Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I see you’ve returned could I ask you to have a go at answering the question I asked you a while back that you ignored or missed please (see below). Thanks.

“No doubt you believe all that to be true. If we could get back to first principles for a minute though, your whole ontology rests on the notion that no processing entity, however complex, could be self aware (and so there must therefore be another "something" to do the "perceiving" that is itself somehow exempt from this constraint).

You've asserted this many times, but have never told us why you think it to be true. Why couldn't consciousness and self-awareness be just an emergent property of the unfathomably complex processes of the brain? Emergence as a phenomenon is pretty much everywhere you look, and we know that remarkably complex properties can emerge from individually "stupid" components with no grand plan, leadership etc needed for it to be so. I see no particular barrier conceptually or in practice that would exclude consciousness from that paradigm yet you just assert it to be so over and over again.

Why is that? What's the big issue to your mind that would stop a sufficiently complex processor from being self aware (just as, presumably, you claim the "soul" to be)?”

[Walter]

Did anyone watch The SKY AT NIGHT last evening ? certainly put things into perspective for me


AB , watch it , you might learn something.

[ippy]

AB,

As I see you’ve returned could I ask you to have a go at answering the question I asked you a while back that you ignored or missed please (see below). Thanks.

“No doubt you believe all that to be true. If we could get back to first principles for a minute though, your whole ontology rests on the notion that no processing entity, however complex, could be self aware (and so there must therefore be another "something" to do the "perceiving" that is itself somehow exempt from this constraint).

You've asserted this many times, but have never told us why you think it to be true. Why couldn't consciousness and self-awareness be just an emergent property of the unfathomably complex processes of the brain? Emergence as a phenomenon is pretty much everywhere you look, and we know that remarkably complex properties can emerge from individually "stupid" components with no grand plan, leadership etc needed for it to be so. I see no particular barrier conceptually or in practice that would exclude consciousness from that paradigm yet you just assert it to be so over and over again.

Why is that? What's the big issue to your mind that would stop a sufficiently complex processor from being self aware (just as, presumably, you claim the "soul" to be)?”

I would love to see A B answer, but I think he would rather kill himself than give any answer that could possibly contra any of his more usual miracle mongering flights of fancy.

I pity in many ways any children that become entangled in any part of his charge, probably 'the' worst effect of this, in my perfectly reasonable opinion, delusional belief of his, a very sad case.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Ipster,

I would love to see A B answer, but I think he would rather kill himself than give any answer that could possibly contra any of his more usual miracle mongering flights of fancy.

I’m pretty sure he won’t answer it too, but you never know…

I pity in many ways any children that become entangled in any part of his charge, probably 'the' worst effect of this, in my perfectly reasonable opinion, delusional belief of his, a very sad case.

I tend to the view that embracing unreason over reason is bad for the individual and for societies as a whole but I’m wary of describing people like AB as “sad”. To the contrary he seems very happy in his beliefs, however wrongheaded.

[SusanDoris]

I tend to the view that embracing unreason over reason is bad for the individual and for societies as a whole but I’m wary of describing people like AB as “sad”. To the contrary he seems very happy in his beliefs, however wrongheaded.

I agree AB is not sad – he’s a bit like the street preacher who turns up in the middle of town fairly regularly and goes on and on and on about what Jesus is doing for everybody now and is so very irritating!!

I wonder if there was a time between the random mutation plus natural selection which produced the human with language, and of course before the first superstition was thought of i.e. that mountains and weather for instance could act against them, when the human species had no gods and saw reality as it was? Even if there had been such a time, it would have passed by in the blink of an eye considering time as a whole, I suppose.

Then I think of all the generations since then having these beliefs inculcated into them – although I still think there must have been one or two occasionally who thought out the truth for themselves- now that I think is sad. However, being a realist, I can clearly see and understand how it happened, and what has been done cannot be undone so it is just going to take a whole lot longer to have more people realising the total lack of objective evidence for any God/spirit/etc than some of us thought!! 

The Abs and others will carry on doing their best to convince a slowly decreasing number of people that their 100% faith beliefs are more reliable than ones solidly backed up and based on reality.

I think, and hope, that my granddaughters will still be saying when they are old, ‘Well, our Granny always used to say….’ !!       

[ippy]

Hi Ipster,

I’m pretty sure he won’t answer it too, but you never know…

I tend to the view that embracing unreason over reason is bad for the individual and for societies as a whole but I’m wary of describing people like AB as “sad”. To the contrary he seems very happy in his beliefs, however wrongheaded.

Sad as in 'a sad case of wrongheadedness', I agree with you, I'm sure he is very happy and more than likely very clappy in his everyday delusional ways.

Again just to underline, for me the problem is the welfare of the innocent young children surrounded by the influence of people like A B and not so much worry about these deluded people. 

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I think you have, but ippy can confirm or deny as he wishes.

I'm not sure there's much to disagree about when the words are plainly written, but in any case the issue isn't about just RC faith schools. The question you were asked and ignored though was a more general one of principle ("Would you for example think it acceptable for a Muslim faith school to teach its pupils that there actually was a religious figure who could prophesise things – thereby breaking the rules that physics describes?"). If you don't want to answer that's up to you, but you must I think concede that your "kiddies making up their own minds" idea is a different proposition when the facts about religion (ie, RE) are taught rather than the "facts" of religion are taught (ie faith schools).

BHS

I figured rather than take your approach on many occasions of promising to get back to me with a response and then spectacularly failing to do so, which seems to have become something of a habit with you when you are unable to produce any evidence for some of your opinions, I would just respond when I had the time without making empty promises.

Per our earlier discussion on another thread http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15349.75, reply #97, the plainly written words on Page 7 of the RC schools curriculum doc show that RC schools are teaching beliefs. I even quoted them to you - you may remember the very first point under the heading "The aims of Religious Education:

1. To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith"

"Faith" being the crucial word in that sentence, and in many other sentences in the document. So that's my evidence for my opinion that the plainly written words in the document show beliefs are being taught as beliefs.

While it may be your opinion or interpretation that the RC schools curriculum doc states that they are teaching these beliefs as facts, the RC doc does not read that way to me. To teach something as a fact, it needs to be more than a statement - it needs to be proved using evidence. If they don't present the evidence then they are teaching something as if it is an opinion, not a fact.   

For example, you often present your statements of opinion as though you sincerely believe them to be true or factual. We are, however, all aware that they are just your opinions, though some - I suppose you would call them "gullible" - people might actually think your statements are true, despite your lack of evidence. Not surprising that people tend to agree with people if they perceive them to hold similar views to their own, even where there is a lack of evidence presented.

Based on my position on RC schools I thought it would be fairly obvious that I think it is acceptable for a Muslim faith school to teach children their belief that there "actually was a religious figure who could prophesise things – thereby breaking the rules that physics describes". For it to be taught as a fact, they would have to present testable evidence - and the fact could still be revised if new testable evidence became available.

I think it would be kind of pointless to teach beliefs about a supernatural concept that didn't sometimes break the rules of physics. Where's the fun in that? Also some of it probably ties in with beliefs the pupils' parents have taught them and it was probably kind of the point of sending them to a Muslim faith school - to teach them these shared traditions and beliefs.

Hopefully you're not going to ask me if Jewish faith school should be allowed to teach children their belief that there actually was a ......[insert supernatural story of your choice relating to Jewish faith]?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

However, whatever you have said to the five-year-old will have been understood at that particular five-year-old’s level. It will not be understood on any kind of abstract, ealistic level. That will need another gten years or so at least. 
You are right, I cannot tell if that is supposed to be ironic – there are no punctuation marks as far as I can see or smileys to help.

Which smiley would you like me to use so you know when I am being ironic or tongue-in-cheek - this one  ? I tend not to use them much - but if it helps with Synthetic Dave, I will try to remember to use it.

I guess when you can see the words you are reading it seems to be easier to decipher when someone is not being completely serious as I don't usually have any trouble figuring it out - sorry, I hadn't considered it from your perspective.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

When I was specifically referring to under age vulnerable children of up to seven years of age I had in mind something like S D's methods of teaching this particular age group, which incidentally S D is as I understand an ex teacher, and as such is able to articulate such matters in a far better way than I, this would be the way I would recommend teaching any youngster.   
 
We'll never agree about lessons specifically about religion aimed at any children of the seven and under category I'm referring to, after seven years of age well the world could be considered the oyster of those that want to try to indoctrinate.

I want to see this kind of indoctrination of this specific age group permanently disabled other than as I've said before, indoctrinating children to think for themselves, in a manner commensurate with their age, as so well described by S D, what the parents decide to have planted into their heads outside school hours is of course up to them, I don't se why the state should be doing the work of these various religious beliefs for them, as it were in preparation. 

The only reference I'll make to Islam, is that it needs to get on with it's much needed reformation as soon as possible, or even sooner than that, (by the way I won't be expanding on this subject at any time).

You say, more or less, in your post: "If a five year old has a preference to believe what I believe, can make it easy for me",  that's the trouble I doubt there's much effort made to distinguish between belief and the plain truth is made, even if it is, to a five year old ? Maybe expecting this five year old to understand?

Like I keep on saying it's the under the age where most children on average have gained the ability to reason that I'm referring to, the age that most religious organisations prefer to pounce, simply because it's known to provide the largest percentage of new recruits, (victims as I see it), these are the particular group of vulnerable young children I would like to see shielded from these divisive organisations.

We're all one race the human race we need more things that bring us together unlike the divisive religions, religion needs to be consigned to the past where it belongs.

Regards ippy

I agree that very young children can't reason about lots of ideas they are presented with relating to religion, morals, cultural practices, social expectations. In this country in this day and age, I don't see the differing opinions on these ideas  as a particular problem just because they have a religious flavour.

Children seem ok at reasoning for themselves once they get older, and many of them seem to leave aside or change their religious, moral, social, cultural beliefs of their childhood, if the statistics are to be believed. Some children may of course continue to hold certain ideas, if they reason that the ideas have a positive effect on their lives.

Religion does not have to be divisive - it can be - but I have also experienced it as bringing people together in shared understandings - I think it depends on the individuals involved. People can find all kinds of ideas to divide the human race - your approach on here to religious people is divisive, so it is kind of hypocritical for you to talk about how religions are a cause of division.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I figured rather than take your approach on many occasions of promising to get back to me with a response and then spectacularly failing to do so, which seems to have become something of a habit with you when you are unable to produce any evidence for some of your opinions, I would just respond when I had the time without making empty promises.

Per our earlier discussion on another thread http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15349.75, reply #97, the plainly written words on Page 7 of the RC schools curriculum doc show that RC schools are teaching beliefs. I even quoted them to you - you may remember the very first point under the heading "The aims of Religious Education:

1. To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding
of the Catholic faith"

"Faith" being the crucial word in that sentence, and in many other sentences in the document. So that's my evidence for my opinion that the plainly written words in the document show beliefs are being taught as beliefs.

While it may be your opinion or interpretation that the RC schools curriculum doc states that they are teaching these beliefs as facts, the RC doc does not read that way to me. To teach something as a fact, it needs to be more than a statement - it needs to be proved using evidence. If they don't present the evidence then they are teaching something as if it is an opinion, not a fact.   

For example, you often present your statements of opinion as though you sincerely believe them to be true or factual. We are, however, all aware that they are just your opinions, though some - I suppose you would call them "gullible" - people might actually think your statements are true, despite your lack of evidence. Not surprising that people tend to agree with people if they perceive them to hold similar views to their own, even where there is a lack of evidence presented.

Based on my position on RC schools I thought it would be fairly obvious that I think it is acceptable for a Muslim faith school to teach children their belief that there "actually was a religious figure who could prophesise things – thereby breaking the rules that physics describes". For it to be taught as a fact, they would have to present testable evidence - and the fact could still be revised if new testable evidence became available.

I think it would be kind of pointless to teach beliefs about a supernatural concept that didn't sometimes break the rules of physics. Where's the fun in that? Also some of it probably ties in with beliefs the pupils' parents have taught them and it was probably kind of the point of sending them to a Muslim faith school - to teach them these shared traditions and beliefs.

Hopefully you're not going to ask me if Jewish faith school should be allowed to teach children their belief that there actually was a ......[insert supernatural story of your choice relating to Jewish faith]?

Blimey, you’ve turned up again with your usual quota of charm I see. The reason I gave up with you was that you seemed to me (wittingly or not) to be as close to trolling as makes no difference. Either you just ignored the arguments that undid you and posted instead endlessly rambling and irrelevant perorations that never got to a point (and then insisted I rebut them item-by-item), or you made ludicrous demands for evidence (that advertising works for example, as if a multi-billion pound industry dedicated to it wasn’t evidence enough) while simultaneously failing to grasp that if you thought religion was in some way exempt from advertising working then the burden of proof was with you to explain why it was exempt.

As for your misunderstanding of Catholic education policy, try looking at the "Curriculum Directory for Catholic Schools and Colleges in England and Wales":

https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf

It’s full of stuff like this:

“The primary purpose of Catholic Religious Education is to come to know and understand God’s revelation which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school is ‘a clear educational project of which Christ is the foundation. In the person of Christ, the deepest meaning of what it is to be human — that we are created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his Incarnation — is discovered. This revelation is known through the scriptures and the tradition of the Church as taught by the Magisterium.”

You’ll notice that there’s no mention of, “but this is just our belief” or some such. Far from it – it’s presented with the same factual certainty as knowledge about oxbow lakes and Pythagoras’ theorem.

There's more:   

“It is necessary, therefore, that Religious Education in schools be regarded as an academic discipline with the same systematic demands and the same rigour as other disciplines. It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth with which other disciplines present their knowledge.”

Did you see that “their knowledge” there? Are you getting it now? These people think that their assertions about “being created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his incarnation” etc are knowledge. You know, proper knowledge – just like the knowledge in other subjects and so they should be taught with “the same systematic demands and the same rigour” applied in the teaching of those subjects.

Is this sinking in yet?

I don’t expect you to acknowledge where you’ve gone wrong here or even to apologise (though you should certainly do the former and probably the latter) but you can’t just wriggle out of this again with yet more rambling, obfuscation and prevarication. Either address the evidence you’ve been given or don’t – it’s your call.

[SusanDoris]

I agree that very young children can't reason about lots of ideas they are presented with relating to religion, morals, cultural practices, social expectations. In this country in this day and age, I don't see the differing opinions on these ideas  as a particular problem just because they have a religious flavour.

Name one other subject or belief taught to young children which totally lacks any objective evidence.
Remember that myths, fairy tales, fictional stories are  told as stories. If a child asked, 'Is that story true?' The answer would never be yes.

Children seem ok at reasoning for themselves once they get older, and many of them seem to leave aside or change their religious, moral, social, cultural beliefs of their childhood, if the statistics are to be believed.

What a waste of their valuable time if they spend any of it believing in any god/god/s, resurrections, flying horses, totally world floods, etc.

Some children may of course continue to hold certain ideas, if they reason that the ideas have a positive effect on their lives.

Religion does not have to be divisive - it can be - but I have also experienced it as bringing people together in shared understandings -

If their 'shared understanding' includes a totally faith belief that the subject of that belief is testable and objective, then that is not the best understanding.

[ippy]

I agree that very young children can't reason about lots of ideas they are presented with relating to religion, morals, cultural practices, social expectations. In this country in this day and age, I don't see the differing opinions on these ideas  as a particular problem just because they have a religious flavour.

Children seem ok at reasoning for themselves once they get older, and many of them seem to leave aside or change their religious, moral, social, cultural beliefs of their childhood, if the statistics are to be believed. Some children may of course continue to hold certain ideas, if they reason that the ideas have a positive effect on their lives.

Religion does not have to be divisive - it can be - but I have also experienced it as bringing people together in shared understandings - I think it depends on the individuals involved. People can find all kinds of ideas to divide the human race - your approach on here to religious people is divisive, so it is kind of hypocritical for you to talk about how religions are a cause of division.

It doesn't matter a fig to me whether you agree about very young children's inability to reason, in the science of psychology it's accepted that the ability to reason is, on average, acquired by most children at around seven years of age.

The various religion based organisations are well aware of this vulnerability of very young children and make a pretty obvious point of grabbing them at this age to enable themselves to get in first mindful of obtaining as many new recruits as they can and of course this like anything else to do with psychology it works on percentages, ie, not every potential recruiting attempt is that obviously successful.

The children thinking for themselves after the more vulnerable age over seven years, on average, must be coloured by these attempts to indoctrinate them at the earlier age.

I very much doubt the phrase people believe this or that is used very often when teaching about religion to the young, so it might be best if any religious teachings other than where it would be so obviously daft to leave it out of a history lesson were left until after all children have reached the age of seven? Then no organisation could justifiably be accused of attempting to indoctrinate any one.

If teaching under sevens to think for themselves can be considered to be indoctrination, well I could easily live with that.

Whatever you think about differing religions being divisive or not I think it blindingly obvious that it would help to make the world a far better place for all of us if religion was flung out of any schooling and all of our children went to secular schools where we could all grow up together make lifetime friends ect rather than the shabby alternative option of selective schooling.

Just to reinforce where I refer to taking up to seven year old children out of religion classes, religion is a part of our common to all history and there are places where it would be daft not to mention it and then after the age of seven go for teaching about religion after that age, with a bit more emphasis preceding statements about religions with, people believe.   

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

Ah, yes, Ippy - very well said indeed.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As I see you’ve returned could I ask you to have a go at answering the question I asked you a while back that you ignored or missed please (see below). Thanks.

“No doubt you believe all that to be true. If we could get back to first principles for a minute though, your whole ontology rests on the notion that no processing entity, however complex, could be self aware (and so there must therefore be another "something" to do the "perceiving" that is itself somehow exempt from this constraint).

You've asserted this many times, but have never told us why you think it to be true. Why couldn't consciousness and self-awareness be just an emergent property of the unfathomably complex processes of the brain? Emergence as a phenomenon is pretty much everywhere you look, and we know that remarkably complex properties can emerge from individually "stupid" components with no grand plan, leadership etc needed for it to be so. I see no particular barrier conceptually or in practice that would exclude consciousness from that paradigm yet you just assert it to be so over and over again.

Why is that? What's the big issue to your mind that would stop a sufficiently complex processor from being self aware (just as, presumably, you claim the "soul" to be)?”

Can you not see the obvious fact that information processing, no matter how complex, can never define perception.  Perception of information is not defined by processing of information.  And the concept of "Emergent Property" is not in any way, shape or form an explanation of perception.  Perception is certainly what comprises our humanity, but it is beyond human understanding, because the entity of perception, ie yourself, is not, and can never be defined as a material property.

[Maeght]

Can you not see the obvious fact that information processing, no matter how complex, can never define perception.  Perception of information is not defined by processing of information.  And the concept of "Emergent Property" is not in any way, shape or form an explanation of perception.  Perception is certainly what comprises our humanity, but it is beyond human understanding, because the entity of perception, ie yourself, is not, and can never be defined as a material property.

Its not a fact.

[ippy]

Ah, yes, Ippy - very well said indeed.

Cheers S D, it's an area the U K secular society is working on, (I'm on my tablet, no spell check), incidently although I'm sure you're aware but for reference for others there are plenty of religionists that share my feelings about how we should be educating our children, ie, a completly secular school system, a worldwide secular school system, even better.

Kind regards ippy

P S did you get the BBC 4 T V program about the roots of tap dancing, it was on about a couple of weeks back, like Jazz its roots were from the U S slavery times.

[torridon]

Can you not see the obvious fact that information processing, no matter how complex, can never define perception.  Perception of information is not defined by processing of information.  And the concept of "Emergent Property" is not in any way, shape or form an explanation of perception.  Perception is certainly what comprises our humanity, but it is beyond human understanding, because the entity of perception, ie yourself, is not, and can never be defined as a material property.

Perception is information processing,  An antelope perceives the lion stalking it, that is visual perception in operation, it is data,or information, carried on patterns in electromagnetic radiation passing through neural systems. 

From Wikipedia (my bolding) :

Perception (from the Latin perceptio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment

Neural systems carry out that 'organization, identification, and interpretation' of information

[Alan Burns]

An antelope perceives reacts to the lion stalking it, that is visual perception reaction in operation, it is data,or information, carried on patterns in electromagnetic radiation passing through neural systems, which induce physical reactions.

My corrections in red

From Wikipedia (my bolding) :

Perception (from the Latin perceptio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment

And what is it that identifies, interprets and understands this information?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you not see the obvious fact that information processing, no matter how complex, can never define perception.

That’s not a fact, let alone an obvious one. Rather it’s an assertion you make – and the question you were asked was why you make it. 

Perception of information is not defined by processing of information.

Yes it is at least, if you follow the evidence to its conclusion. Why do you think it to be otherwise?

And the concept of "Emergent Property" is not in any way, shape or form an explanation of perception.

I hear the assertion (again) but as “perception” as you call it matches very well the model of an emergent property why would you just assert it to be otherwise?

Perception is certainly what comprises our humanity, but it is beyond human understanding, because the entity of perception, ie yourself, is not, and can never be defined as a material property.

And yet more assertion to finish. However much you assert your beliefs, the question you keep avoiding is why you hold them, especially as they fly so directly in the face of the evidence from neuroscience (and other disciplines) about what consciousness actually is.

Why be so coy about answering a "why?" question?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Blimey, you’ve turned up again with your usual quota of charm I see.

BHS

Sorry you're not charmed by me pointing out your short-comings on this board.

The reason I gave up with you was that you seemed to me (wittingly or not) to be as close to trolling as makes no difference.

Is that what you call it when during a discussion I ask you for evidence to support your opinion and you can't produce it. For example, you stated you will dig up case law that you claim supports your opinion on entrapment and then failed to do so despite a couple of gentle reminders? You also said on another thread you had a big work project that was keeping you busy and you  would respond to my post once you were less busy, and again it seemed to conveniently slip your mind. 

Either you just ignored the arguments that undid you and posted instead endlessly rambling and irrelevant perorations that never got to a point (and then insisted I rebut them item-by-item), or you made ludicrous demands for evidence (that advertising works for example, as if a multi-billion pound industry dedicated to it wasn’t evidence enough) while simultaneously failing to grasp that if you thought religion was in some way exempt from advertising working then the burden of proof was with you to explain why it was exempt.

Your assertions that you presented arguments that undid me must be as comforting to you as Alan's assertions about God are to him.

I think you have that backwards - you wrote rambling posts and insisted I rebut your points item by item and complained when I only addressed the points that I was interested in. And when I did respond point by point, you hypocritically responded only to a few points that I had made and then ran away with some claim about being busy at work and dishonestly promising to respond later.

As for your misunderstanding of Catholic education policy, try looking at the "Curriculum Directory for Catholic Schools and Colleges in England and Wales":

https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf

It’s full of stuff like this:

“The primary purpose of Catholic Religious Education is to come to know and understand God’s revelation which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school is ‘a clear educational project of which Christ is the foundation. In the person of Christ, the deepest meaning of what it is to be human — that we are created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his Incarnation — is discovered. This revelation is known through the scriptures and the tradition of the Church as taught by the Magisterium.”

You’ll notice that there’s no mention of, “but this is just our belief” or some such. Far from it – it’s presented with the same factual certainty as knowledge about oxbow lakes and Pythagoras’ theorem.

There's more:   

“It is necessary, therefore, that Religious Education in schools be regarded as an academic discipline with the same systematic demands and the same rigour as other disciplines. It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth with which other disciplines present their knowledge.”

Did you see that “their knowledge” there? Are you getting it now? These people think that their assertions about “being created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his incarnation” etc are knowledge. You know, proper knowledge – just like the knowledge in other subjects and so they should be taught with “the same systematic demands and the same rigour” applied in the teaching of those subjects.

Is this sinking in yet?

You seem to have a real problem understanding English, no doubt due to your beliefs and bias in this area. As you pointed out, it says "It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth" - the Christian message is a belief that they want to present in a serious way and to examine the beliefs in depth in the same way that other subjects present their knowledge. Is it sinking in yet? They are proposing that just because it is a belief, there is no reason to not present it in a serious way and examine the belief in depth.

I don’t expect you to acknowledge where you’ve gone wrong here or even to apologise (though you should certainly do the former and probably the latter) but you can’t just wriggle out of this again with yet more rambling, obfuscation and prevarication. Either address the evidence you’ve been given or don’t – it’s your call.

I don’t expect you to acknowledge where you’ve gone wrong here or even to apologise (though you should certainly do the former and probably the latter) but you can’t just wriggle out of this again with yet more rambling, obfuscation and prevarication. Either address the evidence you’ve been given or don’t – it’s your call.

[Enki]

......

P S did you get the BBC 4 T V program about the roots of tap dancing, it was on about a couple of weeks back, like Jazz its roots were from the U S slavery times.

Just as an aside from the main theme of this thread:

Watched the programme, Ippy. Found it fascinating.  You're right about the African and slavery element, but don't forget the Irish clog dancing influence and the jazz element, which the programme als0 made clear. Tap dancing and hoofing was a fusion, and is still evolving.

[Maeght]

My corrections in redAnd what is it that identifies, interprets and understands this information?

You ask this question repeatedly. People answer it repeatedly. Do you not remember people's answers?

[ippy]

My corrections in redAnd what is it that identifies, interprets and understands this information?

Alan, how about seeing how far you get if you use this assertion method of yours if you make another one, yes another one, another assertion, make it one of your really forceful, positive assertions about the money you have tucked away in your bank account, as it would only be an assertion go for a really big sum and insist on drawing the lot; the same answers you would get would apply to any assertion anyone were to make, not just you Alan.

You seem to me to be a reasonably well educated person Alan, but I can't help wondering why you keep on giving the impression that you have no idea of exactly how necessary it is to be able to back up any assertion you make, surly you must realise you haven't to this date backed up any of these not so minor assertions you've made?

My commiserations to you Alan, ippy 

[torridon]

My corrections in red
And what is it that identifies, interprets and understands this information?

the same thing that interprets sensory information in the antelope.  When it sees a lion approaching, it recognises  it, it interprets the information and realises it is in danger.  Perception did not evolve out of nowhere with the arrival of humans, it has roots stretching way back into deep evolutionary time.   We perceive because we inherited perceptual systems from our ancestors.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

 

Only if we decide on it for ourselves. Evolution does not have a purpose.

Religion seems to be one way of people deciding for themselves about their purpose in life. People consciously adopt and practice a religion in a way that seems to them to help them achieve that purpose. Even without invoking religion, parents often instruct their young children based on their own cultural, moral and political beliefs about their purpose in life. 

 

This can be done without resource to any supernatural anything. It is a pity the religions do not change their laws to bring them forward a couple of thousand years in their thinking.

Yes I agree that people can tell children that in some circumstances it is ok to challenge the rule of law or break the rules, without invoking the supernatural. They can, for example, talk about some people having a sense of justice or right and wrong that seems more important to them or seems above the law or rules of a particular society and that sometimes people feel it is important to challenge the rules of society by breaking those rules to draw attention to what they feel is the gross injustice of the rule. The concepts of a greater justice or obeying rules or justifications for breaking rules are man-made based on people’s perceptions and these perceptions have been accepted as topics of study and discussion and have shaped social policy. The concepts of a greater entity or a supernatural entity are also man-made based on people’s perceptions and have been accepted as topics of study and discussion and in some countries have shaped social policy. It is not really surprising that parents would incorporate these perceptions and topics in discussions with their children.

In some ways, yes. It seems to be a practical and useful survival need to belong to a group

As much as some people see the concept of nationality as a practical and useful survival need to belong to a group, some people also see religion as a paractical and useful survival need to belong to a group.

 

Who does that? It is religions who indoctrinate. There is no need for nations to indoctrinate since they exist and people can do something about being a member or not.

A lot of what happens in the world seems to be passing you by Susan, if you think only the religious indoctrinate. Are you questioning whether some people indoctrinate other people into being patriotic, or serving their country by killing foreign nationals or invading or economically colonising foreign countries, or cheating in sports, or voting for Brexit to keep out foreign nationals?

The most important thing you should not do is to tell then they have gone to heaven. . Tell them the truth, using the words which will have the least upsetting consequences at the age concerned. There is no way to avoid upset sooner or later but that is an important lesson anyway, but if they know the facts, the evidenced facts, they are far, far more likely to cope than if they have been told a lie. And I do consider it a lie, because not one single religiously believing parent has any knowledge whatsoever of any real heaven. It is surely about time that more people acknowledged this, principally the leaders of religious beliefs.

Many people tell their children what they believe happens when people die. No one knows for sure. Telling someone what you believe is not the same as telling them a lie.