Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is the God given gifts of conscious perception and free thinking which have enabled such human achievements.  These gifts are also responsible for exploring religious faith as well as the workings of our universe.

In case you missed it earlier, there is a faith sharing area on this mb.

You're welcome.

[Shaker]

Children should be eating as healthily as possible, but fasting is not healthy, imo.

Other than obvious medical applications (prior to surgery; prior to certain blood tests) apparently it can be useful briefly and in limited circumstances such as after a bout of food poisoning (etc.); what's a really bad idea is going without fluids.

[floo]

Other than obvious medical applications (prior to surgery; prior to certain blood tests) apparently it can be useful briefly and in limited circumstances such as after a bout of food poisoning (etc.); what's a really bad idea is going without fluids.

For medical reasons of course, but not for religious ones.

[Robbie]

Fasting occasionally is good for health, a type of detoxification. As long as you keep up fluid intake.

Fasting during Ramadan is not the same, people eat very well after dusk and before dawn. It's not as if they go without food altogether. Young children don't fast during Ramadan nor does anyone with a negative health condition, pregnant women etc. Fasting during the hours of daylight is a choice, it concentrates the mind and is something an entire community does together.which they feel is beneficial. Not our way maybe but I wouldn't criticise Muslims for doing it.

[Rhiannon]

Detox is woo. Our bodies do the job perfectly, serious medical conditions aside.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I wasn’t cherry picking anything – I was just explaining why suggesting that people believe in teapots and the like was missing the point ("I, along with many others I suspect, seem to have got by just fine in life without teapots and Hansal and Gretal but if they are useful for you by all means indulge."). Those people weren’t saying that they did believe in an orbiting teapot – rather they were responding to a bad argument you made for believing in “God”. If you have other arguments that’s up to you, but that one in particular is (for the reasons they explained) wrong.

Have a nice lunch (and take an umbrella!)

BHS - you are mistaken. I suggest you re-read my posts.

The conversation about belief started with Rhiannon saying in #21153 that "You can't really assess the pros and cons of atheism or belief. There's only what you can and can't believe. I didn't want to lose my faith but I did, and I have to live by that or live a lie. Religious belief or lack of it isn't a lifestyle choice."

My reply #21157 was to say I think I can assess some pros and cons of atheism vs belief because I don't find it difficult to see a world without a god in it.

Rhiannon replied #21159 that "But you can't enjoy your life with God in it without believing in God. Belief isn't a choice. I like the idea of believing in pagan gods and rituals but I can't force myself to believe and therefore the pros and cons are irrelevant."

I replied "I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely." which Ippy correctly interpreted as me saying that it was possible for me to believe in anything once I got to the point where I didn't rule out the supernatural entirely. And then I could assess the pros and cons of a belief in it.

So Ippy asked me in #21192 "How about you can't rule out orbiting teapots, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, alien abduction either?"

And my reply in #21193 was "Whatever works for you. I don't find any benefit from those concepts. But I don't mind hearing about what you get out of them if you want to elaborate."

So having acknowledged that I can't rule out orbiting teapots, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, alien abduction if I can't rule out the supernatural, I said I can rule out the items on his list if belief in the things on the list does not work for me as an individual i.e. I do not perceive a benefit from believing in them or a benefit from following the rituals and practices of what a belief in them entails.

Ippy kept insisting that I read up on orbiting teapots and he also suggested Hansel and Gretal and I kept saying I could perceive no benefit for me in them so I wasn't interested in researching them but if it was something that he was interested in, felt was important or worked for him he was free to elaborate on this on the forum, but if it wasn't important to him then he probably wouldn't bother.

So while Ippy thought he was making a clever argument he actually wasn't.
 
My actual argument was that if you can't rule out the supernatural then anything is possible so logically you have to allow the possibility of orbiting teapots, leprechauns etc etc.  but you may be able to rule out a belief in teapots and leprechauns on the basis that you don't perceive a benefit from belief in them.  Of course, if other people, including Ippy, perceive a benefit from the practices and rituals associated with belief in orbiting teapots and leprechauns - that's up to them if they want to explain the benefit they perceive they get from those practices and rituals.

[ippy]

Detox is woo. Our bodies do the job perfectly, serious medical conditions aside.

Right, it's not that easy to shut down or push around our individual automatic systems, your bod takes its nourishment from the input and passes the remainder on to the local council sanitation department, no matter what the input, that's assuming we're not involving poisons, of course.  (Oh yes, so I'm told).

ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Surely children should definitely not be fasting when they are active like at school.

It depends on the individual. The NHS do not have a problem with children fasting - the lack of fluid and food during daylight hours is not considered a health problem if they drink enough before the fast starts and when it ends. If they are feeling dehydrated or weak becuase they have not drunk enough or have been too active they should stop fasting and drink something - it's a practice of self-restraint and not something you are required to make yourself ill from.

Both my children have broken their fast occasionally because they were running around too much at school or it was a hot day and they were outside doing sport. But equally my older daughter came 5th in the 800m at sports day while fasting and she didn't feel she needed to break her fast after the race. She said she felt ok. She did the bleep test in P.E. and said she did better than lots of other people who weren't fasting.

From the NHS website:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Healthyramadan/Pages/faqs.aspx

From what age can children fast safely?
Children are required to fast when they reach puberty. It isn't harmful. Fasting for children under the age of seven or eight isn't advisable. It's a good idea to make children aware of what fasting involves and to practise fasting for a few hours at a time.


The school doesn't have a problem with children fasting - they just don't run around as much at break and lunch and during P.E.

[ippy]

BHS - you are mistaken. I suggest you re-read my posts.

The conversation about belief started with Rhiannon saying in #21153 that "You can't really assess the pros and cons of atheism or belief. There's only what you can and can't believe. I didn't want to lose my faith but I did, and I have to live by that or live a lie. Religious belief or lack of it isn't a lifestyle choice."

My reply #21157 was to say I think I can assess some pros and cons of atheism vs belief because I don't find it difficult to see a world without a god in it.

Rhiannon replied #21159 that "But you can't enjoy your life with God in it without believing in God. Belief isn't a choice. I like the idea of believing in pagan gods and rituals but I can't force myself to believe and therefore the pros and cons are irrelevant."

I replied "I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely." which Ippy correctly interpreted as me saying that it was possible for me to believe in anything once I got to the point where I didn't rule out the supernatural entirely. And then I could assess the pros and cons of a belief in it.

So Ippy asked me in #21192 "How about you can't rule out orbiting teapots, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, alien abduction either?"

And my reply in #21193 was "Whatever works for you. I don't find any benefit from those concepts. But I don't mind hearing about what you get out of them if you want to elaborate."

So having acknowledged that I can't rule out orbiting teapots, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, alien abduction if I can't rule out the supernatural, I said I can rule out the items on his list if belief in the things on the list does not work for me as an individual i.e. I do not perceive a benefit from believing in them or a benefit from following the rituals and practices of what a belief in them entails.

Ippy kept insisting that I read up on orbiting teapots and he also suggested Hansel and Gretal and I kept saying I could perceive no benefit for me in them so I wasn't interested in researching them but if it was something that he was interested in, felt was important or worked for him he was free to elaborate on this on the forum, but if it wasn't important to him then he probably wouldn't bother.

So while Ippy thought he was making a clever argument he actually wasn't.
 
My actual argument was that if you can't rule out the supernatural then anything is possible so logically you have to allow the possibility of orbiting teapots, leprechauns etc etc.  but you may be able to rule out a belief in teapots and leprechauns on the basis that you don't perceive a benefit from belief in them.  Of course, if other people, including Ippy, perceive a benefit from the practices and rituals associated with belief in orbiting teapots and leprechauns - that's up to them if they want to explain the benefit they perceive they get from those practices and rituals.

Good old Burt made the point some time ago, not me, Burt had quite a few useful grey cells in his head and yes he,Burt, definitely was clever.

Their's nothing wrong with learning new things Gabrella, even I don't know everything, oh yes and try to lighten up, quite a bit while you're about it. 

If it's not worth proving the existence of the orbiting teapot or not; why wouldn't the same apply to superstitious beliefs, like Islam, for example?

I'm not asking how you feel about your beliefs or not, just how anyone can take on these beliefs and logically rationalise them, this has nothing to do with how you are as a person or visa versa with me, how I am as a person.

ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If learning self-restraint needs to be associated with a religious belief, then it is not going to be as useful an acquired trait as self-restraint learnt because it is a good, practical and useful thing to do anyway.

Why?

Islam helps me practise self-restraint by requiring me to not drink alcohol. Fasting helps me practise self-restraint for a month by making it obligatory, which makes it a bit easier to practise self-restraint the other 11 months of the year.

I enjoy drinking alcohol but for various reasons it's beneficial for me not to (for a start I have a lot more money to spend on my children's extra-curricular activities and family holidays and I even managed to pay cash for a car when I stopped drinking). 

I find it much easier to give up drinking for a religious reason than by just telling myself it is good, practical and useful if I don't drink. Why is it more useful if I learn the self-restraint by repeating your words to myself or through AA or some other self-help tool rather than by practising a prohibition in Islam against drinking? End result is that if I try your method I will probably have a drink, if I use Islam I don't drink, which is better for my health, my bank balance, and the resources and attention I give my family.

I was listening to LBC in the car today and there was a discussion on the high suicide rate amongst men because they feel they can't talk about their problems or ask for help because they fear society will perceive them as weak and belittle them as culturally they feel there is an expectation that they have to be macho and not weak.  Is that the problem for you Susan - it appears weak to you if someone uses religion to help themselves?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Good old Burt made the point some time ago, not me, Burt had quite a few useful grey cells in his head and yes he,Burt, definitely was clever.

Their's nothing wrong with learning new things Gabrella, even I don't know everything, oh yes and try to lighten up, quite a bit while you're about it. 

If it's not worth proving the existence of the orbiting teapot or not; why wouldn't the same apply to superstitious beliefs, like Islam, for example?

I'm not asking how you feel about your beliefs or not, just how anyone can take on these beliefs and logically rationalise them, this has nothing to do with how you are as a person or visa versa with me, how I am as a person.

ippy

Ippy,

Don't worry, there is no danger of anyone suspecting you of knowing everything - you make it quite obvious by your posts that you don't. If you want to talk about a teapot go ahead - now's your chance. By the way - don't take this comment too seriously - you should lighten up.

What does logically rationalising a belief mean? According to your understanding of it? If you want to refer me to Bert or even Ernie, don't expect me to look it up.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Less that than the fatuous and asinine twaddle being pumped into her head telling her why she shouldn't eat - or worse, drink - until the street lights come on.

Again, your concern for her is so sweet. I'll pass on your concerns.

She will probably think you're one of those daft health and safety busybody types and find it amusing that you worry about her. But she might like to use the "fatuous and asinine twaddle" phrase when she has to do creative writing at school so I'll certainly let her know - hope you don't mind if she nicks it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

And my reply in #21193 was "Whatever works for you.

Which is where you went wrong. He wasn't suggesting that orbiting teapots “worked for him” at all – he was just explaining that the non-falsifiability you thought to be relevant to your belief is actually irrelevant.

My actual argument was that if you can't rule out the supernatural then anything is possible so logically you have to allow the possibility of orbiting teapots, leprechauns etc etc.

But that’s not an argument in response to something anyone here says – it’s a straw man (despite Vlad’s reliance on it incidentally). No-one suggests otherwise.

…but you may be able to rule out a belief in teapots and leprechauns on the basis that you don't perceive a benefit from belief in them.

No, that would be another fallacy – the argumentum ad consequentiam. Whether or not you derive benefit from a belief tells you nothing at all about whether or not it’s true.

Of course, if other people, including Ippy, perceive a benefit from the practices and rituals associated with belief in orbiting teapots and leprechauns - that's up to them if they want to explain the benefit they perceive they get from those practices and rituals.

You’re just compounding the problem here by combining the errors – again, no-one was suggesting a belief in orbiting teapots and – even if someone did – any benefit from that beliefs would be irrelevant to its epistemic value. 

[Shaker]

Again, your concern for her is so sweet. I'll pass on your concerns.

Absolutely no need. With you around it'll make not the slightest bit of difference.

She will probably think you're one of those daft health and safety busybody types and find it amusing that you worry about her. But she might like to use the "fatuous and asinine twaddle" phrase when she has to do creative writing at school so I'll certainly let her know - hope you don't mind if she nicks it.

I don't mind only if, unless and until she uses it with regard to the religion foisted upon her, which is its not only intended but natural home.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Though sadly not without a book allegedly dictated by a ghost to a man in a cave.

You'd have been better with Hansel and Gretel. Kids are expected to grow out of that sort of thing, not adults into it.

Can you explain how I would have been better off with Hansel and Gretel rather than the Quran? I think I get a benefit from reading the Quran. If you think you have a convincing argument about the benefits of Hansel and Gretel, feel free to share.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You say this:

Don't worry, there is no danger of anyone suspecting you of knowing everything - you make it quite obvious by your posts that you don't.

And follow it immediately with this:

If you want to talk about a teapot go ahead - now's your chance.

That's pretty thin ice you're skating on there. Of course he doesn't want to talk about teapots - what he wanted to talk about was your suggestion that non-falsifiability says something about probability. He was just explaining that, "You can't falsify God" and "You can't falsify orbiting teapots" are epistemically equivalent statements.

To put it another way, the least important part of Russell's teapot is the teapot.

[Shaker]

Can you explain how I would have been better off with Hansel and Gretel rather than the Quran? I think I get a benefit from reading the Quran. If you think you have a convincing argument about the benefits of Hansel and Gretel, feel free to share.

I already did:

You'd have been better with Hansel and Gretel. Kids are expected to grow out of that sort of thing, not adults into it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Can you explain how I would have been better off with Hansel and Gretel rather than the Quran?

I could have a stab it it - if not for you specifically then certainly for those who say and do appalling things and quote the same book for their authority.

Again, that's not the point though. You could derive all sorts of personal benefits from thinking it to be true, but that would take you not one iota of a jot of a smidgin toward demonstrating that there was actually a word of truth in it.

That's the point. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Which is where you went wrong. He wasn't suggesting that orbiting teapots “worked for him” at all – he was just explaining that the non-falsifiability you thought to be relevant to your belief is actually irrelevant.

BHS - you're wrong because all the orbiting teapot argument says is that logically if the supernatural makes anything possible it is possible to assert the existence of an orbiting tea pot, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of the existence of an orbiting teapot to prove it exists rather than say because its existence cannot be disproved, it is reasonable to believe it exists.

But as it is impossible to prove the existence of the supernatural because we have no methodology to do so, I have not asked anyone to disprove God's existence and I think it is reasonable to not believe in God due to the lack of a methodology. Or to put it another way, due to the lack of methodology for the supernatural it is equally reasonable to believe in orbiting teapots and God. If someone chooses to believe in the latter but not the former it will be because they have other reasons for their belief or lack of belief.

No, that would be another fallacy – the argumentum ad consequentiam. Whether or not you derive benefit from a belief tells you nothing at all about whether or not it’s true.

Wrong again. I am not making an argument that God is true for you.

I am making an argument that I find a belief in God beneficial because when I follow certain rituals and practices that I associate with Islam and which are described in a book as being for my benefit, I derive benefit from them and I derive even more benefit if I do those rituals and practices while also believing in God. Because of the benefits I perceive, I therefore find the rest of the book to be more plausible than I would have if I found nothing of value in the book. It still isn't a methodology to prove God exists because there is no methodology to prove the existence of the supernatural, especially when you also consider that there is no definition of God. So on the basis of lack of methodology, it is reasonable to have a lack of belief in Gods or invisible orbiting teapots. But I can't make a positive statement that Gods and invisible orbiting teapots don't exist - which was my original comment to Rhiannon - that "I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely."

You’re just compounding the problem here by combining the errors – again, no-one was suggesting a belief in orbiting teapots and – even if someone did – any benefit from that beliefs would be irrelevant to its epistemic value.

No I'm not. See above.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Absolutely no need. With you around it'll make not the slightest bit of difference.

Do you have any evidence for that?

I don't mind only if, unless and until she uses it with regard to the religion foisted upon her, which is its not only intended but natural home.

I wasn't genuinely asking your permission - you posted on a public forum.

By the way, I don't think she shares your view of her religion. Did you want to foist your views on her? 

[ippy]

Ippy,

Don't worry, there is no danger of anyone suspecting you of knowing everything - you make it quite obvious by your posts that you don't. If you want to talk about a teapot go ahead - now's your chance. By the way - don't take this comment too seriously - you should lighten up.

What does logically rationalising a belief mean? According to your understanding of it? If you want to refer me to Bert or even Ernie, don't expect me to look it up.

Is it really worth the trouble?

Anyway, Bertrand Russell has a legitimate case that spells out where you're going wrong, whether you like or dislike whatever I say is beside the point, if you were to look up his eloquent comparison of where you are with your way of believing compared with an equally vacuous idea using an equally vacuous invented teapot.

You would be doing yourself a favour if you draw in a deep breath and take the trouble to learn the views of others and fully understand them, this doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your point of view.

I can't say I mind the abuse but the abuse you seem to need to hand out doesn't do anything to support your point of view.

ippy
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You say this:

And follow it immediately with this:

That's pretty thin ice you're skating on there. Of course he doesn't want to talk about teapots - what he wanted to talk about was your suggestion that non-falsifiability says something about probability. He was just explaining that, "You can't falsify God" and "You can't falsify orbiting teapots" are epistemically equivalent statements.

To put it another way, the least important part of Russell's teapot is the teapot.

No, you're wrong - he wasn't explaining anything - maybe he is not capable of explaining it. He told me to look it up. I thought I would help coax him out of his reluctance to post by encouraging him.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Is it really worth the trouble?

Anyway, Bertrand Russell has a legitimate case that spells out where you're going wrong, whether you like or dislike whatever I say is beside the point, if you were to look up his eloquent comparison of where you are with your way of believing compared with an equally vacuous idea using an equally vacuous invented teapot.

You would be doing yourself a favour if you draw in a deep breath and take the trouble to learn the views of others and fully understand them, this doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your point of view.

I can't say I mind the abuse but the abuse you seem to need to hand out doesn't do anything to support your point of view.

ippy

It's not abuse Ippy, it's fact. You refuse to post about Russell's legitimate case and keep telling me to look it up so maybe you don't understand it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS - you're wrong…

Well, let’s see...

…because all the orbiting teapot argument says is that logically if the supernatural makes anything possible it is possible to assert the existence of an orbiting tea pot, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of the existence of an orbiting teapot to prove it exists rather than say because its existence cannot be disproved, it is reasonable to believe it exists.

Not quite (it’s no to do with the supernatural as such – just with anything that’s non-falsifiable. The teapot for example isn’t supernatural – it’s just beyond the range of telescopes), but close enough. 

But as it is impossible to prove the existence of the supernatural because we have no methodology to do so, I have not asked anyone to disprove God's existence and I think it is reasonable to not believe in God due to the lack of a methodology. Or to put it another way, due to the lack of methodology for the supernatural it is equally reasonable to believe in orbiting teapots and God. If someone chooses to believe in the latter but not the former it will be because they have other reasons for their belief or lack of belief.

I’d say equally unreasonable (or, more accurately still, equally badly reasoned) but ok.

None of this though addresses the issue of you asking him to talk about his belief in orbiting teapots. All he was actually doing was explaining that the non-falsifiability of “God” or of any other conjecture is irrelevant for epistemic purposes.   

Wrong again.

Um, for there to be an “again” you’d have to demonstrate a first wrong. By all means try again though. Perhaps you could start with telling us what you did intend when you said, “I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”, and indeed by "If Hansel and Gretal works for you... ". 

I am not making an argument that God is true for you.

No-one suggested otherwise. You do though seem to be attempting an argument that it’s true for you based on the benefits that belief gives you.

Why?

I am making an argument that I find a belief in God beneficial because when I follow certain rituals and practices that I associate with Islam and which are described in a book as being for my benefit, I derive benefit from them and I derive even more benefit if I do those rituals and practices while also believing in God.

No doubt. Other useful books are available from all good booksellers too.   

Because of the benefits I perceive, I therefore find the rest of the book to be more plausible than I would have if I found nothing of value in the book.

Which is a basic error in reasoning. What’s the logical path from the former to the latter?

It still isn't a methodology to prove God exists because there is no methodology to prove the existence of the supernatural, especially when you also consider that there is no definition of God. So on the basis of lack of methodology, it is reasonable to have a lack of belief in Gods or invisible orbiting teapots. But I can't make a positive statement that Gods and invisible orbiting teapots don't exist…

That’s the straw man again.

…- which was my original comment to Rhiannon - that "I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely."

What’s the relationship between “not that difficult to believe in” and “once you get past” etc?

No I'm not. See above.

Ditto.

[Shaker]

Do you have any evidence for that?

Well, there are your own words to the effect that your offspring won't be in with a shout of altering their opinions and changing their minds/lifestyle with regard to the religion you've imposed upon them until and unless they're adults living their own lives ostensibly (but only ostensibly) free of your control.

By the way, I don't think she shares your view of her religion. Did you want to foist your views on her?

As someone once famously said, trying to argue rationally with someone who has renounced reason is like giving medicine to a corpse.