Religious nominalism?

[sidetrack]

I have lately been thinking about nominalism.I can only imagine the questions that could arise from the topic but I have’nt really thought out one well.However I got a question formed and I did it by slightly rewording one of my other threads.Does anyone think that the people who say that they are adherents of a particular religion but do not practise or even consider (or even know) some of the teachings in a religion can be considered nominalists?.Does anyone think that people who say that they are adherents of a particular religion but do not practise,consider (or even know) some of the teachings in a religion can be considered nominalists?.Like I mean I can imagine people who when you ask them what religion they adhere to they just say that there “Christian”,Buddhist or Muslim even though they might have virtually no knowledge of and ⁄ or concern with religion.Essentially all their concerned about is the imeediate world and this reality?.Would they be considered nominalist and ⁄ or humanists than?(even though (I think) humanists at least believe and emphasis bringing about human hapiness,rights for humans to have freedom and give meaning to there own lives).I’m asking this because it seems to me at least like a really common phenomenom in developed Western society.If anyone would like to add,put there own opinions about nominalism in religion,explain it etc, I welcome that.Thank you very much so for your time.

 

[Jeffe]

Most of the people you’re referring to would probably deny such a title, however true it may be…

I agree, certain people in western society enjoying giving themselves a certain religious title to better classify their “moral” or “social” standing to a certain group (Even if their knowledge and religious practices lacking). But I’d say the people are more religiously ignorant rather than nominalist.