritual understanding from years of learning about different faiths. Calling it therapeutic implies that it's self-created for the purpose of feeling better about oneself and life. For me, it has more to do with the self-evident truths that have presented themselves over the years, some of which were uncomfortable, and then amalgamating and alchemizing them into an internalized understanding that is harmonious.

rathi said:

Personally I find the whole thing rather annoying as an atheist as I would hope that those who have overcome religious conditioning would turn to empiricism rather than creating their own feel-good concepts.

Click to expand...

This statement precludes the possibility that people's self-created systems may in fact be based on acquired wisdom of living, and the truth that precipitates out of such experiences. There are certainly people out there who will twist spirituality to suit their selfish agendas - and those people come in religious and non-religious forms - but to say it's all about feeling good is sheer denial of some of humanity's core natures.

Personally speaking, I find that empiricism and spirituality are quite complementary.

RGacky3 said:

Yeah, I accept the tanakh and the Christian greek scriptures as the word of God, i.e. the Bible. They arn't "other religious texts" for me.

Click to expand...

That is a tautology. If you define all the texts you believe in as being part of "your religion", then you obviously don't believe in "other religious texts" by definition. My point is that your religious beliefs recognize the validity of other texts, even if you don't embrace Judaism as a whole.

No it doesn't apply to all theology, that's just an assumption.

You can point to superficial simililarities between Nazi fascism and American liberalism (I don't mean democrat/conservative, I mean liberalism being the philosophy of the founding fathers), You can find superficial similarities between Stalinism and Thatcherism .... it doesn't mean anything, what matters is the fundemnetals.

Click to expand...

Political ideologies are based on real life events, theology is based on faith. I would have a very hard time explaining how George Washington and Hitler were similar based on historical knowledge. Reconciling the fundamental differences between major religions is hardly any different that what you have to accomplish to believe in both the old and new testament.

Ok .... Then forget religion, if you're going to treat religion as such then it's useless.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, that is one of the very important uses of religion. Its very psychologically comforting to feel as though your actions have divine sanction. Not knowing whether your actions are right or wrong can be very stressful.

Then your missing the whole point of genuine spirituality.

Click to expand...

The point of spirituality is whatever the person wants it to be. Even within your own religion, there is massive disagreement on what the point of it all really is.

Not if you seriously study the New Testament and it's implications, if you want to use it to make a buck, you have to twist the scripture considerably and ignore most of it.

Click to expand...

Every believer has to interpret scripture to their own ends. Your views on social justice probably require some complicated arguments on certain new testament passages to avoid deeming woman as second-class citizens.

Northern Light said:

I personally don't relate to most of what's on the list, and I'm someone who has an ecclectic spiritual understanding from years of learning about different faiths. Calling it therapeutic implies that it's self-created for the purpose of feeling better about oneself and life. For me, it has more to do with the self-evident truths that have presented themselves over the years, some of which were uncomfortable, and then amalgamating and alchemizing them into an internalized understanding that is harmonious.



This statement precludes the possibility that people's self-created systems may in fact be based on acquired wisdom of living, and the truth that precipitates out of such experiences. There are certainly people out there who will twist spirituality to suit their selfish agendas - and those people come in religious and non-religious forms - but to say it's all about feeling good is sheer denial of some of humanity's core natures.

Click to expand...

Its fair to say that the acquired wisdom of living does play a part in MTD and other spiritual beliefs. Certain issues, like the afterlife are most definitely not based on experience and given that it comforts the inherent human fear of mortality, its hard not to put that in the feel good category.

Personally speaking, I find that empiricism and spirituality are quite complementary.

Click to expand...

Philosophically speaking, empiricism and spirituality are completely opposite. However, humans are quite capable of handling them simultaneously in practice based on the power of cognitive dissonance.

rathi said:

Certain issues, like the afterlife are most definitely not based on experience and given that it comforts the inherent human fear of mortality, its hard not to put that in the feel good category.

Click to expand...

Possibly... but there is also the possibility that what some people believe in about the afterlife may be right. Just because it's unproven scientifically doesn't make their assertion wrong, it just makes it unproven. In combing through spiritual texts throughout the ages, there are some striking commonalities in the allegories of how death is described. I think it's possible to glean a hypothesis about death from the culmination of human spiritual thought, even if it's unproveable.

That said, it's more important IMO to come to terms with death, regardless of what might come next, since a majority of humans are living according to their unconscious attitude to death.

rathi said:

Philosophically speaking, empiricism and spirituality are completely opposite. However, humans are quite capable of handling them simultaneously in practice based on the power of cognitive dissonance.

Click to expand...

Philosophically, yes. However, in recent years empricism has made scientific discoveries which have spiritual implications, such as those discoveries made in the quantum realm. I think as time goes on, the bridge between the two will be a lot more evident.

I don't believe it is cognitive dissonance at the highest levels of study. I'm more interested in what could be possible, based on extrapolations of what we know scientifically, philosophically, and spiritually. These different areas are all linked by one common theme: they investigate reality and make epistemological assertions. If you treat each topic of investigation as a human attempt to understand reality and existence, instead of right/wrong, it broadens the scope to a greater range of possible truths. I want to know what humans have discovered in each area, how they describe the discovery, and how they relate to it.

Speaking personally... my years of reading about spirituality, science, religion, and philosophy have created over-arching truths that no one system can stake claim on, yet can be applied to each system. But if you're strictly an empiricist, I don't hold the expectation that you understand where I'm coming from.

rathi said:

That is a tautology. If you define all the texts you believe in as being part of "your religion", then you obviously don't believe in "other religious texts" by definition. My point is that your religious beliefs recognize the validity of other texts, even if you don't embrace Judaism as a whole.

Click to expand...

Judaism as a whole is the Old testament plus the Talmud.

Christianity is the Old Testament plus the New Testament.

It's not that difficult.

Political ideologies are based on real life events, theology is based on faith. I would have a very hard time explaining how George Washington and Hitler were similar based on historical knowledge. Reconciling the fundamental differences between major religions is hardly any different that what you have to accomplish to believe in both the old and new testament.

Click to expand...

That isn't the case at all, political ideologies are based as much on political theory and philosohpy as they are on real life events. Theology is also based on real events, the life of Jesus, the history of the nation of Israel, and so on.

Christianity is an OFFSHOOT of Judaism, it's not reconciling differences in the case of christianity. It's ALWAYS been an offshoot of judaism.

On the contrary, that is one of the very important uses of religion. Its very psychologically comforting to feel as though your actions have divine sanction. Not knowing whether your actions are right or wrong can be very stressful.

Click to expand...

But if it has no objective truth value, or no basis in reality, then it's by definition self deceit.

The point of spirituality is whatever the person wants it to be. Even within your own religion, there is massive disagreement on what the point of it all really is.

Click to expand...

I want spirituality to mean taking a **** .... That obviosuly doen'st work does it.

If you say it's "whatever" then it's meaningless.

Spirituality, at is basis is about trascendance, plain and simple.

Every believer has to interpret scripture to their own ends. Your views on social justice probably require some complicated arguments on certain new testament passages to avoid deeming woman as second-class citizens.

Click to expand...

They don't at all, all they need is a clear and basic reading of the scriptures.

I suggest you read. http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156925-social-justice.html, It doesn't take that much interpretation, the scriptures are pretty damn straight forward when it comes to social justice.

rathi said:

Every believer has to interpret scripture to their own ends. Your views on social justice probably require some complicated arguments on certain new testament passages to avoid deeming woman as second-class citizens.

Click to expand...

How is a woman treated as a second-class citizen in the New Testament?

Explain.