Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

He also provided a self-refuting statement in his: "I was lucky to be born into a Christian family, so I have had exposure to Christian literature and practices for most of my life." If he was born into a Christian family then he wasn't exposed to Christian literature and practices for most of his life but all of it - it was the atmosphere he was born into and there was never a time when it wasn't the atmosphere all around him.

So very true! I, on the other hand, was unlucky enough to be born into a Christian family, so had exposure to Christian literature and practices for all my early life.

However, I was lucky enough to develop an ability to reason strong enough to overcome that early indoctrination.

[Nearly Sane]

One has to wonder why people who give up, let us say, Buddhism typically don't refer to themselves as ex-Buddhists, but it's extremely common for people who have zero Catholic belief and zero Catholic practice but were raised thusly refer to themselves as 'lapsed' Catholics. If you're not a Catholic you're not a Catholic and there's an end on't, I'd have thought. You don't say you're a Catholic of any kind, not even a 'lapsed' one, unless it still has some sort of hold over you, surely - this seems to be practically unique amongst religions. I haven't eaten meat in 23 years and haven't smoked a fag in 15, but I don't make a point of labelling myself as a former meat eater and ex-smoker. It simply doesn't arise.

"I wouldn't be a very spiritual man, right? I don't believe in God, right? Still Catholic. Because there's nothing you can do when you're Catholic. Once you've started Catholic, frankly, there's no real way to stop being Catholic. Even not believing in God isn't regarded as sufficient reason to get out of the Catholic church. You'd think it'd be fairly fundamental to the whole thing, but no. Catholicism: the stickiest, most adhesive religion in the world." (Dara O'Briain)

[Nearly Sane]

So very true! I, on the other hand, was unlucky enough to be born into a Christian family, so had exposure to Christian literature and practices for all my early life.

However, I was lucky enough to develop an ability to reason strong enough to overcome that early indoctrination.

I was lucky enough to be born into a family that loved me, that they were religious made no difference to that. Families are not good or bad because they are or are not religious

[torridon]

I feel that many people on this forum are not so much searching for God, but actively hiding from Him.

History shows that the human race has been given awareness of God, but despite all the evidence for His existence, they turn away and try to believe that He does not exist.  They use their God given gifts of intelligence, perception and free thought to think up ever more complex explanations for why He can't possibly exist.

Just to unpack that a bit, there isn't any real evidence for god, not serious evidence such as we would expect in a court of law or a scientist's laboratory; if there were any real evidence then 'God' would be the leading theory in cosmology and God would be taught in science lessons along with all our other accumulated knowledge.  Hence what happens, in the absence of real evidence, is that  people believe 'by faith'.  What you would claim as evidence, is more truthfully, a manifestation of our cognitive biases, our dispositions to think in certain ways which are the legacy of the particular pathways of our evolutionary history. Human mind and cognition did not parachute into existence out of nowhere, human mind evolved from tree-dwelling African Ape mind, slowly, bit by bit, and our common habits of mind still reflect that past journey. If we want to know truth, we have to recognise our biases for what they are in order to try to think outside them.

[Leonard James]

I was lucky enough to be born into a family that loved me, that they were religious made no difference to that. Families are not good or bad because they are or are not religious

Of course they aren't ... if they are religious, they are just misled, not bad.

[Leonard James]

Human mind and cognition did not parachute into existence out of nowhere, human mind evolved from tree-dwelling African Ape mind, slowly, bit by bit, and our common habits of mind still reflect that past journey. If we want to know truth, we have to recognise our biases for what they are in order to try to think outside them.

Indeed, and early humans can be forgiven for inventing gods/spirits to explain things their growing knowledge couldn't explain. Modern man has to shake off that legacy.

[Shaker]

"I wouldn't be a very spiritual man, right? I don't believe in God, right? Still Catholic. Because there's nothing you can do when you're Catholic. Once you've started Catholic, frankly, there's no real way to stop being Catholic. Even not believing in God isn't regarded as sufficient reason to get out of the Catholic church. You'd think it'd be fairly fundamental to the whole thing, but no. Catholicism: the stickiest, most adhesive religion in the world." (Dara O'Briain)

Precisely what I had in mind!

Judaism is the same in many respects.

It reminds me of the disease model of alcoholism as touted by AA (in itself often regarded as something like a religious cult). This states that once you're an alcoholic you're always an alcoholic. This remains the case even if you haven't had so much as a wine gum in thirty years - you're just an alcoholic who's not drinking at the moment 

[jeremyp]

You don't say you're a Catholic of any kind, not even a 'lapsed' one, unless it still has some sort of hold over you, surely

It's actually very difficult to leave the Catholic Church. Once you're in that's it, so the description "lapsed catholic" is probably apt.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course they aren't ... if they are religious, they are just misled, not bad.

Then using the term 'unlucky' as you did seems specious to me.

[Rhiannon]

I was lucky enough to be born into a family that loved me, that they were religious made no difference to that. Families are not good or bad because they are or are not religious

But in being loving a religious family can be very damaging. A lot of children are made to feel shame because of a genuinely loving parent trying up stop them from sin. Taken to extremes you get the suicides among young LGBT people; in the past it was often young pregnant girls.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

To me there has to be more than simple imprinting to make the claim of indoctrination, and it seems that there is then an inbuilt assumption that if the person accepts that imprinting then their view can be dismissed because they are simply indoctrinated. It automatically dismissed the view not because of it necessarily being wrong but just because they happen to agree with that first imprint. It, as a corollary, posits that disagreement with that first imprint is more valid, no matter what position is taken, and I don't think that case has been made.

I am conscious that I am splitting hairs here, in that I do think Alan does not approach his statements with any particular critical rigour, but I think that is true of some on here who have broken out of that first imprinting.

While I agree with the sentiment, there's clearly a strong correlation between the faith of the parents and the faith of the children they bring up: christians tend to have christians; moslems tend to have moslems; for all I know zoroastrians tend to have zoroastrians etc. If nothing else, if I was one of them I think I'd at least worry a little about the remarkable co-incidence of the one true god and religion just happening to be the one that I was born to.

AB's ability to reason his way to anything is appalling, but "indoctrination" would be hard to establish I think - immersion from before the development of critical faculties can be enough (which is why shaking it off when critical faculties are in place is so difficult for some) but indoctrination has connotations of deliberate brainwashing that may have happened but can't be assumed.     

[Nearly Sane]

It's actually very difficult to leave the Catholic Church. Once you're in that's it, so the description "lapsed catholic" is probably apt.

For a while you could. You could ask to be taken off the list. My brother in law did it, but they stopped it about 5 years ago

[Nearly Sane]

But in being loving a religious family can be very damaging. A lot of children are made to feel shame because of a genuinely loving parent trying up stop them from sin. Taken to extremes you get the suicides among young LGBT people; in the past it was often young pregnant girls.

That could happen without religion too.one of my friends who had the least support from his family when he came out was from a completely irreligious family. Using it as a blanket statement such as unlucky or lucky is fatuous.

[Shaker]

It's actually very difficult to leave the Catholic Church. Once you're in that's it, so the description "lapsed catholic" is probably apt.

But the idea of it being difficult to leave is surely one that comes from the Catholic Church itself, not from people who abandon all of its beliefs and all of its practices. As Mr O'Briain has said, normally you'd think that believing in God was pretty basic to the whole kit and caboodle of Catholicism, but Catholicism itself appears to disagree. I suggest that this is simply, and probably entirely, about wanting to appear to hang on to everybody it possibly can in order to bump up the numbers. To me, anybody who doesn't believe what Catholics are supposed to believe and doesn't do what Catholics are supposed to do isn't a Catholic. To say otherwise is like saying that I, who have never been to or even watched a football match in my life and have zero interest in it, am a keen football fan, perhaps on the basis that my dad is. Identity is all very well and good but there comes a point where there has to be some sort of doxastic and practical engagement otherwise using the term becomes merely absurdly misplaced.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

While I agree with the sentiment, there's clearly a strong correlation between the faith of the parents and the faith of the children they bring up: christians tend to have christians; moslems tend to have moslems; for all I know zoroastrians tend to have zoroastrians etc. If nothing else, if I was one of them I think I'd at least worry a little about the remarkable co-incidence of the one true god and religion just happening to be the one that I was born to.

AB's ability to reason his way to anything is appalling, but "indoctrination" would be hard to establish I think - immersion from before the development of critical faculties can be enough (which is why shaking it off when critical faculties are in place is so difficult for some) but indoctrination has connotations of deliberate brainwashing that may have happened but can't be assumed.     

I've listened to too many phone ins to believe that critical faculties are widespread.

[Nearly Sane]

I have previously remarked that , given the old saw in Northern Ireland and the West of Scotland about ' but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant one?',  I went into St Peter's in Rome a Catholic atheist and came out a Protestant one.

[Leonard James]

AB's ability to reason his way to anything is appalling, but "indoctrination" would be hard to establish I think - immersion from before the development of critical faculties can be enough (which is why shaking it off when critical faculties are in place is so difficult for some) but indoctrination has connotations of deliberate brainwashing that may have happened but can't be assumed.     

Surely "indoctrination" is the correct word to describe what happens to children brought up to believe in a religion? What else would you call it?

[Rhiannon]

That could happen without religion too.one of my friends who had the least support from his family when he came out was from a completely irreligious family. Using it as a blanket statement such as unlucky or lucky is fatuous.

Of course it could. But Len said that he was unlucky. He didn't say that everyone was. Nor am I saying that all religious families are unaccepting or shaming.

[ippy]

I was never indoctrinated.  I just thought things out for myself.

Successfully indoctrinated people wouldn't think they were indoctrinated, if they did for one moment think to themselves, "I've been indoctrinated", knowing that, would at once show that the attempt to indoctrinate them had been unsuccessful.

No one would come out with the unsupportable nonsense you come out with unless they had let themselves be indoctrinated at some stage.

ippy 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Len,

Surely "indoctrination" is the correct word to describe what happens to children brought up to believe in a religion? What else would you call it?

Well, to me it has connotations of deliberate intent. On the other hand, if the parents go to church every Sunday, say a prayer before every meal etc then the behaviour is normative for the children who see it. Is that indoctrination, or "just" imprinting?   

[Alan Burns]

Surely "indoctrination" is the correct word to describe what happens to children brought up to believe in a religion? What else would you call it?

Most families I know of will allow their children to make up their own minds when they are old enough to reason.  I do not see this as indoctrination.

What worries me is that so many young people are growing up without any real knowledge of God, so they will have nothing on which to make their minds up.  I recently came across a statistic which showed that a substantial percentage of children (I can't remember the exact figure) did not know why we celebrate Christmas.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it could. But Len said that he was unlucky. He didn't say that everyone was. Nor am I saying that all religious families are unaccepting or shaming.

  Surely he is saying he was unlucky because the family was religious which is just as much a generalization based on that as Alan B's lucky.

[Shaker]

What worries me is that so many young people are growing up without any real knowledge of God,

No such thing, unless you can provide a means of somebody else sharing the thing that you miscall knowledge. There's certainly knowledge of beliefs about God, but there are squillions of those. That's what religious education is for, to teach the basics of the main ones.

Regardless of this point, why does this worry you if, as you claim, you're quite happy for people to make up their own minds? What are you worried about?

I recently came across a statistic which showed that a substantial percentage of children (I can't remember the exact figure) did not know why we celebrate Christmas.

What you actually mean here of course is that they don't know why Christians (which chances are they will not be) celebrate Christmas. For the rest of us it's a jolly public holiday, a winter festival - time off school for them, time off work for mum and dad, presents, lots of nice food, etc. etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Successfully indoctrinated people wouldn't think they were indoctrinated, if they did for one moment think to themselves, "I've been indoctrinated", knowing that, would at once show that the attempt to indoctrinate them had been unsuccessful.

No one would come out with the unsupportable nonsense you come out with unless they had let themselves be indoctrinated at some stage.

Catch-22:

A: "You've been indoctrinated".

B: "No I haven't."

A: "Ah, you're denial is a sure sign that you've been indoctrinated."

B: "OK, I've been indoctrinated then."

A: "Told you so."

B: "AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!"

[Nearly Sane]

Here's the routine that the O'Briain quote is from (cue Vlad's own little routine)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FdolFXcNAH4