Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I already did:

No you didn't. You tried to be clever and just ended up looking daft. Why would I be better off with Hansel and Gretel? I've explained the benefits I get out of the Quran as an adult. Over to you to explain the benefits I would get out of Hansel and Gretel if I have grown out of it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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. 

BHS - you've still got it wrong. I did not ask Ippy to talk about his belief in teapots. I suggest you re-read my posts. I asked him to explain the teapot if he thought it worked for him as a point in this discussion, rather than expect me to look it up.

The only time I mentioned a belief in teapots was #21230 because it followed on from my point about the benefit I derived from a belief in God and if Ippy wanted me to believe in teapots etc he would have to come up with similar benefits to practices and rituals as religion provides for the 2 to be comparable. And I did not state that Ippy believed in orbiting teapots. What I said was "if other people, including Ippy, perceive a benefit from the practices and rituals associated with belief in orbiting teapots...". 

A person can perceive a benefit in a belief without actually holding that belief themselves. For example, I can perceive a benefit in believing that Jesus was God walking on Earth or the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, even if I don't hold that belief myself.

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... ".

See #21230. And I did demonstrate a first wrong.

Also, not really sure what you find difficult to grasp about the phrase "works for you". Ippy is bringing up concepts or ideas - if he thinks they work for him in some way to explain his perspective, it is up to him to elaborate the idea and why.

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?

Because a belief that's true for me is based on my personal experiences associated with that belief - it's a leap of faith based on that personal experience. This is not contentious – how else does a true for me belief develop? As opposed to a belief that I want to be true for you, which then needs to be demonstrated as true and if there is no methodology to demonstrate the truth of that belief then I am only left with a true for me belief based on my personal experience.

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

No it's not an error in reasoning. It's much like hiring a tutor. If my daughter perceives that a particular tutor helped her get an A in a Maths test on a particular topic, she is more likely to believe that the same tutor can help her with do well in other Maths topics because she finds the tutor's approach for teaching her Maths works for her.

In this case the tutor is a book and having found that certain concepts or ideas put forward by the book works for me, I am more inclined to try other ideas in the book and more inclined to believe they might be of benefit to me. A religion is putting forward more than the existence of God. In this case the religion is putting forward the existence of an undefined supernatural entity and stating that there are benefits to adopting certain ideas, practices and rituals.

Given there is no methodology to prove the existence of said entity, there is only the possibility that if Option A: belief in the entity together with the ideas, practices and rituals feels more beneficial than Option B: the ideas, practices and rituals without belief in the entity (when both options are tried) then it makes Option A the belief in the entity a more appealing idea based on personal experience.

That’s the straw man again.

No it's not. You're using the term incorrectly. I am not trying to make an argument against anything or misrepresenting anyone's position and arguing against that position, I am merely making a statement that "I can't make a positive statement that Gods and invisible orbiting teapots don't exist." . You have made that same statement on this forum – that you cannot claim God does not exist. Each time you made that statement were you indulging in a straw man? 

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

I find it not that difficult to believe in a God that can't be defined if I am not ruling out the existence of the supernatural. Not sure how to explain that any differently - a God that can't be defined is an example of something undefined that would come into the category of supernatural. I then read the Quran and came across a God that can’t be defined. I did not find it that difficult to believe in this concept of God.


Edited to add Option A and Option B to try and make my point clearer

[floo]

Shouldn't the discussion about the Islamic fasting be on the Muslim board?

[ippy]

Shouldn't the discussion about the Islamic fasting be on the Muslim board?

If this passes as a discussion maybe that's a good idea Floo, in this case I'm all for that.

ippy

[Robbie]

It's not just about fasting at Ramadan, though,is it? It's about God. The Sacrifice thread might be suitable but this seems to be more than that. There's so much Gabriella says that ties in with 'searchig for God' theme.
Very good stuff i'm lapping up every post!
(Btw going back I didn't know detoxing was considered to be 'woo' (love that word), never done it myself nor likely to but havve heard of people with liver & kidney problems & alcohol who've been advised to detox. Maybe now they're not if it's been shown as ineffective.)

[Nearly Sane]

Shouldn't the discussion about the Islamic fasting be on the Muslim board?

Moderator: We did consider this yesterday but given that the discussion is intertwined with ongoing discussion of the belief in god felt that it was better to remain here. Also, since this is such a wide ranging and encompassing thread, it made more sense to keep the discussion from an Islamic viewpoint here rather than a separate Searching for the Muslim God thread.

[ekim]

Moderator: We did consider this yesterday but given that the discussion is intertwined with ongoing discussion of the belief in god felt that it was better to remain here. Also, since this is such a wide ranging and encompassing thread, it made more sense to keep the discussion from an Islamic viewpoint here rather than a separate Searching for the Muslim God thread.

Quite right too.  Many religious practices are associated with 'searching for God' or 'Heaven'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Is that what your children do - not share in your lifestyle while they are kids and financially dependent on you? Do you just give your 12 year old access to your credit card so she or he can stay home and order pizza or an Uber to the cinema if she or he decides to not accompany you to family events with your extended family?

You have evaded the question when I asked you for evidence. Which posts and which words give the effect that my offspring won't be in with a shout of altering their opinions and changing their minds/ lifestyle with regard to the religion I've imposed on them etc etc?

For example was it #21188 you want to use as evidence to back up your assertion? Where I said "when my daughter found it too difficult to fast she broke her fast, when she did not find it too difficult to fast she fasted. She wanted to participate in the family ritual as her sister and cousins were fasting. I am guessing that whatever she got out of being part of the extended family activity motivated her to fast."

Or was it #21156 where I said "As for control and trust and respect. Some things are done on a basis of trust and respect but when it comes to smart phones we've had talks at the school about how highly addictive they are and my 12 year old says "I'm 12, why would you expect me to have self-control? You need to take them phone away if you don't want me to go on it at night."

I exert control if I think it is needed though I prefer to see if I can trust them to do the right thing first without me needing to exert control. If there is disagreement with my child over an issue that I will be held accountable for by teachers or other parents - such as homework not being done or lack of sleep or inappropriate messages amongst friends due to smart phone use, or anxiety or underage drinking, as the parent I make the final decision in respect of those issues for my children until they are accountable for themselves and independent. I find religion has useful tools in this respect but others may not."

Or was it '21151 where I said "I tell the kids they will have to assess the pros and cons of atheism for themselves when they no longer need me as a parent who provides them security and from whom they derive comfort from shared beliefs. When they become adults they will not want my closeness and approval the way they seem to want it now as children, nor will they need me to protect them the way they seem to now. My 17 year old already requires less security and protection than my 12 year old."

Or was it #21146 where I said "The kids know I have no evidence as to the truth - it's up to them if they want to reject the unevidenced belief. But if they want to share family activities with the extended family and feel like they are on our wavelength and included rather than feel lonely and not part of the family they would need to participate in the rituals and behaviours we all spend a lot of time engaging in - because we are not going to stop engaging in those activities and not spending enough time together doing shared activities could lead to emotional distance. It's up to the kids if they want to be a part of that closeness or drift away from their family. Currently they seem to value the comfort and security family brings so they have not drifted off but that may change and they may decide they no longer want to participate in family religious activities. Only they can weigh up the costs and benefits they perceive for themselves of being part of the family rituals or distancing themselves from them."

Did you have some method to stop children wanting closeness, security, protection and approval from their parents and therefore feeling motivated to share in family activities that involve religion? I can only speak from experience - the children seek my company and my approval as I did from my parents when I was young, but as I became an adult and I needed my parents' company and approval less and less, I went my own way and became an atheist in my teens and then a Muslim in my 20s while my parents remained nominally Hindu though they barely practise. My assessment of religion as an adult is very different from my assessment of religion while under my parents' care.

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

Oh look - another cute quote from you in place of an argument. Evasion noted. Or did you now want to answer the question I asked? Are you a hypocrite - did you want to foist your views on my daughter?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I don't have time to respond this morning but will try to do so later. Briefly though, neither ippy nor Bertrand Russell (now there's an illustrious pair!) were suggesting that the orbiting teapot "works for them" or any of the similar phrases you've used. Far from it. The object of Russell's teapot - ie, the teapot - is irrelevant. He may as well have said "orbiting hamster" for all the difference it made. Rather it was just a thought experiment to show that non-falsifiability tells you nothing about probability – which is what you implied.   

Really. Forget the teapot, and focus instead on the force of the argument it was used to illustrate.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I don't have time to respond this morning but will try to do so later. Briefly though, neither ippy nor Bertrand Russell (now there's an illustrious pair!) were suggesting that the orbiting teapot "works for them" or any of the similar phrases you've used. Far from it. The object of Russell's teapot - ie, the teapot - is irrelevant. He may as well have said "orbiting hamster" for all the difference it made. Rather it was just a thought experiment to show that non-falsifiability tells you nothing about probability – which is what you implied.   

Really. Forget the teapot, and focus instead on the force of the argument it was used to illustrate.

Ok no problem - I owe you an answer to a post as well from before.

I could have said:

 Ippy if the thought experiment works for you to illustrate some point please elaborate - instead I shortened it to "if the teapot works for you"

I have explained that I like the phrase "if it works for you". If you don't like how I express my points I'm afraid that is your problem. I don't intend to change. It's up to you if you want to jump in and and respond to points where I have used the phrase "if it works for you" or if you want to ignore those posts and only respond to others or if you choose not to respond to any, because the words you are reading annoy you in some way.

ETA: BHS - IMO you need to forget about the teapot too. I was aware of the thought experiment. My point was that if Ippy wants a response from me on it he needs to form an argument in his own words, otherwise I choose not to respond other then to ask him to elaborate on his argument, which he declined to do.

[ippy]

Gabriella,

I don't have time to respond this morning but will try to do so later. Briefly though, neither ippy nor Bertrand Russell (now there's an illustrious pair!) were suggesting that the orbiting teapot "works for them" or any of the similar phrases you've used. Far from it. The object of Russell's teapot - ie, the teapot - is irrelevant. He may as well have said "orbiting hamster" for all the difference it made. Rather it was just a thought experiment to show that non-falsifiability tells you nothing about probability – which is what you implied.   

Really. Forget the teapot, and focus instead on the force of the argument it was used to illustrate.

Thank you Blue, The ippy/Russell teapot? It's not that often my hard work is so enthusiastically lauded, surprisingly.

Oh yes Gabriella, here's a link for you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

It's all there, no need for me to add anything to Bertram's words which are far more eloquent than anything I would be able to scribble out, have a good day Gabs.

ippy.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella
First point: I hope you will comment on what I said about there being no rational or logical reason for fasting.
As Shaker said, one sometimes has to have a fasting blood test, but that is not in any way comparable to the fasting you do. 

Why?

Islam helps me practise self-restraint

I prefer to do so without religious belief, but okay. However, do you consider that your use of religious belief is more advantageous than doing so without?

Is that the problem for you Susan - it appears weak to you if someone uses religion to help themselves?

That is a rather patronising, or I might use the word dismissive,  way of expressing the question. I do not think of people as weak because of what they do or how they behave. I understand that there is an infinite range of human genetic make-up, of human behaviours and that some find it easier to, for instance, say, no thank you, than others.

ETA - glad to see this has not been transferred to another forum.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thank you Blue, The ippy/Russell teapot? It's not that often my hard work is so enthusiastically lauded, surprisingly.

Oh yes Gabriella, here's a link for you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

It's all there, no need for me to add anything to Bertram's words which are far more eloquent than anything I would be able to scribble out, have a good day Gabs.

ippy.

No that's fine. if the teapot works for you, feel free to explain why.

Yes you too - have a good day Ippy.

[Maeght]

I don't understand the relevance of 'if it worksfor you'. That's fine if referring to beliefs but not about falsibility of evidence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella
First point: I hope you will comment on what I said about there being no rational or logical reason for fasting.

I did in #21212 unless you are referring to another question you asked?

As Shaker said, one sometimes has to have a fasting blood test, but that is not in any way comparable to the fasting you do.  I prefer to do so without religious belief, but okay. However, do you consider that your use of religious belief is more advantageous than doing so without?

Yes, I consider it more advantageous for me. Some examples are:

Having tried fasting outside of Ramadan, I can't do it for 2 days consecutively - so without the belief and the Ramadan concept and the ritual I can't fast for many days in a row.

When I fast for so many days in a row during Ramadan I lose weight, which is a bonus - I'm not fat but I feel more comfortable being skinnier with a flatter stomach.

I kick my coffee addiction during Ramadan as I don't have the opportunity to drink any during the day(which is when I drink the most cups) for many days in a row and I don't feel like drinking any just before dawn or after sunset, which has me feeling healthier. As soon as Ramadan is over I quickly get addicted to coffee again.

During Ramadan when I fast it becomes a lot easier somehow to stop what I am doing and pray 5 times a day, whereas outside of Ramadan I find it much harder to discipline myself to take a few minutes out of my activities to go pray.

That is a rather patronising, or I might use the word dismissive,  way of expressing the question.

It might be but I find a lot of your comments on here patronising and dismissive - hopefully we'll both cope with each other's style of questioning. 

I do not think of people as weak because of what they do or how they behave. I understand that there is an infinite range of human genetic make-up, of human behaviours and that some find it easier to, for instance, say, no thank you, than others.

Ok. In that case I don't think your repeatedly stated hope of everyone abandoning religion is likely to happen.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't understand the relevance of 'if it worksfor you'. That's fine if referring to beliefs but not about falsibility of evidence.

The teapot is a thought experiment, concept or idea about true for you statements - so for an explanation of my use of the phrase "if it works for you" see #21259 to BHS.

It's up to Ippy to analyse my posts, quote what I said and explain where the thought experiment fits in to make a point about one of my points. If he doesn't want to do that or lacks the ability, that's fine, but in that case I have nothing worth responding to if he can't explain how the thought experiment applies to what I am saying.

[Maeght]

The teapot is a thought experiment, concept or idea about true for you statement

Its about nonfalsibility. Whether you can rule out the existence of something based on seeing no evidence for it. I have read your posts and see no where where 'if it works for you' relevance to that becomes clear.

[SusanDoris]

I did in #21212 unless you are referring to another question you asked?

Okay I have found that post. I am not sure I would call your answer logical or rational, but I do not intend to check definitions of those two words in detail.

Yes, I consider it more advantageous for me. Some examples are:  …

So it is an entirely personal, subjective choice?

It might be but I find a lot of your comments on here patronising and dismissive - hopefully we'll both cope with each other's style of questioning. 

Ok. In that case I don't think your repeatedly stated hope of everyone abandoning religion is likely to happen.

Unless you can find a citation for that last comment, I have not, as far as I know, ever said that I hoped all would ‘abandon’ religion. I am fully aware that that is such a vanishingly small probability that it can  be disregarded.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I find it interesting too – my point though was (and is) that calling values of which you happen to approve (as do I) “religious” is a misnomer.

I haven't called values of which I approve "religious". I called values that are related to the supernatural and my religion "religious". E.g. Fasting for Ramadan is a religious value. Belief in one God that is undefined is a religious value.         

Well, perhaps. My experience though is that those “indoctrinated” (to use your word) in childhood find it almost impossible to shake off the attendant beliefs in later life, however otherwise rational and reasoning they may be – and yes, however harmful to themselves and others the faith beliefs might be. That’s why so often religions want to get to kids before their critical faculties are developed – as the Jesuits say with good reason, “Give me the child until seven and I’ll give you the man”.

In which case, how do you explain the decline in people identifying themselves as religious?     

Golf though doesn’t entail claims of truths that the claimants cannot know to be true, but OK…

No, but if your dad plays a lot of golf and you want to spend time with your dad you might take up golf. Same thing with religion - if your parents spend a lot of time engaged in religious activities and you want to spend time with your parents you might participate in some of those activities.   

Some might suggest though that it’s a risk you’re taking on behalf of other people – the victims at the end of the chain of irrationality you provide cover for at your nice end. I don’t want to come across as gittish here – you are of course entitled to believe (and to teach your girls) anything you like and that’s none of my or anyone else’s business. Suggesting that you’re sanguine about the law enforcement agencies picking up the pieces if that does happen though seems to me a somewhat “bracing” response to the issue.

If you could demonstrate that the acts of criminality would not have happened but for religion, I would agree with you. But I see people fighting for political power and control of geographical land mass and resources. If they are persuaded to strike militarily or violently to pursue political aims by the notion that their God will honour and reward them  I don't see it any differently to if they are persuaded to strike militarily by the notion that their country will honour and reward them or their leader will honour and reward them or they act out of a sense of loyalty to a political concept or out of patriotism or nationalism or racism or tribalism etc etc

This isn’t about you specifically by the way. I just look askance at any privileging of faith over rationalism from religious schools to bishops in the House of Lords.

Ok. Well we live in a democracy so if the country prefers to no longer have faith schools or bishops in the H of L, one of the political parties could include that in their manifesto and see how much support it gets in an election. If it is not popular, you could continue to try to persuade more people to your POV.

Labelling the values of which you approve as “religious”. They’re no such thing, though some religions certainly endorse some of them.

I didn't. I labelled religious values as religious e.g. a belief in one God.

Some of them also incidentally endorse values of which you probably wouldn’t approve. As a mother of daughters for example, I’d have thought you’d at least raise an eyebrow at the misogyny practised in the name of your faith.

Yes. Misogyny in cultures is a complex issue though so I suggest you start a different thread and I will try to find time to contribute over the next few weeks.   

I was thinking more of children in madrassas in places like Pakistan. How should we engage with such people when they become citizens of the world armed with an understanding of that world entirely derived from an ancient religious text?

Yes I agree that some/ many of those children could pose a problem. But I have no in depth knowledge of how madrassas are run now in Pakistan - I know the more extreme ones proliferated during General Zia Huq's rule of Pakistan and were set up as a recruiting ground for Mujahideen against the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan war. This article seems to have some info on the madrassas today - again I think discussion of this is probably best on a new thread. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/15/pakistan-madrasa-islam-reform

[ippy]

No that's fine. if the teapot works for you, feel free to explain why.

Yes you too - have a good day Ippy.

I have explained why, (find the link in my previous post, move the curser onto the link, press the button, explanation), if you don't want to read my explanation, well that's your choice.

Try to lighten up and revitalise at least a little of any sense of humour you may have had, we, all of us misread things from time to time some misread more than others, if and only if the cap fits ____ __.

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Its about nonfalsibility. Whether you can rule out the existence of something based on seeing no evidence for it. I have read your posts and see no where where 'if it works for you' relevance to that becomes clear.

I disagree.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have explained why, (find the link in my previous post, move the curser onto the link, press the button, explanation), if you don't want to read my explanation, well that's your choice.

Try to lighten up and revitalise at least a little of any sense of humour you may have had, we, all of us misread things from time to time some misread more than others, if and only if the cap fits ____ __.

Regards ippy

No you haven't explained but feel free to have a go when you feel ready. In the meantime try and lighten up Ippy about your inability to explain. It's quite funny actually that you have to rely on Wiki links.

Regards
Gabby

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree.

You disagree that Maeght can find no where in your posts where 'if it works for you' relevance to that becomes clear? 

[Enki]

It's not just about fasting at Ramadan, though,is it? It's about God. The Sacrifice thread might be suitable but this seems to be more than that. There's so much Gabriella says that ties in with 'searchig for God' theme.
Very good stuff i'm lapping up every post!
(Btw going back I didn't know detoxing was considered to be 'woo' (love that word), never done it myself nor likely to but havve heard of people with liver & kidney problems & alcohol who've been advised to detox. Maybe now they're not if it's been shown as ineffective.)

Just to refer to your last paragraph, Robinson, and to back up Rhi's very sensible statements in her post 21229, I would suggest that reading this(it isn't long) would be rather eye opening.

https://www.theguardian.com/befit/story/0,,1379231,00.html

Or better still, get the book 'Bad Science' by the same Ben Goldacre, and find out why he challenges a range of commonly accepted pseudosciences.

[ippy]

No you haven't explained but feel free to have a go when you feel ready. In the meantime try and lighten up Ippy about your inability to explain. It's quite funny actually that you have to rely on Wiki links.

Regards
Gabby

If you don't wish to face the facts direct from respected philosopher you continue to try to laugh it off.

Regards ippy