Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

NS,
 

No, the infinite regress comes from every predecessor also acting out an idea in his or her head. “I’ll kill him because he’s from a different tribe” is still an idea, however crude.

Just out of interest do you buy then the line, “guns don’t kill people; people do” or do you see guns as existentially problematic?

‘Guns kill people, therefore ban guns’.

‘Ideas kill people, therefore ban ideas’.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

As I said I think teaching beliefs to children - interpretations of experiences and personal perspectives - is part of being human. If you want to label these interpretations and perspectives as "lies" so be it. I don't intend to generalise that teaching children beliefs or "lies" if you prefer to call them that, is problematic.

You’re not getting it still. Teaching, “culture X believes Y”, “tribe A believes B” etc is fine. Teaching that Y or B are facts though is a type of lying, or it is when those things are as epistemically broken as AB’s “soul”.   

I think some beliefs can be problematic. I also think some generalisations - you can call generalisations "lies" as well if you prefer - can be problematic.

Irrelevant. See above. 

For example certain beliefs about the superiority of liberal democracies can cause people to turn a blind eye to the exploitation and the export of death and destruction that those liberal democracies have inflicted on foreign communities.

Possibly it can be useful to look at the number of people negatively affected by a belief in order to form an opinion on how problematic that belief is. Having said that it is often impossible to quantify the negative impact of a particular belief as it is impossible to isolate the cause and effect to single beliefs.

I don't really have the data to decide if interpreting experiences to form a belief in a soul is particularly problematic. On the other hand I could quantify to some extent the negative impact of a belief that it is morally justified in certain circumstances to bomb innocent people to achieve political aims - whether that is the political aims of terrorists or governments. And yet it seems part of being human that people continue to teach children beliefs that justify such actions.

That’s a different conversation. This one is about whether or not it’s right to teach as facts things to children that the teacher cannot know to be facts. Imagine that, say, after History class and Geography class the teacher then said to the assembled eight-year-olds, “And rainbows are created by unicorns pooping colours as they fly across the sky”.

There’s no definition of “unicorns”; there’s no explanation of how they’d function; there no evidence of any kind for their existence; there are robust, reason and evidence-based explanations for how rainbows really occur. And all these things have been explained to the teacher over and over again.

In epistemological terms this is identical to AB’s effort about “souls” – precisely the problems that would apply teaching “unicorns make rainbows” as facts apply to teaching “souls drive free will” as facts to children.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

‘Guns kill people, therefore ban guns’.

‘Ideas kill people, therefore ban ideas’.

Guns kill people, therefore be careful about disseminating guns (for example to children).

Ideas kill people, therefore be careful about disseminating ideas (for example to children).

That's why we don't have, say, Marxist-Leninist primary schools, albeit that (bizarrely to my mind) we do have religious faith primary schools.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

false dichotomy

It's not a dichotomy (I think you meant "comparison"), and why?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It's not a dichotomy (I think you meant "comparison"), and why?

Nope, I meant dichotomy. And it's false because it isn't an either or as you presented it.

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Guns kill people, therefore be careful about disseminating guns (for example to children).

Ideas kill people, therefore be careful about disseminating ideas (for example to children).

That's why we don't have, say, Marxist-Leninist primary schools, albeit that (bizarrely to my mind) we do have religious faith primary schools.

Ideas are a part of us. Guns aren’t. You do know this, right?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’re not getting it still. Teaching, “culture X believes Y”, “tribe A believes B” etc is fine. Teaching that Y or B are facts though is a type of lying, or it is when those things are as epistemically broken as AB’s “soul”.   

Irrelevant. See above. 

That’s a different conversation. This one is about whether or not it’s right to teach as facts things to children that the teacher cannot know to be facts. Imagine that, say, after History class and Geography class the teacher then said to the assembled eight-year-olds, “And rainbows are created by unicorns pooping colours as they fly across the sky”.

There’s no definition of “unicorns”; there’s no explanation of how they’d function; there no evidence of any kind for their existence; there are robust, reason and evidence-based explanations for how rainbows really occur. And all these things have been explained to the teacher over and over again.

In epistemological terms this is identical to AB’s effort about “souls” – precisely the problems that would apply teaching “unicorns make rainbows” as facts apply to teaching “souls drive free will” as facts to children.

I don't know about your school experience but when we were taught facts at school we were presented with evidence - we visited museums, saw videos that demonstrated how conclusions were reached or we conducted our own research or experiments.

We were also taught beliefs - positions, values, perspectives, ideas that were being adopted and that we were expected to adhere to but that we were aware were subject to change as we had been taught about many beliefs that had changed over time. For many of us it really was not that confusing to differentiate beliefs from facts and as we got older many of us changed our beliefs or we adapted them to beliefs that worked better for our older selves as we faced different challenges from when we were younger.

Hence I don't generalise about religious beliefs being problematic precisely because there seem to be a lot of religious people who teach their beliefs as beliefs, not facts. Where some beliefs are taught as facts - yes that could clearly pose a problem for some people. But for lots of other people who have changed their beliefs, they don't seem harmed by discarding previous beliefs or adopting new ones.

I don't have a problem with Alan's belief in souls because in the absence of evidence of a soul, it is quite clearly a belief. I feel the same way about unicorns. And as far as I know simply believing in a soul or a unicorn doesn't kill people. It takes other beliefs about justifications for certain actions that result in people killing other people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm afraid the game was up for Hillside's argument when Gabriella pointed out that  Catholic education was about the Catholic faith. Note the word faith since it looks as thoughHillside hasn't.
The Catholics too I believe have a saying...religion is caught and not taught.

So much for Hillsides view which seems to be a caricature of Catholic education.

The beef I have with Catholicism is superstructure or paraphernalia, a love of which can also I believe be caught.

As I learned from Peter Tinniswood one can enjoy Say Cricket immensely without having a feel for the actual game.

[SusanDoris]

I don't know about your school experience but when we were taught facts at school we were presented with evidence - we visited museums, saw videos that demonstrated how conclusions were reached or we conducted our own research or experiments.

We were also taught beliefs - positions, values, perspectives, ideas that were being adopted and that we were expected to adhere to but that we were aware were subject to change as we had been taught about many beliefs that had changed over time. For many of us it really was not that confusing to differentiate beliefs from facts and as we got older many of us changed our beliefs or we adapted them to beliefs that worked better for our older selves as we faced different challenges from when we were younger.

Hence I don't generalise about religious beliefs being problematic precisely because there seem to be a lot of religious people who teach their beliefs as beliefs, not facts. Where some beliefs are taught as facts - yes that could clearly pose a problem for some people. But for lots of other people who have changed their beliefs, they don't seem harmed by discarding previous beliefs or adopting new ones.

I don't have a problem with Alan's belief in souls because in the absence of evidence of a soul, it is quite clearly a belief. I feel the same way about unicorns. And as far as I know simply believing in a soul or a unicorn doesn't kill people. It takes other beliefs about justifications for certain actions that result in people killing other people.

As so often happens, you have managed, using many words, to evade the point of when beliefs totally lacking in objective evidence are taught to children as facts. 
And surely to have to change one's beliefs, instead of starting off with known facts in the first place, is a daft idea. Learning that some things are known to be as true as science can show them to be, i.e. 99.9% objective but open to challenge and improvement,  and that there are things that we don't know is the best kind of education any child can receive.

And I notice that you did not say whether or not the teachers of your religion taught you that the God behind it all was actually real.

Looking  back, I realise I am lucky that I had only one belief about which to change my mind, but even so, that beliefwas quite pervasive.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As so often happens, you have managed, using many words, to evade the point of when beliefs totally lacking in objective evidence are taught to children as facts. 

As so often happens you have managed to use a lot of words in your answer Susan and still ended up mistaken. My third paragraph addressed that point when I said “Hence I don't generalise about religious beliefs being problematic precisely because there seem to be a lot of religious people who teach their beliefs as beliefs, not facts. Where some beliefs are taught as facts - yes that could clearly pose a problem for some people.

And surely to have to change one's beliefs, instead of starting off with known facts in the first place, is a daft idea.

Humans hold beliefs about many different things in life and people’s beliefs often change over time  -  that you perceive humans as daft is irrelevant. Humans are daft in many ways, including you.

Learning that some things are known to be as true as science can show them to be, i.e. 99.9% objective but open to challenge and improvement,  and that there are things that we don't know is the best kind of education any child can receive.

I disagree. Your focus is too narrow if it only teaches children things that are science-based while ignoring the myriad of beliefs taught that socialise children through shared values and ideas.

And I notice that you did not say whether or not the teachers of your religion taught you that the God behind it all was actually real.

I can’t remember. I remember they voiced no objection to me becoming an atheist aged 13 or 14. I remember I wrote on my school science lab coat in big Gothic letters “God did not create Man, Man created God” but eventually had to get a new lab coat as we were told we were no longer allowed to write on lab coats. Everyone else’s lab coat tended to have writing about which pop star they loved or song lyrics - I don’t know if the ban on writing on lab coats was down to my statement or another reason.

[Alan Burns]

I think this is fine, and 'soul' is used by many people in this way.   But it's quite different from AB's ideas, which seem to mean that the soul actually causes my thoughts and feelings, or my state of mind.   As I said earlier, this is quite a horrific idea, as it means, for example, when I'm  feeling anxious or down, that my soul is inducing that.   This seems quite sadistic on the part of the soul, and also of course, induces the regression problem - what is that causes the soul to do this to me?       

You are wrong on my take on this, Wiggs.
Thoughts, feelings and states of mind are all generated from the patterns of electrons in our brain cells.  Our soul simply comprises the conscious awareness of these patterns of electrons, together with the ability to consciously interact with them.

[torridon]

You are wrong on my take on this, Wiggs.
Thoughts, feelings and states of mind are all generated from the patterns of electrons in our brain cells.  Our soul simply comprises the conscious awareness of these patterns of electrons, together with the ability to consciously interact with them.

So my soul has its own consciousness which interacts with my natural consciousness ?

[Alan Burns]

Not sure if you mean that out of the limited choices available to us due to the constraints of nature/nurture, you believe your soul picks one of those limited choices?

yes

[Alan Burns]

If you unhinge will from cause and effect then you unhinge it from all meaning.  You end up with a random meaningless world.  You wouldn't like it.

You still do not get it.
We can't be totally unhinged from cause and effect.
We are influenced by it.
We have the power to initiate a final choice after consciously controlled consideration.

[Alan Burns]

So my soul has its own consciousness which interacts with my natural consciousness ?

There can be only one entity which has conscious awareness of our brain cells.

[ekim]

Ideas are a part of us. Guns aren’t. You do know this, right?

Perhaps it's better to say people can use guns, knives, cars to kill people and to save them, according to their motivation.
Ideas can be used to motivate and manipulate people to kill people or save people.   Be aware of motives and manipulation.

[Alan Burns]

If this was all created by a God he would eliminate evil anyway so that would be one less thing to worry about.

But to eliminate evil, God would have to take away our gift of free will.

[torridon]

But to eliminate evil, God would have to take away our gift of free will.

Why ?  He could take out the Devil and still leave humans with freedom of choice.

[Rhiannon]

Perhaps it's better to say people can use guns, knives, cars to kill people and to save them, according to their motivation.
Ideas can be used to motivate and manipulate people to kill people or save people.   Be aware of motives and manipulation.

The problem with banning ideas is that...you can’t. Try not thinking of something that you don’t want to think about. And history has shown that eradicating religious thought is virtually impossible. Sure, Christianity did a reasonable job on paganism but only because it replaced it with something else, that was tweaked in places to be not so different anyway. And the ‘folk religion’ followed in rural
Britain (a mishmash of Christianity and lucky rabbits feet thinking) was still going strong until the early twentieth century. Things change slowly, over time.

The thing to do with ideas, surely, is to examine and understand them and where they come from? They are a part of us. I actually think it’s healthier to introduce children to ideas at a young age so that they can reject the bad ones. If you don’t introduce both good and bad ideas to children they can’t think critically, and that’s the biggest danger. It worries me that a simple quote from Nietzsche can be seen as ‘bad’. Better surely to understand?

Yesterday there were marches to mark women’s suffrage. Time was when that was thought to be a dangerous idea. And as Gabriella pointed out yesterday, our good ideas in the West haven’t done much for the rest of the world. Guns and other weapons we can stop making - I don’t get why Blue has an issue with only kids getting guns - they are things external to us. Ideas reside within us, they are a part of us, they don’t have an external origin (unless you want to believe in gods). So of course it is people that are the problem.

[torridon]

There can be only one entity which has conscious awareness of our brain cells.

Under your scheme there are two consciousnesses, the natural consciousness that developed through evolution and we inherited as a consequence of being of primate lineage, and the soul's own consciousness, the supernatural one. So, I would have one body, but two me's in it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Nope, I meant dichotomy. And it's false because it isn't an either or as you presented it.

But a dichotomy concerns opposites; I was making a comparison - ie, suggesting similarities. We don't allow teachers to say, "It's fine to stab the child next to you in the eye", and we don't allow teachers to hand out loaded guns at playtime. Both could have lethal consequences - what then is the difference between controlling the dissemination of an idea and of an object?

[Alan Burns]

Under your scheme there are two consciousnesses, the natural consciousness that developed through evolution and we inherited as a consequence of being of primate lineage, and the soul's own consciousness, the supernatural one. So, I would have one body, but two me's in it.

There can be no such thing as natural consciousness.  We can have natural reactions and natural behaviour, but these in themselves do not imply conscious awareness.

[Rhiannon]

NS,

But a dichotomy concerns opposites; I was making a comparison - ie, suggesting similarities. We don't allow teachers to say, "It's fine to stab the child next to you in the eye", and we don't allow teachers to hand out loaded guns at playtime. Both could have lethal consequences - what then is the difference between controlling the dissemination of an idea and of an object?

Ideas are not ‘things’ in the same way that guns are. An idea in itself cannot hurt anyone. It’s actially a really important concept in mental health, to understand that thoughts are just thoughts, however distressing they may be.

That’s not to say that ideas need to be introduced in age appropriate ways; of course they do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I'm afraid the game was up for Hillside's argument when Gabriella pointed out that  Catholic education was about the Catholic faith. Note the word faith since it looks as thoughHillside hasn't.
The Catholics too I believe have a saying...religion is caught and not taught.

So much for Hillsides view which seems to be a caricature of Catholic education.

The beef I have with Catholicism is superstructure or paraphernalia, a love of which can also I believe be caught.

As I learned from Peter Tinniswood one can enjoy Say Cricket immensely without having a feel for the actual game.

Wrong again. The Catholic education guidelines contain an explicit instruction to teach its knowledge with the same rigour and discipline as other subject areas teach their knowledge. There was no, "but really we should be a lot more circumspect about the former because they're just our faith beliefs" or similar. This in essence is the difference between religion in faith schools ("this stuff is factually true") and RE in secular schools ("this stuff is what various cultures believe to be factually true").

That Gabriella decided they meant something other than the plain meanings of the words they used is a matter you should take up with her.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I don't know about your school experience but when we were taught facts at school we were presented with evidence - we visited museums, saw videos that demonstrated how conclusions were reached or we conducted our own research or experiments.

We were also taught beliefs - positions, values, perspectives, ideas that were being adopted and that we were expected to adhere to but that we were aware were subject to change as we had been taught about many beliefs that had changed over time. For many of us it really was not that confusing to differentiate beliefs from facts and as we got older many of us changed our beliefs or we adapted them to beliefs that worked better for our older selves as we faced different challenges from when we were younger.

Hence I don't generalise about religious beliefs being problematic precisely because there seem to be a lot of religious people who teach their beliefs as beliefs, not facts. Where some beliefs are taught as facts - yes that could clearly pose a problem for some people. But for lots of other people who have changed their beliefs, they don't seem harmed by discarding previous beliefs or adopting new ones.

I don't have a problem with Alan's belief in souls because in the absence of evidence of a soul, it is quite clearly a belief. I feel the same way about unicorns. And as far as I know simply believing in a soul or a unicorn doesn't kill people. It takes other beliefs about justifications for certain actions that result in people killing other people.

All irrelevant. Whether a million schools teach faith beliefs as facts or one school does it isn’t the issue – the issue was just that conceptually at least doing it at all is wrong, and would in some cases be lying for the reasons I set out. Nor was whether the lies led to killing people the issue either - I just happen to think that lying to children in general is a bad idea, but that's just me I guess.   

As for Alan, so far as he’s concerned “soul” etc is a fact. Whether he’d condone therefore this supposed fact being taught as such alongside the facts of biology and geography in schools however is a question only he can answer.