Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Surely you must know by now that I consider the existence of souls as a fact, so why bother with such a contrived hypothetical question?

Then if you do consider it to be a fact - as much facts as Jupiter being a planet and germs causing diseases are - why not just say, "Yes, if I was in charge I would have the fact of souls taught in all schools"?

It looks to me like you are trying to set up a disguised ad pop argument.

Presumably because you fundamentally misunderstand what an ad pop entails.

[Gordon]

It is not detectable in biology,

Then you've no basis to make the claim that 'souls' influence what brains do, have you?

but it is evident to every living human being.

Not to me old chap: lack of evidence being the issue.

It is known as human free will.

I suspect you're just making this up as you go along, Alan, in order to rationalise your religious preferences: but irrationally so, which means all you have is your personal faith beliefs, and while these might give you a cozy and warm feeling they aren't transferable to the likes of me.   

[Alan Burns]

Just on the subject of faith schools, I consider their role to be valuable in telling young people what the Christian faith is and what it stands for.   I find it very disturbing that many youngsters today grow up with very little knowledge of Jesus or what He did.  In essence, they do not get enough knowledge to make a considered decision about their faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Do you have any evidence that memorising the Quran or rocking back and forth leads to believing in virgins for suicide bombing?

Does Vlad know you’ve taken over his Straw Man Monitor job? The conversation wasn’t about reciting the Q’uran creating suicide bombers at all. It was about what happens when idea from one perspective dominate and counter-arguments are excluded.

What the content of the dominant and the excluded arguments happen to be is a different matter. 

I think you'll find that people who are radicalised to become suicide bombers are persuaded by people i.e.extremists that Islam is under threat due to specific political events in the world that lead to Muslims dying or losing their land or Muslim leaders being overthrown without any intervention to prevent this by international bodies, and that although suicide is prohibited in Islam, by becoming a suicide bomber they are actually becoming martyrs rather than committing a prohibited act. This leads to them persuading a minority of people that the lesser jihad (struggle) using weapons is more important than the greater jihad (struggle) against your own ego.

These extremists glorify suicide bombers as heroes who made a sacrifice for the greater good, and they manage to persuade a minority of people that there is an existentialist threat to Muslims in a particular area by citing Muslim deaths at the hands of foreign nations that are pursuing their own strategic agenda and interests.
s
A very different scenario from your simplistic assertions.

Not really. The point rather was that people educated only with one, narrow, faith-based set of ideas to the exclusion of all others are more likely to be persuadable into beliefs and actions that align with some part at least of those ideas than they would be if they had a more pluralistic, “one the one hand X, one the other hand Y” approach to weighing up argument and counter-argument.

How could you even embrace the notion of a counter-argument if you don’t know what a counter-argument is?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A fact eh! Nope, not a fact at all but a belief of yours: this is where you are going wrong.

Alan's use of "I consider" seems to be a clue that he believes it to be a fact. Much like BHS asserts "facts" that he presumably really believes to be true, it actually takes testable evidence to turn it from his belief/opinion/assertion to an actual fact.

[Gordon]

Ideally what we need is for someone who knows how Christian faith schools operate to confirm whether or not these schools teach that Jesus was divine, was dead and was resurrected as being historical fact or whether they portray this as being a faith belief, and therefore not a historical fact.

My guess is the former, else why bother with faith schools, but I'm happy to be corrected.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just on the subject of faith schools, I consider their role to be valuable in telling young people what the Christian faith is and what it stands for.   I find it very disturbing that many youngsters today grow up with very little knowledge of Jesus or what He did.  In essence, they do not get enough knowledge to make a considered decision about their faith.

What makes you think it's "their" faith at all, and what makes you think that RE lessons in secular schools don't do a perfectly good job already of explaining what Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, and...) believe?

[Gordon]

Alan's use of "I consider" seems to be a clue that he believes it to be a fact. Much like BHS asserts "facts" that he presumably really believes to be true, it actually takes testable evidence to turn it from his belief/opinion/assertion to an actual fact.

Fine: so 'God' is just a matter of opinion then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Alan's use of "I consider" seems to be a clue that he believes it to be a fact. Much like BHS asserts "facts" that he presumably really believes to be true, it actually takes testable evidence to turn it from his belief/opinion/assertion to an actual fact.

Everyone who thinks him- or herself to be in possession of facts "believes' them to be true.

You do know that you just shot yourself in the foot there right?

[Gordon]

Just on the subject of faith schools, I consider their role to be valuable in telling young people what the Christian faith is and what it stands for.   I find it very disturbing that many youngsters today grow up with very little knowledge of Jesus or what He did.  In essence, they do not get enough knowledge to make a considered decision about their faith.

That presumes that Christianity has some kind of default relevance to those who are non-Christian, be they atheist or a theist of some other stripe.

I have had no religious involvement at all: I'm not even christened, which is unusual for a child born in Glasgow in 1952, so on what basis do I need to take Christianity seriously, or Islam or Judaism? 

[Rhiannon]

Ideally what we need is for someone who knows how Christian faith schools operate to confirm whether or not these schools teach that Jesus was divine, was dead and was resurrected as being historical fact or whether they portray this as being a faith belief, and therefore not a historical fact.

My guess is the former, else why bother with faith schools, but I'm happy to be corrected.

What I can tell you is that in some inner city areas CofE schools take a high number of Muslim pupils, and there have been CofE schools that have appointed Muslim heads.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Should I conclude that you‘ve just made a mistake here or that you’re being deliberately dishonest? Now look at the posts in this discussion – you know, the one we’re actually talking about – when I argued that telling lies to children is a bad thing and you hijacked that into a discussion about how often it happens. Either you think that as a general proposition telling lies to children is a bad thing or you don’t. If you want to talk about something else (ie how often it happens), start a new discussion.

You seem to be being dishonest here. This point is a continuing discussion that we keep revisiting since the Swedish faith schools thread. In the discussion on this thread I said I had no problem with children being taught beliefs. You labelled beliefs as lies. That you want to label them as lies is up to you. My position was if the beliefs were taught as beliefs, rather than testable evidence-based facts, there was not an issue. If beliefs were represented as facts with claims of testable evidence to support them, then yes that's a lie, and would be problematic.

Dear god but you struggle. I think faith and knowledge are different things. For all I know you think faith and knowledge are different things. The point though is that the people who wrote the guidelines think otherwise

This is an assertion you have yet to provide evidence for.

– it’s all “knowledge” apparently

Yes - knowledge about a faith position

and their “knowledge” about (say) a resurrection should it seems be taught with the same rigour and discipline as the geography master teaches his knowledge about rainfall in Peru.

Nope. Knowledge about a faith position can't be taught the same way as the knowledge about rainfall in Peru - for one thing, if challenged, the latter is supported by an explanation of equipment and methodology of repeatable tests on how any individual can measure the amount of rainfall in Peru. 

More stupidity? Seriously though? It’s got nothing to do with what I like – I just asked why, when someone has zero information about a faith claim he asserts as a fact (“soul”), you’d then ask him for information about it.

Yes more stupidity on your part. As I explained this forum is used for discussing and exploring other people's views. I wanted information on Alan's view point or belief about souls.

It’s your business of course, but as fool’s errands go its pretty up there. He knows nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The cupboard is bare. All he has is a word – “soul” (translation: “it’s magic innit”) – and that’s it.

It is my business - well done for recognising that other people use this forum in a different way from you and it is my business if I request someone to elaborate on their views. That you think it is a foolish thing to do might be relevant if your opinion on the matter meant anything to me. It doesn't. 

You do this a lot I’ve noticed. Every time you’re caught out (which is a lot) you just take the problem, add “no you’re…” to the beginning and ping it back. You were suppsed to grow out of that after the age of about seven you know.

You do this a lot I've noticed. Every time you’re caught out (which is a lot) you just assume you can get away with your assertions not being challenged. You can't.

Stop digging! In their heads it’s knowledge in just the same way that the existence of Jupiter is knowledge. They don’t see the “faith” bit as problematic here – just the opposite in fact.

They believe that they know God. It's still a belief. I think you should stop digging.

You don’t say Sherlock. And how do they view it?

Tell it to the RC folks!

Take the blinkers off and read the damned guidelines willya. So dfar as they're concerned, IT'S ALL KNOWLEDGE!!!!

Just out of interest, have you come across the Sally Anne doll test? It’s here if you’re interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjkTQtggLH4

It’s a test for whether or not the subject can put him or herself in the shoes of another person. You should try it.

You can ramble all you like about “testable evidence of facts”. I know it already. Perhaps you do too. The point though is that, if you seriously think that faith is an inerrant guide to truth, then you can dispense with all that and go straight to the assertion of fact – ie, “knowledge”. Which is exactly what the RCs do.

You haven't established that Truth in the context of an untestable supernatural is viewed in the same way in faith schools as truth about ideas that can be observed and tested. So far that's just your assertion. 

Asserting a fact or knowledge in a subject called the Catholic Faith in the context of the curriculum document for Catholic R.E. lessons, which repeatedly uses the word "faith" or "teachings of the Catholic Church" should give you a clue that they view faith about the supernatural as a different proposition from observing and testing and teaching facts about the natural world.

From their point of view – actually, let me put that in caps in case you miss it again – FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW – their faith claims are facts. Proper, real, indisputable, 24-carat, solid as a rock facts. Not only is arriving at them solely as articles of faith not an impediment to that in their minds, its actually better and more reliable as a route to factual truth than all that limited, prosaic, materialist facts and evidence stuff.

Will you please now stop telling me what would be necessary to establish facts. I know all that. I believe all that. I’m way ahead of you on all that. The point though is that those who want their faith “knowledge” to be taught in the same way as evidence-based knowledge don’t. They really, really don’t. For them faith does the job just fine thanks very much, so why on earth wouldn’t they teach the resurrection as just as much as fact as the Wars of the Roses are a fact?

Dear god – I think I need a lie down. Could you at least try to think before posting again?

Please?

See above in response to your assertions about their point of view. Some people can certainly decide that their beliefs are more important to their well-being than anything testable evidence has to offer, but to help your case you need to present some actual evidence of a specific situation where a belief about the supernatural is taught as a fact rather than a belief - if you have a link to a recordings from actual recent R.E. lessons in a sample of Catholic schools, it might help. Alternatively we can both keep asserting our respective interpretations of what we both consider to be the plain meaning of the words in the Catholic school R.E. curriculum doc and calling each other dishonest or stupid etc.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me (28975):

Dear god – I think I need a lie down. Could you at least try to think before posting again?

You (28988):

You seem to be being dishonest here. This point is a continuing discussion that we keep revisiting since the Swedish faith schools thread. In the discussion on this thread I said I had no problem with children being taught beliefs. You labelled beliefs as lies. That you want to label them as lies is up to you. My position was if the beliefs were taught as beliefs, rather than testable evidence-based facts, there was not an issue. If beliefs were represented as facts with claims of testable evidence to support them, then yes that's a lie, and would be problematic.

This is an assertion you have yet to provide evidence for.

Yes - knowledge about a faith position
Nope. Knowledge about a faith position can't be taught the same way as the knowledge about rainfall in Peru - for one thing, if challenged, the latter is supported by an explanation of equipment and methodology of repeatable tests on how any individual can measure the amount of rainfall in Peru. 

Yes more stupidity on your part. As I explained this forum is used for discussing and exploring other people's views. I wanted information on Alan's view point or belief about souls.

It is my business - well done for recognising that other people use this forum in a different way from you and it is my business if I request someone to elaborate on their views. That you think it is a foolish thing to do might be relevant if your opinion on the matter meant anything to me. It doesn't. 

You do this a lot I've noticed. Every time you’re caught out (which is a lot) you just assume you can get away with your assertions not being challenged. You can't.

They believe that they know God. It's still a belief. I think you should stop digging.

You haven't established that Truth in the context of an untestable supernatural is viewed in the same way in faith schools as truth about ideas that can be observed and tested. So far that's just your assertion. 

Asserting a fact or knowledge in a subject called the Catholic Faith in the context of the curriculum document for Catholic R.E. lessons, which repeatedly uses the word "faith" or "teachings of the Catholic Church" should give you a clue that they view faith about the supernatural as a different proposition from observing and testing and teaching facts about the natural world.

See above in response to your assertions about their point of view. Some people can certainly decide that their beliefs are more important to their well-being than anything testable evidence has to offer, but to help your case you need to present some actual evidence of a specific situation where a belief about the supernatural is taught as a fact rather than a belief - if you have a link to a recordings from actual recent R.E. lessons in a sample of Catholic schools, it might help. Alternatively we can both keep asserting our respective interpretations of what we both consider to be the plain meaning of the words in the Catholic school R.E. curriculum doc and calling each other dishonest or stupid etc.

So that’s a “no” then. You’ve abjectly failed to address any of the arguments that undid you, you’ve just repeated back to me the various mistakes you’ve made with a "no you" in front seven-year-old style, and you’ve utterly failed to put yourself in the position of the RC (and others) so as finally to grasp that all that matters here is what they think, not what you think or what I think.

You’re embarrassing yourself now and you have nothing to contribute until you show any sign of finally grasping the point at issue here and dealing with it. Maybe someone else could do a better job than me of explaining it to you, but relentlessly missing the point by telling me what establishing facts should entail is still entirely irrelevant.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Everyone who thinks him- or herself to be in possession of facts "believes' them to be true.

You do know that you just shot yourself in the foot there right?

Yet another assertion or opinion - at least you are consistent.

You need to show that believing you hold the truth or a fact about something related to the supernatural is not different from believing you hold the truth or a fact about something where it is possible to devise a method to demonstrate or establish your belief as true for someone else.

As a theist I experience the two beliefs differently and argue them differently.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Me (28975):

You (28988):

So that’s a “no” then. You’ve abjectly failed to address any of the arguments that undid you,

More assertions from you - at least you are consistent.

you’ve just repeated back to me the various mistakes you’ve made with a "no you" in front seven-year-old style,

You've just repeated your assertions in a six-year old style

and you’ve utterly failed to put yourself in the position of the RC (and others) so as finally to grasp that all that matters here is what they think, not what you think or what I think.

And you have utterly failed to do any more than repeat your assertions.

You’re embarrassing yourself now

I'm sure you can guess how I am going to respond to your repeated assertions  - yes, you are embarrassing yourself now just repeating yourself like a six-year old;

and you have nothing to contribute until you show any sign of finally grasping the point at issue here and dealing with it.

And yes you have nothing to contribute until you show any sign of finally grasping the point at issue here and dealing with it.

Maybe someone else could do a better job than me of explaining it to you, but relentlessly missing the point by telling me what establishing facts should entail is still entirely irrelevant.

Relentlessly presenting your assertions is also entirely irrelevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Yet another assertion or opinion - at least you are consistent.

Wrong again. Either you believe something to be a fact or you don’t. There’s no third option. What matters if you want other people to agree with you about your beliefs though are the justifications used to validate them.

You’re badly out of your depth here. 

You need to show that believing you hold the truth or a fact about something related to the supernatural is not different from believing you hold the truth or a fact about something where it is possible to devise a method to demonstrate or establish your belief as true for someone else.

No I don’t. I just need to show that belief/non-belief is a binary scenario. How you would validate a belief that something is a fact is a different matter. 

As a theist I experience the two beliefs differently and argue them differently.

No doubt, but irrelevant. You (presumably) believe both “prophet Mohammed” and “planet Jupiter” to be facts. They’re both beliefs though – which is all I said. Why you believe them, how you “experience” them, how you would justify these beliefs to other people etc on the other hand are different matters.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Fine: so 'God' is just a matter of opinion then.

In the absence of demonstrable testable evidence to establish the existence of any particular concept of God to everyone, yes the default is opinion or faith or belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

More assertions from you - at least you are consistent.
You've just repeated your assertions in a six-year old style
And you have utterly failed to do any more than repeat your assertions.
I'm sure you can guess how I am going to respond to your repeated assertions  - yes, you are embarrassing yourself now just repeating yourself like a six-year old;
And yes you have nothing to contribute until you show any sign of finally grasping the point at issue here and dealing with it.
Relentlessly presenting your assertions is also entirely irrelevant.

If ever you want to try thinking before posting I’ll be happy to respond.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Wrong again. Either you believe something to be a fact or you don’t. There’s no third option. What matters if you want other people to agree with you about your beliefs though are the justifications used to validate them.

You’re badly out of your depth here.

Another assertion. By the way the previous assertion I was referring to in that comment was your opinion about me shooting myself in the foot.

No I don’t. I just need to show that belief/non-belief is a binary scenario. How you would validate a belief that something is a fact is a different matter. 

No doubt, but irrelevant. You (presumably) believe both “prophet Mohammed” and “planet Jupiter” to be facts. They’re both beliefs though – which is all I said. Why you believe them, how you “experience” them, how you would justify these beliefs to other people etc on the other hand are different matters.

The method of validating the belief is the issue I drew attention to. It affects the way I think people use the word "fact" in relation to a supernatural phenomenon compared to a natural phenomenon.

Depends what you mean. Historians have explored the existence of Prophet Mohamed as a historical figure. If you mean do I view it as fact that Prophet Mohamed relayed a message from Allah, then no I view it as a belief, but that's my use of the words. If someone viewed it as a fact I would point out that they had no method to validate it so they might believe it is a fact but can't demonstrate it to a non-believer, unlike facts about the natural world that have objective evidence that can be observed and tested by anyone.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What I can tell you is that in some inner city areas CofE schools take a high number of Muslim pupils, and there have been CofE schools that have appointed Muslim heads.

That's interesting - I didn't know that.

I did find this example of a Jewish head of a CofE school with majority Muslim pupils. Apparently many schools, not just faith schools are finding it difficult to recruit head teachers.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/11/primary-school-headteacher-faith-gaps-melanie-michael

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

If ever you want to try thinking before posting I’ll be happy to respond.

Unless you are going to respond with something other than your usual empty assertions, why would you bother.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Does Vlad know you’ve taken over his Straw Man Monitor job? The conversation wasn’t about reciting the Q’uran creating suicide bombers at all. It was about what happens when idea from one perspective dominate and counter-arguments are excluded.

Always happy to pull you up on your ignorant caricatures - you just make yourself look ridiculous every time you attempt to insert them into your assertions.

Memorising the Quran or rocking back and forth while reciting it has no bearing on whether an idea from one perspective dominates, nor on whether counter-arguments are excluded. People can and do memorise and still allow counter-arguments - if you listen to many of the Tafsir or interpretations on YouTube for example or at a mosque, verses are recited from memory and alternative interpretations and underlying meanings or the views of differing schools of thought are mentioned.

Apart from those Muslims who have memorised and bothered to study the meanings, in many cases memorisation  of verses in Arabic by ordinary Muslims does not necessarily mean the person has also memorised the meaning in order to understand the idea being expressed. Muslims are well known for not bothering to study the meanings but just learning to recite the Arabic. Imams in UK mosques often urge Muslims to not just learn to recite the words in Arabic but to go and read the translation to try to understand interpretations and meanings.

[Alan Burns]

That presumes that Christianity has some kind of default relevance to those who are non-Christian, be they atheist or a theist of some other stripe.

I have had no religious involvement at all: I'm not even christened, which is unusual for a child born in Glasgow in 1952, so on what basis do I need to take Christianity seriously, or Islam or Judaism?

The salvation of your soul perhaps?

[SusanDoris]

The salvation of your soul perhaps?

That phrase is completely empty of any reality or any connection with reality - especially as used by you (and probably by SotS too!).

What is your little-man-at-the-controls/soul going to do for you today that your brain can't? And no, please don't bother to try and answer.

[torridon]

But there is no scientific definition of what comprises perception or how it works.  It is not just information transfer, it is perception of information.  You are just making presumptions based upon observed material behaviour and reactions.

More nonsense Alan, open your eyes, there is plenty of work going on in the science of perception, there are science journals dedicated solely to it, how can you be so blithely dismissive ?  It's an insult to people who specialise in that area of knowledge.  Of course our knowledge is not complete, that is true of all things, but gaps in our knowledge do not justify your bland broad dismissal as if we know nothing.  The assumptions we make that creatures that have sense organs and appear to be having sensory experience are in fact having sensory experience should be an absolute no-brainer.  What would be the point in having eyes if you could not see with them, and the senses of sight and hearing are fundamental primary components of conscious perception.  Without it, any creature would be debilitated.