Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Rhiannon on February 27, 2016, 08:55:42 PM
-
On the Searching for God thread the Alpha course has been mentioned.
I'm not comfortable about Alpha to say the least - when I have more time I will elaborate on why - and it would be interesting to know what other posters think.
-
I have no direct experience of Alpha, but reports I have heard are not very impressive. My own experience of faith was greatly enhanced by a "Life in the Spirit" course which goes much deeper than alpha, and brought about my personal epiphany.
-
I know a little about the Alpha course, in the form it was in the 1990s up to 2000. It may have changed since then. There was an Alpha course at a big church in North London and I helped out with some of it. I'd previously read the Nicky Gumbel books and seen some videos of him speaking. The idea of Alpha was, and maybe is, to reinforce existing Christians and give information to seekers. It all started at Holy Trinity Brompton (who had the 'Toronto Blessing'), where Nicky Gumbel was a curate or vicar, Sandy Miller being the main vicar.
Each meeting started off with a very pleasant meal, we watched a video and then discussion groups were formed. We read bits of the Bible and prayed, it ended with prayer. Everything was friendly and quite relaxed.
Towards the end of the course there was a weekend away at which it was hoped people would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I never went to anything like that but heard about it from those who did, some of whom had been on a couple of weekends. Apparently there was a few who were 'slain in the spirit'. That was considered a satisfactory conclusion to the Alpha course.
What bothered me about Alpha was the fact that many 'seekers' came along looking for friendship and the friendship was conditional on them becoming Christians. It appeared to me that those who were still unsure or not interested in Christianity at the end of the course were no longer befriended by the Alpha helpers. They'd obviously be pleasant and speak to them if they bumped into them but during the course they were really involved. That seemed false to me. If you like someone and befriend them, you do so regardless of what they believe. I felt sorry for those who thought they had made friends and then found they were out in the cold.
Just my impressions, I'm sure others have had different experiences. I wasn't interested in going along to Alpha again.
-
I have no direct experience of Alpha, but reports I have heard are not very impressive. My own experience of faith was greatly enhanced by a "Life in the Spirit" course which goes much deeper than alpha, and brought about my personal epiphany.
Whisky, vodka, brandy or gin? ;D
-
I have no direct experience of Alpha, but reports I have heard are not very impressive. My own experience of faith was greatly enhanced by a "Life in the Spirit" course which goes much deeper than alpha, and brought about my personal epiphany.
What do you mean by "goes much deeper"?
-
What do you mean by "goes much deeper"?
In revealing the depth and reality of God's love, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as revealed to us in the Bible and still available to everyone who believes.
-
In revealing the depth and reality of God's love, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as revealed to us in the Bible and still available to everyone who believes.
So all you actually mean is that it makes even more and bigger unsupported assertions than the Alpha course does.
Right.
-
So all you actually mean is that it makes even more and bigger unsupported assertions than the Alpha course does.
Right.
Your phrase "unsupported assertions" would appear to refer to the gifts of the Holy Spirit as revealed in Word of God from the bible. There are many Christians who can witness to how the gifts of the Holy Spirit work in their lives, but unless you have faith, no doubt you will be able to think up "rational" explanations for all these witness stories.
-
Your phrase "unsupported assertions" would appear to refer to the gifts of the Holy Spirit as revealed in Word of God from the bible. There are many Christians who can witness to how the gifts of the Holy Spirit work in their lives, but unless you have faith, no doubt you will be able to think up "rational" explanations for all these witness stories.
Yes and yes.
-
Yes and yes.
Then I will have to resort to prayer for God to open your eyes to the truth.
-
Then I will have to resort to prayer for God to open your eyes to the truth.
Given the myriad miseries of the world - the poverty; the hunger; the persecution and oppression; the cruelty; the conflict; disease - does it not occur to you that if, as you seem to think, this prayer nonsense is anything above and beyond the mere masturbatory exercise that it actually is, you might be praying for something a bit more worthwhile?
If it works, as you apparently hold, why not pray for something to make the world better and people happier?
-
Then I will have to resort to prayer for God to open your eyes to the truth.
I wouldn't hold your breath, the deity seems to be stone deaf where prayers are concerned!
-
I am no fan of the Alpha course. It starts well but has some serious omissions and additions. AVOID IT!
-
Some years ago I went along to two Alpha Courses. For the first one, I went alone, but left after 8 sessions.
For the second one(involving different people at a different church), both my wife and I went together. Unfortunately it finished after 6 sessions. Perhaps the attendance of my wife and I had something to do with this. :)
On both Alpha Courses every person, apart from us, were committed Christians, and many of whom were regular attenders at such courses.
The reason I went to two different courses was to see if the conceptions I had acquired on the first course were borne out on the second course. Unfortunately they were.
We tasted it. Neither of us felt the experience to be at all satisfactory. So we both lost interest in the whole idea of the Alpha Course.
I could give much more detail, but unless anyone wishes for me to explain further, I'll leave it there.
-
Some years ago I went along to two Alpha Courses. For the first one, I went alone, but left after 8 sessions.
For the second one(involving different people at a different church), both my wife and I went together. Unfortunately it finished after 6 sessions. Perhaps the attendance of my wife and I had something to do with this. :)
Very possibly - I bet you were one of the awkward squad asking too many pointed questions that couldn't be answered :D
The reason I went to two different courses was to see if the conceptions I had acquired on the first course were borne out on the second course. Unfortunately they were.
Admirably scientific approach, sah!
I could give much more detail, but unless anyone wishes for me to explain further, I'll leave it there.
Unless it's trespassing on personal territory I for one would love to hear more, if you're happy to supply it.
-
... does it not occur to you that if, as you seem to think, this prayer nonsense is anything above and beyond the mere masturbatory exercise that it actually is, you might be praying for something a bit more worthwhile?
That#s quite a sizeable assertion, Shakes. Do you have any evidence to support it? As for the bit about 'something a bit more worthwhile', don't you regard human lives as worthwhile?
If it works, as you apparently hold, why not pray for something to make the world better and people happier?
Don't worry, Shakes, we do. Not only do we pray that you and others here come to sse the pointlessness of your piosition, we pray for healing - both individually and socially, we pray for world leaders who need to see the needs that exist in their and other nations, we pray that people will be provided to go and help in such situations (often being such change agents ourselves). Then, of course, we petition our own and other governments on a number of issues, from world poverty to immigration, freedom of speech to armaments.
-
I am no fan of the Alpha course. It starts well but has some serious omissions and additions. AVOID IT!
I've never done an Alpha course, but many people I know have. Yes, it has some ommissions, but then its not meant to be anything other than an introductory programme. Its not designed to stand on its own but to have follow up and further study. Unfortunately, there are some people and places who think that simply doing a course like Alpha is enough. It's a bit like teaching people their times tables and a few other basic arithmetic techniques and truths and saying that that's enough for them to become mathematicians.
-
That#s quite a sizeable assertion, Shakes. Do you have any evidence to support it?
You lot claim prayer works, don't you? That it actually does something with tangible results in the world and has some effect over and above the operation of random chance? Well prove it. Otherwise the default position - the null hypothesis, backed up by Occam's Guillotine - of onanism stands unchallenged and unrebutted never mind unrefuted.
As for the bit about 'something a bit more worthwhile', don't you regard human lives as worthwhile?
No humanist (in at least some senses of the word at any rate), I wobble on that one. The only person who can regard any life as worthwhile (or not) is the individual person who has that life, so the worthwhileness of life is a proximate and not an ultimate category. I do know however that making them better involves getting off your knees and actually doing something practical to make it happen.
You can of course do that and pray as well, which is the standard get-out; but then you prayer believers need to demonstrate that the praying actually does something in addition to, over and above the direct hands-on activity, something that wouldn't exist anyway, and therefore isn't just an utterly superfluous and wholly dispensable fifth wheel which achieves nothing but the personal illusion of having done something, and the wasting of time which could have been spent doing something genuinely helpful.
Not only do we pray that you and others here come to sse the pointlessness of your piosition
What's pointless about the stance that you lot haven't proved your utterly bizarre claims about reality and thus they should be rejected by all rational, thinking people? What's pointless about highlighting the Niagaran cascade of logical fallacies, bald assertions and other aberrations of thought that you throw out instead of reasoned argument?
On the other hand, I am prepared to concede that the latter may be pointless - so many of the theists here are so utterly impervious to reason that there's little if any use in pointing out their deployment of fallacy and assertion, you being a prime example in still churning out both (the negative proof fallacy especially) despite having been schooled in why they're wrong multiple times by multiple posters over a long period of time. Saying "Don't do that - that's not a valid argument, that's wrong, and this is why it's wrong ..." does indeed seem to be pointless with some people who evidently just can't take it on board.
We pray for healing - both individually and socially, we pray for world leaders who need to see the needs that exist in their and other nations, we pray that people will be provided to go and help in such situations (often being such change agents ourselves).
Feel free to provide the methodology by which we can all evaluate your claims and ascertain the difference between prayers with an effect and the operation of sheer random chance, i.e. the difference between a prayer-answering god and random events with no god.
But of course you won't. You never do.
Then, of course, we petition our own and other governments on a number of issues, from world poverty to immigration, freedom of speech to armaments.
That's called petitioning real people to do actual things, not prayer which is the polar opposite of that.
-
I've started reading the blog that was mentioned in the other thread.
The most obvious thing that jumps out so far is that the arguments (for want of a better term) advanced in both the DVD and by the Christians involved in the sessions seem to comprise the usual panoply of fallacies we've see here, along with their inclination to assume that the NT claims that they like are historical facts.
Will continue reading.
-
In a nutshell, big G. Alas.
-
Very possibly - I bet you were one of the awkward squad asking too many pointed questions that couldn't be answered :DAdmirably scientific approach, sah!
Unless it's trespassing on personal territory I for one would love to hear more, if you're happy to supply it.
Shakes,
I'll try to respond to this in some detail tomorrow. No time now unfortunately, except to say that both Alpha courses suggested that no question was off limits. :)
-
Hello Hope,
I may be a bit harsh on it. I worry of it's Toronto blessing influence and there just seems a of a New Age stink to it.
-
Shakes,
I'll try to respond to this in some detail tomorrow. No time now unfortunately, except to say that both Alpha courses suggested that no question was off limits. :)
Indeed not - I'm quite prepared to believe that.
Getting a sensible answer however is a very different matter altogether :D
-
Hello Hope,
I may be a bit harsh on it. I worry of it's Toronto blessing influence and there just seems a of a New Age stink to it.
I think that too, OMW, though I did go to charismatic meetings at one time, and quite enjoyed them. They were harmless enough too. I note Alan mentioned the 'Life in the Spirit' course and that was incorporated into the meetings.
Enki, would love to know more of your experience with Alpha. It's bound to be more interesting than mine :-). I don't think the Alpha course is completely harmless though I've no doubt those running it have only the best of intentions. Maybe because the one I attended was at a big, inner city, London church, but I felt the loneliness of some of the attendees, which would still have been there at the end if they didn't 'sign up' for more.
-
It's a modern-day variant of rice Christianity, really, isn't it?
-
I don't think there were many material benefits.
-
Not material benefits but benefits nonetheless - company, companionship, friendship, community. We're often told that this is the major part of what religion offers people, after all.
-
I am no fan of the Alpha course. It starts well but has some serious omissions and additions. AVOID IT!
Wouldn't those serious omissions be reasoned and the rational Woody?
Well I thought it would be.
ippy
-
Not material benefits but benefits nonetheless - company, companionship, friendship, community. We're often told that this is the major part of what religion offers people, after all.
Yes it does but, as I said, I don't think the Alpha course offers any of that without conditions, which is why I had misgivings about it.
-
Yes it does but, as I said, I don't think the Alpha course offers any of that without conditions, which is why I had misgivings about it.
My old pp was removed by the parish he served before this one because the HTB crowd promised the congregation they'd get 'the gifts of the Spirit' and when they didn't they blamed him for 'blocking' it.
-
No humanist (in at least some senses of the word at any rate), I wobble on that one. The only person who can regard any life as worthwhile (or not) is the individual person who has that life, so the worthwhileness of life is a proximate and not an ultimate category.
Sorry, I'd disagree; a life can be deemed to be worthwhile by other people - perhaps people who rely on that person or people who have close connections to them. Furthermore, that life can be deemed to worthwhile by people who benefit from that person's actions/study/...
I do know however that making them better involves getting off your knees and actually doing something practical to make it happen.
Unfortunately, "actually doing something practical to make it happen" can be impractical. For instance, 10 months ago, there was an earthquake in Nepal. Save from giving money (which we did) we could do nothing practical, in part because of my ill-health at the time. We prayed that those who were responsible for the expenditure of the money that did come in would be used wisely. That I believe is eminently practical.
On the other hand, I am prepared to concede that the latter may be pointless - so many of the theists here are so utterly impervious to reason that there's little if any use in pointing out their deployment of fallacy and assertion, you being a prime example in still churning out both (the negative proof fallacy especially) despite having been schooled in why they're wrong multiple times by multiple posters over a long period of time. Saying "Don't do that - that's not a valid argument, that's wrong, and this is why it's wrong ..." does indeed seem to be pointless with some people who evidently just can't take it on board.
The problem with your argument here is that you use the negative proof fallacy just as much - after all, you were asked to give evidence to support an assertion you made and have not been able or willing to do so.
Feel free to provide the methodology by which we can all evaluate your claims and ascertain the difference between prayers with an effect and the operation of sheer random chance, i.e. the difference between a prayer-answering god and random events with no god.
But of course you won't. You never do.
That's called petitioning real people to do actual things, not prayer which is the polar opposite of that.
But nor do you; all you do is appeal to the pre-eminence of science over any other aspects of life, yet you have yet to provide any evidence to show that that is the case.
-
Sorry, I'd disagree; a life can be deemed to be worthwhile by other people
Their view doesn't take priority over the possessor of said life.
Unfortunately, "actually doing something practical to make it happen" can be impractical. For instance, 10 months ago, there was an earthquake in Nepal. Save from giving money (which we did) we could do nothing practical, in part because of my ill-health at the time. We prayed that those who were responsible for the expenditure of the money that did come in would be used wisely. That I believe is eminently practical.
It isn't. It's a way of thinking that you're doing something useful by remote control.
The problem with your argument here is that you use the negative proof fallacy just as much - after all, you were asked to give evidence to support an assertion you made and have not been able or willing to do so.
The problem with this tosh is that you've said exactly this before (August 23rd last year, as I recall), have been asked many, many times to provide evidence for this claim, and have run away each and every time in the six months since then. My answer was given in the first paragraph of my previous reply - you're the one who claims that prayer works in some way (indeed, you've just done so again), not me, so it's up to you to substantiate that claim. Burden of proof and all that. Burden of proof, null hypothesis, Occam's Razor - these are all tools we've come up with to be able to evaluate true claims about reality from the false or at least the not demonstrably true, and your claims fall at each of those hurdles.
But nor do you; all you do is appeal to the pre-eminence of science over any other aspects of life, yet you have yet to provide any evidence to show that that is the case.
There we go: negative proof fallacy all over again - a classic example.
Science works; works beautifully; we know it does and we know how and we know why. Its pre-eminence in finding out how stuff does what it does is based on its results. If you have an alternative or an adjunct to that, don't just wave your hands, piss or get off the pot - provide some evidence of this alternative/adjunct, some methodology as to how it can be evaluated and we'll talk. Until that happens you're an arrant waste of electrons spitting out logical fallacies and assertions as a Sten gun spits out bullets.
-
Their view doesn't take priority over the possessor of said life.
Again, I'd disagree. John Donne makes it very clear that none of us is an island. None of us can ignore others when deciding what to do with ourselves.
It isn't. It's a way of thinking that you're doing something useful by remote control.
You might think that way, but I know of plenty of such people who appreciate the input from people remote from the situation.
The problem with this tosh is that you've said exactly this before (August 23rd last year, as I recall), have been asked many, many times to provide evidence for this claim, and have run away each and every time. My answer was given in the first paragraph of my previous reply - you're the one who claims that prayer works in some way, not me, so it's up to you to substantiate that claim. Burden of proof and all that. Burden of proof, null hypothesis, Occam's Razor - these are all tools we've come up with to be able to evaluate true claims about reality from the false or at least the not demonstrably true, and your claims fall at each of those hurdles.
They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.
Science works; works beautifully; we know it does and we know how and we know why. Its pre-eminence in finding out how stuff does what it does is based on its results. If you have an alternative or an adjunct to that, don't just wave your hands, piss or get off the pot - provide some evidence of this alternative/adjunct, some methodology as to how it can be evaluated and we'll talk. Until that happens you're an arrant waste of electrons spitting out logical fallacies and assertions as a Sten gun spits out bullets.
Science works, to a large extent. Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality. Ironically, you will only allow forms of evidence that fit the naturalistic approach, meaning that any evidence you were to produce to show the sole arbiter-ness of the naturalistic approach wouldn't stand up to a charge of bias.
Tht is why I often argue that we are debating from such different worldviews as to make such debate impossible.
-
They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.
I've already explained this for you; I can't understand it for you.
Science works, to a large extent. Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality.
That's because anybody who proposes something else other than what we know about and know works (let alone works as wonderfully well as it does) bears the burden of proof for giving us a reason to think that there's anything to it. That's how it works. As I said before, piss or get off the pot. Back up your claims. Show us the evidence. Show us the methodology. Show us the money. Show us anything, but give over with the fucking hand-waving and the bald assertion because while it may go down a bundle at your local Jesus fan club, with rational, sceptical people it doesn't wash.
-
I've already explained this for you; I can't understand it for you.
That's because anybody who proposes something else other than what we know about and know works (let alone works as wonderfully well as it does) bears the burden of proof for giving us a reason to think that there's anything to it. That's how it works. As I said before, piss or get off the pot. Back up your claims. Show us the evidence. Show us the methodology. Show us the money. Show us anything, but give over with the fucking hand-waving and the bald assertion because while it may go down a bundle at your local Jesus fan club, with rational, sceptical people it doesn't wash.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have
Then feel free to regale us with an alternative: the full monty mind, including the methodology by which we can identify and review evidence.
- and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.
Nope, and despite your encouragement and expertise in its use some of us aren't daft enough to commit the negative proof fallacy even when invited to do so: the burden of proof is yours.
Science works, to a large extent. Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality.
Because that is your job: burden of proof again.
Ironically, you will only allow forms of evidence that fit the naturalistic approach, meaning that any evidence you were to produce to show the sole arbiter-ness of the naturalistic approach wouldn't stand up to a charge of bias.
Nonsense - the only meaningful evidence available at present is naturalistic but you're free to demonstrate non-naturalistic evidence provided you support it with an appropriate methodology.
Tht is why I often argue that we are debating from such different worldviews as to make such debate impossible.
Nope - unless you can demonstrate the methodology to support your claim of something other than naturalism then you don't have a 'different worldview': all you have is assertion based on fallacious reasoning.
-
That's the way to do it ;)
-
My old pp was removed by the parish he served before this one because the HTB crowd promised the congregation they'd get 'the gifts of the Spirit' and when they didn't they blamed him for 'blocking' it.
That takes the biscuit. I'm lost for words!
-
Shaker is confused, he's thinking of the material benefits of that atheist Sunday Assembly. Happy clappy time at the godless assembly near you.
-
They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.
Science works, to a large extent. Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality.
Here is the way it works: Science is an approach to finding out about reality. It's the only approach I know of that works and I observe that it is spectacularly successful.
I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist, but, personally, I can't think of any. You say you have got one, but I don't just accept your assertions on your say so. If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is. Furthermore, the fact that you keep repeating your assertion without backing it up makes me think your assertion is false. After all, if it were true, why wouldn't you tell me what it is?
-
Here is the way it works: Science is an approach to finding out about reality. It's the only approach I know of that works and I observe that it is spectacularly successful.
I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist, but, personally, I can't think of any. You say you have got one, but I don't just accept your assertions on your say so. If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is. Furthermore, the fact that you keep repeating your assertion without backing it up makes me think your assertion is false. After all, if it were true, why wouldn't you tell me what it is?
I'm sure it is because, like Alan Burns, he doesn't have one. They are both so indoctrinated by their beliefs and personal experiences that they refute any other view.
-
My report on the Alpha course I attended about 18 years ago was nowhere near as critical as I would write today. I've just tried to find the link, but it's coming up with 'Info Icon' about bing unavailable. I'll try again later.
-
Here is the way it works: Science is an approach to finding out about reality. It's the only approach I know of that works and I observe that it is spectacularly successful.
It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality.
I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist, but, personally, I can't think of any. You say you have got one, but I don't just accept your assertions on your say so. If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is. Furthermore, the fact that you keep repeating your assertion without backing it up makes me think your assertion is false. After all, if it were true, why wouldn't you tell me what it is?
The problem with this argument is that - has been said in previous threads - evidence of the sort you believe in is necessarily physical, and therefore any other evidence doesn't fit your parameters. As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.
-
That takes the biscuit. I'm lost for words!
Likewise, Brownie. Knowing the folk at HTB as I do, this doesn't match my knowledge of their way of thinking.
-
It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality.
Well post it rather than just claim it - then we can evaluate it.
The problem with this argument is that - has been said in previous threads - evidence of the sort you believe in is necessarily physical, and therefore any other evidence doesn't fit your parameters.
What other evidence?
As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.
You've yet to demonstrate a non-naturalistic 'understanding' of anything: just claiming that there is some ineffable and mysterious 'range of reality' seems like a clear misunderstanding on your part if you can't support it with arguments that aren't inherently fallacious.
-
It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality.
The problem with this argument is that - has been said in previous threads - evidence of the sort you believe in is necessarily physical, and therefore any other evidence doesn't fit your parameters. As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.
The evidence for our reality is plentiful, if you want us to seriously consider your deity then you'll need to bring empirical evidence to the discussion. Strangely, you have as much difficulty doing this as an Australian Aborigine would in providing evidence that the Dreamtime Snake was for real.
You say there is another way of looking at reality....... please share with us just what has to be done to measure this realm. How do we observe it and where is the evidence for it?
Science is the investigation of the universe using observation and reason. What we have with science is trust and expectation based on a long and brilliantly successful career of explaining and predicting nature. Science has been so incredibly successful in this area that we expect it to continue succeeding.
Religion, by contrast, has a history of failure. Where are your religion's successes with physical reality? You've got a flat earth with four corners under a dome with a stationary earth orbited by a sun. You have, quite possibly, a ratio of three for Pi. You've got cud chewing rabbits, giants, dragons, witches cockatrices and unicorns. You've got people with lifespans that run to the best part of a thousand years. You've got a talking snake and donkey and a woman who was turned into a pillar of salt.
Then of course there's a flood that covers the entire earth and a boat that carried every single species of animal. You've got people coming back from the dead (thousands of them). You've got a guy walking on water, turning water into wine and calming a stormy sea water and another guy being swallowed by a big fish and living to tell the tale. You can even genetically modify goats by floating bits of tree bark in water.
I nearly forgot to mention the demons - making people sick and causing mayhem.
It's a world full of miracle workers, magic and visions where apparently man is beset by the forces of evil arrayed against him by the greatest super villain in the universe.
So, I'm sure you'll excuse me for expressing a slight bias in favour of the scientific method.
-
The evidence for our reality is plentiful, if you want us to seriously consider your deity then you'll need to bring empirical evidence to the discussion. Strangely, you have as much difficulty doing this as an Australian Aborigine would in providing evidence that the Dreamtime Snake was for real.
You say there is another way of looking at reality....... please share with us just what has to be done to measure this realm. How do we observe it and where is the evidence for it?
Science is the investigation of the universe using observation and reason. What we have with science is trust and expectation based on a long and brilliantly successful career of explaining and predicting nature. Science has been so incredibly successful in this area that we expect it to continue succeeding.
Religion, by contrast, has a history of failure. Where are your religion's successes with physical reality? You've got a flat earth with four corners under a dome with a stationary earth orbited by a sun. You have, quite possibly, a ratio of three for Pi. You've got cud chewing rabbits, giants, dragons, witches cockatrices and unicorns. You've got people with lifespans that run to the best part of a thousand years. You've got a talking snake and donkey and a woman who was turned into a pillar of salt.
Then of course there's a flood that covers the entire earth and a boat that carried every single species of animal. You've got people coming back from the dead (thousands of them). You've got a guy walking on water, turning water into wine and calming a stormy sea water and another guy being swallowed by a big fish and living to tell the tale. You can even genetically modify goats by floating bits of tree bark in water.
I nearly forgot to mention the demons - making people sick and causing mayhem.
It's a world full of miracle workers, magic and visions where apparently man is beset by the forces of evil arrayed against him by the greatest super villain in the universe.
So, I'm sure you'll excuse me for expressing a slight bias in favour of the scientific method.
Brilliant Khatru.
That just about sums it up.
But why should we care if some people believe such non sense?
Because they influence others...... especially in the case of someone like Hope who claims to be a teacher. God knows what damage he is doing to young developing minds, telling them to believe rubbish things without evidence or despite it.
It is really scary that the which doctors still hold influence.
-
Well John, I would never let children near you. What a rotter you seem to be. Full of atheist hate for a teacher who is a person of faith. No, you are the one that would damage school children not Hope.
-
Well John, I would never let children near you. What a rotter you seem to be. Full of atheist hate for a teacher who is a person of faith. No, you are the one that would damage school children not Hope.
A teacher's private and personal beliefs - religious, political, moral or otherwise - are supposed to stay private and personal. A teacher's job is to educate by teaching the curriculum. With older students especially it's entirely possible that a teacher's personal beliefs may come out in the context of a broader discussion, but on the whole it's inadvisable since it can be as bad or worse for the teacher themself as it may be for the pupils. I think we can all pretty well imagine how a science teacher is going to be regarded if it becomes known that he or she thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't and doesn't occur.
That aside, I think the position amongst the members of the reality-based community of the forum is both unambiguous and unanimous: instead of merely asserting that something is the case (such as that there are other realms of reality), cough up with the evidence for this and a methodology for evaluating such claims and acertaining their truth or falsity. It's only pious hand-waving otherwise to which nobody is obliged to give the time of day.
-
Brilliant Khatru.
That just about sums it up.
But why should we care if some people believe such non sense?
Because they influence others...... especially in the case of someone like Hope who claims to be a teacher. God knows what damage he is doing to young developing minds, telling them to believe rubbish things without evidence or despite it.
It is really scary that the which doctors still hold influence.
It is fine for people to believe in a faith but proselytising, especially where children are concerned, is always WRONG!
-
A teacher's private and personal beliefs - religious, political, moral or otherwise - are supposed to stay private and personal. A teacher's job is to educate by teaching the curriculum.
Indeed, but comments on the message board are not evidence that Hope does anything other than a completely satisfactory teacher in terms of what he does.
-
Indeed, but comments on the message board are not evidence that Hope does anything other than a completely satisfactory teacher in terms of what he does.
Completely agree - there's no evidence whatever that Hope acts otherwise. I wouldn't have made the comment that john did.
-
Likewise, Brownie. Knowing the folk at HTB as I do, this doesn't match my knowledge of their way of thinking.
Is it my old pp that you are accusing of lying? Or me?
-
It is fine for people to believe in a faith but proselytising, especially where children are concerned, is always WRONG!
What do you mean by 'proselytising'? Are parents wrong to bring up their children in their religion?
-
On the overall subject, I have always found the general advertising for Alpha to be a bit disingenuous. I had many years ago considered going if it was meant to be a genuinely open attempt to look at the big questions as some adverts put it, but when I became aware of the actual approach, other than a somewhat egocentric interest in going to show why their approach was hopelessly biased and at best indicative of a misunderstanding of the historical method and what constitutes evidence, couldn't see a point.
There are many people on the earth doing many things worse than Alpha and criticism of it seems more appropriate from those who already believe. One of things that comes across in Butterfield's account is that people seem to feel it allows them to talk about their beliefs in a forum where they are given attention. It strikes me that for many on here that the message board forms a similar function, even with added swearing.
-
What do you mean by 'proselytising'? Are parents wrong to bring up their children in their religion?
Yes, if they force it on them as happened to my husband and myself. We let our kids decide for themselves.
-
I know a little about the Alpha course, in the form it was in the 1990s up to 2000. It may have changed since then. There was an Alpha course at a big church in North London and I helped out with some of it. I'd previously read the Nicky Gumbel books and seen some videos of him speaking. The idea of Alpha was, and maybe is, to reinforce existing Christians and give information to seekers. It all started at Holy Trinity Brompton (who had the 'Toronto Blessing'), where Nicky Gumbel was a curate or vicar, Sandy Miller being the main vicar.
Each meeting started off with a very pleasant meal, we watched a video and then discussion groups were formed. We read bits of the Bible and prayed, it ended with prayer. Everything was friendly and quite relaxed.
Towards the end of the course there was a weekend away at which it was hoped people would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I never went to anything like that but heard about it from those who did, some of whom had been on a couple of weekends. Apparently there was a few who were 'slain in the spirit'. That was considered a satisfactory conclusion to the Alpha course.
What bothered me about Alpha was the fact that many 'seekers' came along looking for friendship and the friendship was conditional on them becoming Christians. It appeared to me that those who were still unsure or not interested in Christianity at the end of the course were no longer befriended by the Alpha helpers. They'd obviously be pleasant and speak to them if they bumped into them but during the course they were really involved. That seemed false to me. If you like someone and befriend them, you do so regardless of what they believe. I felt sorry for those who thought they had made friends and then found they were out in the cold.
Just my impressions, I'm sure others have had different experiences. I wasn't interested in going along to Alpha again.
I think you'vs mentioned just about every reason I'd give Alpha a wide berth. Along with anything else which has its roots in Toronto ...
-
Yes, if they force it on them as happened to my husband and myself. We let our kids decide for themselves.
What does 'force' it on them mean? Taking them to church? Saying what you believe, and saying tha you think it's right? In which case did you allow your children to decide their own moral system?
-
On the overall subject, I have always found the general advertising for Alpha to be a bit disingenuous. I had many years ago considered going if it was meant to be a genuinely open attempt to look at the big questions as some adverts put it, but when I became aware of the actual approach, other than a somewhat egocentric interest in going to show why their approach was hopelessly biased and at best indicative of a misunderstanding of the historical method and what constitutes evidence, couldn't see a point.
Consideration of those matters generally lumped together as "big questions" is endlessly fascinating - that's why we have people called philosophers who engage in the activity still even long after they're retired from any gainful employment. Disingenuous is exactly the right word for Alpha - the idea isn't so much to examine the big questions because you can do that within any framework; it's to see what off-the-peg answers Christianity (and a particular form of Christianity at that, one out of many) claims to supply to these questions and to believe those.
If somebody set up a course that really did live up to the remit of looking disinterestedly at the aforementioned big questions without adherence to any single point of view then I'd be first in line to sign up for it.
-
What does 'force' it on them mean? Taking them to church? Saying what you believe, and saying tha you think it's right? In which case did you allow your children to decide their own moral system?
I was forced to go to church even though I hated it, so was my husband that is WRONG. Religion has nothing to do with a child being brought up to know what is right and wrong!
-
I was forced to go to church even though I hated it, so was my husband that is WRONG. Religion has nothing to do with a child being brought up to know what is right and wrong!
So you have proselytised your morality onto your children. Why is that any different?
I also think you do a huge dis-service to many religious people for whom their religion is entwined with their morality and their actions by making a statement that is so dismissive of them.
-
I also think you do a huge dis-service to many religious people for whom their religion is entwined with their morality and their actions by making a statement that is so dismissive of them.
That's deeply problematic to say the least, though. Arthur C. Clarke observed: "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion," and he was right.
-
That's deeply problematic to say the least, though. Arthur C. Clarke observed: "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion," and he was right.
'observed', surely opined is better there. We tie our morality around many things, that religion is one of them, doesn't mean anything about hi-jacking. Religion strays between is and ought like a drunken ethicist but certainly part of its history seeks to deal with oughts. It's foolish to ignore this as Floo seems to do.
-
So you have proselytised your morality onto your children. Why is that any different?
I also think you do a huge dis-service to many religious people for whom their religion is entwined with their morality and their actions by making a statement that is so dismissive of them.
Morality and religion, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Morality has NOTHING to do with religion, especially as the god of the Bible is totally immoral!
-
Morality and religion, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Morality has NOTHING to do with religion, especially as the god of the Bible is totally immoral!
That comment doesn't make internal sense.
Surely you must be slightly aware that for many people their religion and morality are entwined?
-
That comment doesn't make internal sense.
Surely you must be slightly aware that for many people their religion and morality and entwined?
We know that it is; the issue is whether that in itself makes any sense.
To me of course it doesn't. It's a wretchedly bad idea. As soon as you take morality - matters of the weal and woe, the happiness and unhappiness of sentient beings - and place it outside of real life, investing it in an unknown, unseen, unevidenced realm peopled by equally unknown, unseen and unevidenced beings, you've effectively written off any moral sense worthy of the name. Morality becomes about appeasing and placating an unseen realm of unevidenced beings, typically with a great big one at the top of the food chain. Morality becomes a matter of pleasing and pandering to the assumed wants and wishes of said beings rather than what's good or bad for real beings, real beings like you and me and a sheep.
I can't be persuaded that anybody who has not poisoned their moral sense with religion would think that, for example, slicing off bits of the genitalia of newborns would be a splendid idea, or murdering people for believing something different to yourself. That last example is very far from being exclusive to religion alone; the common factor is that morality is divorced from real life - the betterment of actual lives - and resides in some principle deemed to be so far above real life that it can't be challenged, criticised or questioned. Whether it's God or The Party or the Fatherland, it's all the same madness. With something as clearly and unambiguously positive as allowing same-sex couples to marry, for instance, there's a very clear reason why the overwhelming majority of the opposition to it comes from religious quarters.
-
We know that it is; the issue is whether that in itself makes any sense.
To me of course it doesn't. It's a wretchedly bad idea. As soon as you take morality - matters of the weal and woe, the happiness and unhappiness of sentient beings - and place it outside of real life, investing it in an unknown, unseen, unevidenced realm peopled by equally unknown, unseen and unevidenced beings, you've effectively written off any moral sense worthy of the name. Morality becomes about appeasing and placating an unseen realm of unevidenced beings, typically with a great big one at the top of the food chain. Morality becomes a matter of pleasing and pandering to the assumed wants and wishes of said beings rather than what's good or bad for real beings, real beings like you and me and a sheep.
I can't be persuaded that anybody who has not poisoned their moral sense with religion would think that, for example, slicing off bits of the genitalia of newborns would be a splendid idea, or murdering people for believing something different to yourself.
Lots of people I know thought it good to slice bits of the genitals of children for cultural reasons. As murdering for believing something different,are we just ignoring ideologies or reclassifying them as religion?
-
See edited post which I was amending while you were writing. As for this:
Lots of people I know thought it good to slice bits of the genitals of children for cultural reasons.
... which would have been a religious reason initially. Something that starts out as a religious value often filters down, over many centuries or even millennia of history, to become absorbed into a cultural value whose religious basis can often be largely forgotten. Think Christmas, for example, for the vast majority an entirely secularised public holiday with no religious component at all. A colossal amount of secular Jewish culture fits this mould. On the other hand I don't know of a single example where the process runs in the opposite direction, i.e. where a cultural value ends up as a religious value.
As murdering for believing something different,are we just ignoring ideologies or reclassifying them as religion?
Nobody has ever come up with a single definition of the term religion that everybody signs up to, so it's not as hard to reclassify something as a religion as you may think. A cult of personality, a sacred text or texts regarded as the definitive word of the founder/leader, a system of beliefs, an overarching worldview, the tendency to separate people into in-groups and out-groups - all these seem to be to be features of something that can be classified either as a religion or a religion-like or religionesque ideology.
-
I'm sure other's experiences may well be different, but, as requested, these are some of the experiences of the two Alpha courses that I took part in.
On the first one, which was a CofE group, I attended alone and made it quite clear from the outset(i.e. at the communal meal where we were to be introduced to each other) that I was highly sceptical and that I was not a Christian. This seemed to cause no problem for the people there. At some point two people stood up to 'bear witness' I presume of how they had been 'saved' by their faith in the Christian God. Interestingly, both these people spoke in extremely emotional tones of how they had found God whilst going though a particularly stressful period in their lives, one, who had had a very upsetting divorce, and one who had lost someone dear to her. They spoke at some length on how they had found consolation in their new found faith.
Later we started the sessions proper. Each one started with a televised introduction featuring a certain Nicky Gumbel speaking to groups of what looked like pretty affluent young people, probably in his home church at Brompton. He came over as an extremely handsome, well groomed and extremely assured individual. I was considerably struck by the way that the TV cameras seemed to focus at times on his audience, seemingly to emphasise their enjoyment and delight in his spoken words. What he had to say, however, for me, was full of empty assertions, often backed by a liberal use of Biblical quotes.
I didn't really put much value by his prosletysing, I was much more interested in the reactions of our group of circa 10 to 12 people. They all watched and listened in rapt attention. Very quickly I found out that they all were Christians, from the same church who knew each other well, and the reason they were at the Alpha course was simply to renew and refresh their faith. I was disappointed, hopefully expecting that there might be others there who, at the very least, were not committed Christians.
I was asked what I thought about the Nicky Gumbel 'sermons'. I told them I was not impressed at all. Rather than ask why I felt like this, my comments were met with a wall of seemingly embarrassed silence, and they quickly moved on.
Now I won't bore you with lots of details. Rather I will pick out several interesting 'moments' from the sessions which I attended.
1) I asked the question why they thought their particular faith was any more correct than say, Islam? I was met with the response that we were not here to talk about Islam, and my question was not answered at all.
2) In session 2, the lady who was leading the session gave out a printed sheet to each of us. On this sheet were so called 'sins'. Each time a sin was mentioned on the sheet, there were a possible two answers we could give. a) whether we had actually committed that sin b) whether we had committed that sin in our mind.
Such sins included, for instance, actions/thoughts of lust and actions/thoughts of stealing for example. I think the list included about 15/20 different sins.
People were asked, in turn, to comment on how many sins they felt they were guilty of either in thought and action. Everyone had something to say, and all admitted to some of these sins especially in thought rather than deed. Then it came to my turn. I was asked, and I simply said ,"None".
Back came the anticipated response: "Really, so you consider yourself perfect, do you?" to which I replied, "Good grief, no. I simply reject your idea of 'sin'. Many, if not all of these, are entirely dependent on circumstances as to whether I consider them wrong or not, and, even on that level, I could not easily give you such simplistic answers."
Again there was a silence. not even a challenge, and they moved on to the next person.
3) In one session, I can't remember which, we started talking about how we have this spiritual dimension, which comes from God. I brought up the point that actually we are animals descended from apelike ancestors. So, did they have a spiritual dimension too? There was a chorus of disapproval at this, with one lady saying, "that isn't true because they haven't even been able to find the missing link, have they?"
As the sessions wore on, I realised that almost everything I said was causing consternation amongst some of the group. They obviously did not agree with me, and, furthermore, did not welcome anything I had to say. There was no attempt to actually respond to any of my questions. They simply moved on, safe in the knowledge that all the others were of like mind.
After the eighth session I decided to leave, partly because I could see I was upsetting some members of the group, and partly because there was no actual engagement of ideas, except, in my view, within the confines of their exceedingly limited mindset.
The second Alpha Course I attended with my wife. I wanted to see if a different set of people might have more open minds. my wife was intrigued by my experiences and wanted to attend just to see what it was all about.
This was again a CofE Alpha Course orignated bt the members of what they called a charismatic CofE church.
Again we found out very quickly that all the people who came to the sessions were committed Christians, and were involved, in some way, with their parent church. Again I was disappointed but I was still prepared to take part, as was my wife.
Here I will point to two very interesting experiences:
1) In the first session we were told of the overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus, especially from the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. I suggested that the paucity of references to Jesus himself in these writings was not overwhelming, and even if there was such a person there was certainly no evidence, outside of the NT, that the things attributed to him were true. No real challenge came from the other members on this point. They simply emphasised the importance of the NT.
However, one member of the session, got up and, obviously in highly charged emotional state, stated that she had been on drugs and she had found Jesus, and how dare I challenge what she knew to be absolutely true. I simply said that we would just have to agree to disagree. That seemed to inflame her further and she continued her verbal assault. Several other members tried to calm her down, and eventually succeeded. I realised that already I was not the flavour of the month.
2) In Session 4 the focus was on prayer. Now, so far, my wife had said very little. Again I had challenged the group with a series of questions, which had largely been ignored. There came a short break, and then the leader of the group suggested that we break into two smaller groups to gather in two different rooms. The ladies would be in one group, the men in the other, and our subject would be the importance of prayer. I looked at my wife, we both smiled, and said we would be happy to go along with this, even though we both clearly suspected that this was simply a ruse to separate my wife from myself, in order to hopefully influence her without me being around.
As far as I was concerned I obviously confused some of the men, because I said I have nothing against prayer to some extent, as I could see that it may have beneficial effects on the person praying, especially if the prayer was regarding the health and well being of the person prayed for. I did also say, of course, that the actual act of praying showed not the slightest evidence that their God existed.
However, after talking to my wife, later, she told me this:
One lady had told the other people there that some years back she and her husband had really wanted the house that they now lived in. Unfortunately, someone had made an offer on this house, which had been provisionally accepted, so they had little chance of getting it themselves. So she had prayed to God that things might change and that they, themselves, might be successful. And, indeed, the other person had had difficulties raising the mortgage, so they eventually acquired the house they were after, and the one she lived in today. She put this down to the power of prayer. My wife simply asked about the person who had had difficulties raising the mortgage. Did God not look kindly upon him because he hadn't prayed, then?
I won't bore you with any more. Suffice it to say that, after Session 6, we received a phone call saying that due to various commitments, some of the people had dropped out, and the Alpha Course wasn't going to continue. I think that that was probably a good thing, as both of us were now beginning to be bored with it.
-
Well three cheers to enki for putting so much time and effort into a superbly detailed and informative post. Hats off, sir.
-
Thank you for that enki, it's very, very interesting indeed.
I too thought Nicky Gumbel appeared charming and handsome but by the time I had seen him, on video, a few times I could almost have smacked him round the mouth. I say ''almost'' because I'm not given to violent outbursts, I just cannot think of any other way to describe how I felt about him. There was something too smooth, too sugary about his deliverance for my taste.
Something else which struck me forcibly about the videos was the congregation listening to Mr Gumbel. I knew that Alpha was run in prisons and at that time knew a chaplaincy helper who organised and ran the programme for a prison. I couldn't imagine the vast majority of inmates having much in common with any of Nicky Gumbel's audience. Indeed HTB was known to be very white and middle class. Nothing wrong with that of course but Christianity transcends race and class, and anything advertising Christianity must surely reflect this.
Your response to the ''sin'' questionnaire was spot on, imo. I do not remember being given anything like that at the Alpha course I helped on so have no idea how I would have reacted to it.
You obviously didn't get as far as the ''Holy Spirit'' weekend enki :). Don't blame you a bit.
-
Well three cheers to enki for putting so much time and effort into a superbly detailed and informative post. Hats off, sir.
You are too kind, sir. :)
And, you too, Brownie ;)
-
An interesting but saddening thing as identified by both Brownie and enki is that Alpha seems to draw emotionally labile people who have had, or still have, some sort of emotional distress - a bereavement, difficulties with drink and/or other drugs, mental illness or perhaps simple loneliness, etc. Doubtless this is common to religions generally but it's typically the sort of thing more usually associated with cults and NRMs (new religious movements).
No truly compassionate person would ever wish to separate such a person from whatever blandishments their religious adherence supplies (which in a great many cases - perhaps all? - probably stems from human contact and a sense of community rather than beliefs), but on the doxological level alone, to this particular sceptical brain a belief system which seems to become credible only in times of emotional upset and rootlessness rather than standing on its own merits has nothing to commend it.
-
You are welcome enki.
Someone above mentioned the dangers of proselytising, especially in relation to young children. I don't think there is an Alpha course for children - I will be corrected if I'm wrong there.
My belief is that it is OK for anyone to tell their children what they (the parent(s) believe, they will soon get to know that anyway, but not to push it onto the child or children. They must be free to find things out for themselves and ask questions. If a child doesn't like going to church there's no point in forcing them, they will resent it later. If they want to go, even if only for a while, fine; if not, they don't have to. It is abusive to make a child do something non essential which they hate.
Childhood should, imo, be a free and easy time of exploration, not being told what to think. Also, having decent values is not dependent on following a religious code.
Times have changed though. In bygone days the majority of adults held ''church'' in high esteem. We are a more child-friendly society now - thankfully - and what was considered acceptable years ago is not now.
-
An interesting but saddening thing as identified by both Brownie and enki is that Alpha seems to draw emotionally labile people who have had, or still have, some sort of emotional distress - a bereavement, difficulties with drink and/or other drugs, mental illness or perhaps simple loneliness, etc. Doubtless this is common to religions generally but it's typically the sort of thing more usually associated with cults and NRMs (new religious movements).
No truly compassionate person would ever wish to separate such a person from whatever blandishments their religious adherence supplies (which in a great many cases - perhaps all? - probably stems from human contact and a sense of community rather than beliefs), but on the doxological level alone, to this particular sceptical brain a belief system which seems to become credible only in times of emotional upset and rootlessness rather than standing on its own merits has nothing to commend it.
What you say here, Shakes, I think is very true. My wife and I run two dances a week especially for the older generation, many of whom have lost a partner. There is a sense of real community and friendship between us all, but with no trappings of ideology/faith whatever. We simply function as human beings who love the social activity of dancing. Indeed two of our number, both of whom have lost a partner, have actually remarried. It is this social interaction and, for some of us, the sympathy/understanding of others, which, I think, is one of the reasons that makes it such a positive activity.
-
How do they recruit for it, I've never seen it advertised or anything anywhere.
-
I'd also like to thank Enki for an informative and interesting account.
Taken together with the blog mentioned previously, which I'm working my way through, my impression is that this Alpha course is in essence preaching to the converted and is doing so via the same tired old fallacies we see trotted out by some theists here.
-
How do they recruit for it, I've never seen it advertised or anything anywhere.
Most churches that run the course have huge banners advertising it.
And often use rather disingenuous marketing along the line of 'Explore the meaning of life' etc rather than being clear that it is a specifically christian course with such basic assumptions simply accepted, with very little tolerance (as we've heard on this thread) for those who might challenge those basic assumptions - starting with the assumption that god exists and points thereafter.
-
I've seen the banners and posters all over the shop, albeit more so a few years ago than recently.
-
Bear Grylls was their poster boy at one point.
-
I'd also like to thank Enki for an informative and interesting account.
Taken together with the blog mentioned previously, which I'm working my way through, my impression is that this Alpha course is in essence preaching to the converted and is doing so via the same tired old fallacies we see trotted out by some theists here.
That would be the 'belief in God fallacy' no doubt.
Can you explain again why God does not exist, only this time without some of the arse clenching category blunders.
-
That would be the 'belief in God fallacy' no doubt.
Can you explain again why God does not exist, only this time without some of the arse clenching category blunders.
You are inviting me to commit the negative proof fallacy, Vlad, so I'll decline the invitation.
As regards your god the burden of proof is yours, and not mine.
-
You are inviting me to commit the negative proof fallacy, Vlad, so I'll decline the invitation.
As regards your god the burden of proof is yours, and not mine.
Yes, just like your ontological naturalism.
Look Gordon I do not believe Leprechauns exist. I cannot absolutely prove it but I can give supporting argument for my assertion, so if I can do that you can give an equal account.....instead of a cop out.
-
An interesting but saddening thing as identified by both Brownie and enki is that Alpha seems to draw emotionally labile people who have had, or still have, some sort of emotional distress - a bereavement, difficulties with drink and/or other drugs, mental illness or perhaps simple loneliness, etc. Doubtless this is common to religions generally but it's typically the sort of thing more usually associated with cults and NRMs (new religious movements).
No truly compassionate person would ever wish to separate such a person from whatever blandishments their religious adherence supplies (which in a great many cases - perhaps all? - probably stems from human contact and a sense of community rather than beliefs), but on the doxological level alone, to this particular sceptical brain a belief system which seems to become credible only in times of emotional upset and rootlessness rather than standing on its own merits has nothing to commend it.
A big feature of the stories in Alpha News was always the part where the recipient 'received the Spirit'. The testimonies are chosen with care - people explaining how they came to leave lives of crime, abuse, addiction etc - and the common thread is a turning point at which they feel loved by God, and a sense of peace and happiness.
As you say, why not? Until you read the Alpha materials and look at how they operate.
-
That takes the biscuit. I'm lost for words!
Tell me about it.
He was in his curacy still so easy to get rid of. Ironically I've met only a handful of Christians who walk the talk as well as he does - he came to the priesthood late in life and when here he lived off his pension rather than claiming the salary to which he was entitled, on the basis that it paid for another position in a deprived part of the diocese.
He also swears like a trooper, drinks whisky and bases his sermons on the latest episode of Coronation St.
-
Yes, just like your ontological naturalism.
Look Gordon I do not believe Leprechauns exist. I cannot absolutely prove it but I can give supporting argument for my assertion, so if I can do that you can give an equal account.....instead of a cop out.
On you go then: provide a supporting argument for your assertion regarding Leprechauns and we'll all have a look at what you produce.
-
Tell me about it.
He was in his curacy still so easy to get rid of. Ironically I've met only a handful of Christians who walk the talk as well as he does - he came to the priesthood late in life and when here he lived off his pension rather than claiming the salary to which he was entitled, on the basis that it paid for another position in a deprived part of the diocese.
He also swears like a trooper, drinks whisky and bases his sermons on the latest episode of Coronation St.
Sign me up (with a few caveats).
-
Has he ever got drunk on Newton and Ridley's I wonder? Someone closely associated with me did that aged 15 on a school trip to Granada Studios.
Sounds like a decent bloke Rhiannon. It doesn't make sense that the church hierarchies would believe the Alpha people and not take his side. Or at least sit on the fence and let him stay. Still he may have moved on to a better billet.
I looked up Alpha to see what's new and a church near to me holds regular courses. They also do something called ''Young Alpha'' which is for teenagers. On the main Alpha site ''Alpha for Children'' was mentioned :o . Presumably the latter do not have an away with spirit weekend.
-
On you go then: provide a supporting argument for your assertion regarding Leprechauns and we'll all have a look at what you produce.
I believe that in a way that you ignored or failed to understand I asked you for a justification of your ontological naturalism....and I asked you first.
I have frequently made argument against Leprechauns when I harpoon Bluehillside everytime he dares to mention them.
Ireland is not the Amazon jungle and whereas there may be as yet new irish microbial species you can bet your antitheist arse that were Leprechauns, a diminutive hominid species existent, Attenborough would have done The Life of Leprechauns.
-
Has he ever got drunk on Newton and Ridley's I wonder? Someone closely associated with me did that aged 15 on a school trip to Granada Studios.
Sounds like a decent bloke Rhiannon. It doesn't make sense that the church hierarchies would believe the Alpha people and not take his side. Or at least sit on the fence and let him stay. Still he may have moved on to a better billet.
I looked up Alpha to see what's new and a church near to me holds regular courses. They also do something called ''Young Alpha'' which is for teenagers. On the main Alpha site ''Alpha for Children'' was mentioned :o . Presumably the latter do not have an away with spirit weekend.
It wasn't so much a matter of who was believed or not. I mean, what was to be proven one way or the other? But the congregation were hungry for the charismatic 'receiving the spirit' experience and what rational thought was there quickly evaporated.
-
I believe that in a way that you ignored or failed to understand I asked you for a justification of your ontological naturalism....and I asked you first.
I have frequently made argument against Leprechauns when I harpoon Bluehillside everytime he dares to mention them.
Ireland is not the Amazon jungle and whereas there may be as yet new irish microbial species you can bet your antitheist arse that were Leprechauns, a diminutive hominid species existent, Attenborough would have done The Life of Leprechauns.
You seem oddly preoccupied by Leprechauns, unlike me.
So, are you going to regale us with something worthy of discussion, or do you intent to just bluster and rant?
-
I'll have £20 on Blusteran Rant to win, please.
-
I'll have £20 on Blusteran Rant to win, please.
Sadly old 'Bluster' has been out of form for some time now.
-
You seem oddly preoccupied by Leprechauns, unlike me.
So, are you going to regale us with something worthy of discussion, or do you intent to just bluster and rant?
No obsession
No bluster
No rant.................... Gordon.
Sorry to disappoint.
-
No obsession
No bluster
No rant.................... Gordon.
Sorry to disappoint.
No disappointment; it'll only last until the next post where you dredge up ontological/philosophical naturalism/materialism, antitheism, Stalinism and all the rest of the meaningless, empty tropes and misunderstood-slogans-instead-of-argument and we'll be back to normal.
-
No disappointment; it'll only last until the next post where you dredge up ontological/philosophical naturalism/materialism, antitheism, Stalinism and all the rest of the meaningless, empty tropes and misunderstood-slogans-instead-of-argument and we'll be back to normal.
But that's your belief guys.....to pretend not to have ontological naturalism ''something chronic'' is to merely play the evasive gobshite.
-
Not many people seem to give a monkey's as much as you do on a daily basis, Vladdychops ;)
-
Not many people seem to give a monkey's as much as you do on a daily basis, Vladdychops ;)
So....obviously evasive gobshittery abounds then........
-
It wasn't so much a matter of who was believed or not. I mean, what was to be proven one way or the other? But the congregation were hungry for the charismatic 'receiving the spirit' experience and what rational thought was there quickly evaporated.
That explains it. Some church congregations do have that tendancy, the one not far from me, who do Alpha courses, are a bit like that. I've never been there but have heard about and know a couple of people who do attend.
I wonder if that church is any the better for the experience? Or if people have become disillusioned.
Anyway I hope your friend's next church suited him better. It must have been a sad beginning to his ministry.
-
The poor bloke ended up here.
-
What? On the R&E Forum? I won't ask for his nickname.
-
What? On the R&E Forum? I won't ask for his nickname.
Sorry I meant here, where I live. Little-Inbreeding-on-the-Dungheap.
-
It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to.
Which is pretty much all of reality.
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality.
What evidence is that?
The problem with this argument
I didn't make an argument, I stated some facts.
Science is the the only approach to finding out about reality I know of - FACT.
I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist - FACT.
I can't think of any other approaches - FACT
I don't just accept your assertions on your say so - FACT
If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is - FACT.
As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.
No, the problem with this discussion is that you do not understand what science is and you do not have anything that supports your assertions. Yet again, you have been given an opportunity to do so, but instead, you hand out mealy mouthed nonsense about "arguments". I can write down how science works in four lines. Let's see you write down your alleged alternative approach.
Here's science:
1 Guess a hypothesis
2 Work out the consequences for the real world
3 Test the real world to see if the consequences are true
4 If the real world does not match your predicted consequences, your hypothesis is wrong.
-
Well I detest things that give simple smug off the peg answers.
Example: who were the first man and women? Only correct answer Adam and Eve.
Which get you to mindlessly repeat such stuff, and think the only thing you could possibly want is eternal life.
My ordained friend said alpha was something I should avoid.
So I did.
I've done one such course online, and the teacher ended up writing me a long letter saying he understood where I was coming from etc etc. Because I don't accept the assumptions and it's never an open minded questioning.
There is no point in me going to anything where the answers are often really simplistic.
It's not so much exploring things as being told what to believe, without question.
My ordained friend knows the sort of thing I don't like, which is why she said to avoid the alpha course.
Says it all, really.
-
It's a shame they don't do a Alpha course that isn't religious, but deals with a wide range of viewpoints.
What is important and really matters in life, from individual perspectives?
But then it wouldn't be Christian I suppose.
-
It's a shame they don't do a Alpha course that isn't religious, but deals with a wide range of viewpoints.
What is important and really matters in life, from individual perspectives?
But then it wouldn't be Christian I suppose.
I said that very thing back in #58. I'd sign up for that like a shot.
You'd have to get some philosophers on board to structure the course and construct the materials, etc.
I wonder what the take-up would be?
-
How do they recruit for it, I've never seen it advertised or anything anywhere.
Do you not remember this
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/10/is-it-okay-to-write-on-alpha-course-ads.html
-
I said that very thing back in #58. I'd sign up for that like a shot.
You'd have to get some philosphers on board to structure the course and construct the materials, etc.
I wonder what the take-up would be?
A village near me has a philosophy club running alongside the usual bowls, cricket, WI etc. I guess it's possible if you have at least one person with a reasonable knowledge and enough others willing to read, dig, explore and share.
-
A village near me has a philosophy club running alongside the usual bowls, cricket, WI etc. I guess it's possible if you have at least one person with a reasonable knowledge and enough others willing to read, dig, explore and share.
I'm not sure you even need that. There are a number of good primers on philosophy and something like Philosophy Bites, or Julian Baggini's stuff, could be used as discussion points. You just need an interest. We make philosophy too hard.
-
I'm not sure you even need that. There are a number of good primers on philosophy and something like Philosophy Bites, or Julian Baggini's stuff, could be used as discussion points. You just need an interest. We make philosophy too hard.
You may well be right. Surely we're all philosophers, if we stop for long enough to think and ask?
-
I said that very thing back in #58. I'd sign up for that like a shot.
You'd have to get some philosphers on board to structure the course and construct the materials, etc.
I wonder what the take-up would be?
Quite high I would think.
:)
-
You may well be right. Surely we're all philosophers, if we stop for long enough to think and ask?
Yes, and sometimes it's nice to hear differing POV, and also some, we can very much relate to.
🌹
-
You may well be right. Surely we're all philosophers, if we stop for long enough to think and ask?
Pretty much. There's a lot of philosophy done on this forum when we stop with the trying to win stuff.
The problem sometimes with knowledge is that it makes it hard to write without assuming similar knowledge from others, and people don't always have time to avoid the short cuts that that allows. It's much easier to get the level right when you are talking to someone in the pub, than on a board. And you also have the difficulty that not everyone posting on topics has the same aim to just have a discussion.
-
Pretty much. There's a lot of philosophy done on this forum when we stop with the trying to win stuff.
The problem sometimes with knowledge is that it makes it hard to write without assuming similar knowledge from others, and people don't always have time to avoid the short cuts that that allows. It's much easier to get the level right when you are talking to someone in the pub, than on a board. And you also have the difficulty that not everyone posting on topics has the same aim to just have a discussion.
Yes. We have some great minds here in our tiny corner of cyberspace and my thinking has both expanded and become sharper as a result of engaging with the ideas debated here. My life would be the poorer for not having experienced it.
But in the pub would undoubtedly be easier.
-
Yes. We have some great minds here in our tiny corner of cyberspace and my thinking has both expanded and become sharper as a result of engaging with the ideas debated here. My life would be the poorer for not having experienced it.
But in the pub would undoubtedly be easier.
I wonder whether an equivalent to the faith sharing board would work. A place where we look to have just discussions without the trying to win thing. Theoretically we could achieve it with a bit of self discipline but that's hard to ensure.
-
I wonder whether an equivalent to the faith sharing board would work. A place where we look to have just discussions without the trying to win thing. Theoretically we could achieve it with a bit of self discipline but that's hard to ensure.
Exactly the same thing was going through my mind, NS. Has to be worth a go.
-
Which is pretty much all of reality.
What evidence is that?
I didn't make an argument, I stated some facts.
Science is the the only approach to finding out about reality I know of - FACT.
I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist - FACT.
I can't think of any other approaches - FACT
I don't just accept your assertions on your say so - FACT
If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is - FACT.
No, the problem with this discussion is that you do not understand what science is and you do not have anything that supports your assertions. Yet again, you have been given an opportunity to do so, but instead, you hand out mealy mouthed nonsense about "arguments". I can write down how science works in four lines. Let's see you write down your alleged alternative approach.
Here's science:
1 Guess a hypothesis
2 Work out the consequences for the real world
3 Test the real world to see if the consequences are true
4 If the real world does not match your predicted consequences, your hypothesis is wrong.
Science is methodological naturalism not an ontology....you're talking rubbish.
While your about it get your overinflated antitheist proprietorial sense of entitlement off OUR science.
-
Ooooh, get her.
-
Exactly the same thing was going through my mind, NS. Has to be worth a go.
Definitely. When can we start?
-
....... OUR science.
......which is what, exactly?
-
Science is methodological naturalism not an ontology....you're talking rubbish.
I listed some facts. Which of them do you think are not true?
Explain in your own words without using big ones that you do not understand why you think my characterisation of science is wrong.
-
I think Vlad is ignoring the fact that although science itself consists of various methods, grounded in naturalism, it is also the basis for various philosophical positions such as scientific realism. This states roughly that science describes reality.
After that, as jeremy has outlined, you are presented with the question as to which other methods are going to be used to investigate stuff. Are there any?
-
I think Vlad is ignoring the fact that although science itself consists of various methods, grounded in naturalism, it is also the basis for various philosophical positions such as scientific realism.
Really, What is the logical pathway which links methodological naturalism with scientific realism then?
In other words your so keen on methodologies to establish philosophical positions.....what is the methodology which establishes scientific realism?
-
Really, What is the logical pathway which links methodological naturalism with scientific realism then?
In other words your so keen on methodologies to establish philosophical positions.....what is the methodology which establishes scientific realism?
It's an inference from the success of science, or if you like, an inference to the best explanation.
-
It's an inference from the success of science, or if you like, an inference to the best explanation.
Science is not an ontology. I suspect you are specially pleading since all kinds of things can be inferred from science.
Again what is the methodology for establishing it not merely inferring it.
Science is successful in that it is good at what it does. The argument you are making is circular therefore. By what methodology do you get from the success of science as science to scientific realism.
What you see as the strongest link is a bit king's new clothes.
Besides, in terms of success Maths trumps science and is a better guide and predictor for the universe.
-
Wiggs,
It's an inference from the success of science, or if you like, an inference to the best explanation.
Quite: 'planes fly, pills cure etc. Try inventing anything using "faith" instead and see where that gets you, which is why nothing of value comes from theocracies. Be interesting though if one theist said to the other, "would you like a ride in this aeroplane I've designed using only the tools of faith, intuition and experience" and then seeing the reply...
The big mistake - a straw man mistake in fact - is to mis-assert that the findings of science are also claimed to be definitive or absolute, as opposed to be more probabilistically true based on the feedback we obtain from the way the world appears at least to be. That's not to say for a minute that it's necessarily not invisible pixies making it all happen behind the scenes, but it is to say that naturalistic explanations are verifiable within the context of the way the universe appears to be in a way that non-naturalistic explanations are not.
And yet the straw man response to this simple enough point recurs here time and time again.
Ah well...
-
Wiggs,
Quite: 'planes fly, pills cure etc. Try inventing anything using "faith" instead and see where that gets you, which is why nothing of value comes from theocracies. Be interesting though if one theist said to the other, "would you like a ride in this aeroplane I've designed using only the tools of faith, intuition and experience" and then seeing the reply...
The big mistake - a straw man mistake in fact - is to mis-assert that the findings of science are also claimed to be definitive or absolute, as opposed to be more probabilistically true based on the feedback we obtain from the way the world appears at least to be. That's not to say for a minute that it's necessarily not invisible pixies making it all happen behind the scenes, but it is to say that naturalistic explanations are verifiable within the context of the way the universe appears to be in a way that non-naturalistic explanations are not.
And yet the straw man response to this simple enough point recurs here time and time again.
Ah well...
It's not an ontology though.
Saying it's the basis for scientific realism is all very well but unless science can prove scientific realism, not only does it remain a belief but in fact a travesty of the virtue of science that it claims.
-
It's not an ontology though.
Saying it's the basis for scientific realism is all very well but unless science can prove scientific realism, not only does it remain a belief but in fact a travesty of the virtue of science that it claims.
It shows the use of abductive reasoning, which is probabilistic. The classic example is that from 'the lawn is wet', we can infer that it rained last night. But this is only probably true (or statistically), since somebody might have used a sprinkler on it.
So you can't prove abductive reasoning, as you can with say, 'John is a bachelor' implies 'John is unmarried'.
But I think that abductive reasoning is very widely used. The philosopher Peirce actually claimed that it's universal, but I don't know about that.
-
Wiggs,
Quite: 'planes fly, pills cure etc. Try inventing anything using "faith" instead and see where that gets you, which is why nothing of value comes from theocracies. Be interesting though if one theist said to the other, "would you like a ride in this aeroplane I've designed using only the tools of faith, intuition and experience" and then seeing the reply...
The big mistake - a straw man mistake in fact - is to mis-assert that the findings of science are also claimed to be definitive or absolute, as opposed to be more probabilistically true based on the feedback we obtain from the way the world appears at least to be. That's not to say for a minute that it's necessarily not invisible pixies making it all happen behind the scenes, but it is to say that naturalistic explanations are verifiable within the context of the way the universe appears to be in a way that non-naturalistic explanations are not.
And yet the straw man response to this simple enough point recurs here time and time again.
Ah well...
I am not arguing against the success of science. You are deviously conflating science with scientism here.
Science is successful at what it does. It is successful in the same way Brobat toilet cleaner is successful. But using your own argument you would be better into Brobatism rather than scientism since it kills 99 percent of all known germs. Can science boast that level of success?