Articulate The Definition

The collective is an average of the publicly held value structures of the individuals within a population. The population is the extent of a community, defined as the range of cooperation in which individuals regularly participate

Two separate proxies give us reason to show evidence of this. The first proxy is public surveys of values. Public surveys are not a reflection of what individuals consciously experience. They are a public declaration of their values. These two things are very different. Conscious experience of values is a private matter, and individuals do not always express outwardly what they believe or feel underneath the surface. Jung talks extensively about this in his “mask” persona. However, we do not necessarily care what the individual experiences beneath the surface. Our thesis specifically states that the individual and the collective do not align, but, as a general trend, the individual tends towards the collective. So the individual’s conscious experience does not matter when it comes to expressions of values. What matters are values shared in cooperation among individuals. These values reflect values an individual would publicly declare in a poll. Public surveys of values reflect our best approximation of the general consensus of values a collective might hold. From here, we should take a look at the God of that particular collective. The theory states that the God of a collective should reflect the collective’s value structure. So the God’s values should be the same as the generalization a poll presents.

The second proxy is the societal value structure reflected in culture’s laws, power structures, social dynamics (who counts as a person), and institutions. What we would predict about a society if my theory holds up is that the God of that particular society would reflect the characteristics of that society. We can extract values from characteristics of a society. For example, a society that abolishes slavery places more value on equality of human life than one that preserves slavery. Based on my theory, we would expect to see a God who places a high value on the equality of human life, regardless of race, ethnicity, or social standing. If that is true, we could conclude that the God of a particular society reflects that society’s values.

Questions for future consideration:

What constrains reinterpretation? The same religion, two completely different interpretations of the texts and values of the God. One culture argued to justify slavery under biblical acceptance; the other side argued the same text to abolish slavery. I need to do more research into what each culture valued and believed about their God, but my theory is that each believed in the same God on paper, yet had a completely different understanding of that God in terms of values and core principles. I am guessing that when I take a look at what the people who fought for slavery believed about people, it will reveal something deeply important about the value they place on human life. In particular, the equality of human life. Then, taking a look at what those who fought for abolishing slavery believed about people will reveal a completely different value of human life. These values will each show what the two groups believed about their Gods. We will find that the God values the same thing the group values. Hence, the God will be a completely different God from a value perspective. This raises another question about the evolution of the Christian God, even post-Christ. The texts were developed about 1700 years ago, yet the religion is still being developed alongside the shifting values of the society that believes in God.