Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Damn right – why would I want to dance to the house troll’s tune? If Vlad wants to deny it (ie, basically being a proponent of the WLC objective morality schtick – he rarely argues for anything, but he does align himself with people who do) then I’ll look for posts when he’s done that (which inevitably he’d then ignore anyway). If he doesn’t want to deny it though, then whether or not I’d be able to find such posts is neither here nor there.

The WLC objective morality schtick? If moral realism has a weak hand, moral irrealism doesn’t even have a hand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd imagine that in an actively religious household there would be some religious activity going on - be it church attendance, Sunday school for the kids or just discussions about religion around the kitchen table: i.e. something that was clearly pro-religious in nature. I've always taken the view that if religiously inclined parents encourage their children to become involved too, where they think this is in the best interests of their children, then that is a matter for them and really is none of my business.

It may well be the case that in households that have no religious affiliation there may well be discussions about religion, such as when any children involved encountered religion in school and their reactions to this or whether they should be involved in religious observances while at school, that may well involve parents/adults explaining their own absence of religious affiliation or critiquing what children report to them about what they are taught. To what extent you think this is promoting atheism surely depends on the nature of specific family conversations and the individuals involved - I'm not interested in stamp-collecting so I never made the effort to actively encourage my children to not collect stamps.

My own experience of family life with a complete absence of any religion affiliation was, and still is as regards younger family members, that in terms of daily life, religion is simply a non-issue (aside from my posting here).

What is your definition of an actively religious household?

Would you say you were brought up in an apatheistic household?

Do you think that if it is possible that religiosity is transmitted by upbringing so too might apatheim?

What best describes you now Gordon. Apatheist or fully paid up, card carrying, t shirt wearing ,roof top proclaiming Atheist?

[Gordon]

What is your definition of an actively religious household?

Would you say you were brought up in an apatheistic household?

A household in which there is an acknowledged religious affiliation amongst relevant members (babies, toddlers and younger children excluded), with participation and religious observance in line with the preferences of the individuals concerned.

I'm afraid it's too late for me to ask my older family members about their attitude to religion, but I suspect 'not bothered' would probably cover it since I can't recall ever having conversations with them about religion other than in relation to school (which I mentioned previously) 

Do you think that if it is possible that religiosity is transmitted by upbringing so to might apatheim?

I'd imagine most outlooks and/or philosophies could be a factor in upbringing, but of course 'apatheism' is really more an attitude and so isn't a corollary of religiosity.   

What best describes you now Gordon. Apatheist or fully paid up, card carrying, t shirt wearing ,roof top proclaiming Atheist?

Just 'atheist' will do, with an added twist of 'igtheist' perhaps (since I know you love labels), but I'm not apathetic (or apatheistic) as regards claims of 'Gods', since I think those claims made to date do need to be countered.

In everyday terms, aside from posting here and being on the alert for over-reaching theists trying to proselytise to the younger elements of my family, I'd say that religion is, for me, largely an irrelevance that I can for the most part ignore - on pretty much the same basis that I ignore almost all organised sport: I know it goes on, but I can mostly tune it out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A household in which there is an acknowledged religious affiliation amongst relevant members (babies, toddlers and younger children excluded), with participation and religious observance in line with the preferences of the individuals concerned.

I think the national census has deemed religious affiliation not to include belief.

I'm afraid it's too late for me to ask my older family members about their attitude to religion, but I suspect 'not bothered' would probably cover it since I can't recall ever having conversations with them about religion other than in relation to school (which I mentioned previously)

Again I think not bothered fits the majority. There was a religious uncle in our family who seemed to be under familial surveillance for any indoctrination of younger or more elderly members. He was a figure of fun too.

I'd imagine most outlooks and/or philosophies could be a factor in upbringing, but of course 'apatheism' is really more an attitude and so isn't a corollary of religiosity. 

Religiosity is also an attitude an outlook and philosophy to so we have to really look at that. On the other hand Apatheism can be a doctrine and where it is “not bothered” isn’t an equivalent.

Just 'atheist' will do, with an added twist of 'igtheist' perhaps (since I know you love labels), but I'm not apathetic (or apatheistic) as regards claims of 'Gods', since I think those claims made to date do need to be countered.

That is definitely not apatheist. Mind you people like yourself were when I was being brought up were rare. There were only a couple of boys in my class openly hostile to RE. One was actually excused by his atheist parents and since he was my friend Senior was the only atheist I knew.

I think what I am saying is that those in the not bothered not discussed category looked on declared atheists as Odd in the same way we viewed the religious as odd. And of course  the Odd are invariably treated with suspicion. I guess the question is, is do apatheists, four wheeled Christians, non dogmatic atheists, not bothered never talk about it, something thereists, see you and the other public atheists here as oddballs today?

In everyday terms, aside from posting here and being on the alert for over-reaching theists trying to proselytise to the younger elements of my family, I'd say that religion is, for me, largely an irrelevance that I can for the most part ignore - on pretty much the same basis that I ignore almost all organised sport: I know it goes on, but I can mostly tune it out.

Again I wonder if your zeal in what you describe as an apatheistic, not bothered family casts you in the same light as I remember my uncle being. A figure of fun given to indoctrination. Of course with the internet Gordon, we can both restrict our zeal for our positions to forums like this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

what makes you so sure that you are right?

First, it’s not “sure” as in epistemically certain.

Second, it not “me” – it’s logic.

What is it within you that can make this claim?

Biology.

Can it be just an inevitable reaction of physically defined cause and effect?

The “physically” is irrelevant and the “just” is misplaced, but as that’s what the only available cogent reasoning and evidence indicates, most likely yes.

Is there a specific neuron cell in your brain which deems you to be right?

No – that would be the antithesis of how emergent properties occur.

[Gordon]

I think the national census has deemed religious affiliation not to include belief.

I don't have it to hand to check, but it would seem odd to me to say you were affiliated to a religion but you didn't necessarily believe in the tenets of that religion: there could be some cultural familiarity I suppose, but if so that won't help the decline in Christianity: I've heard Christian clerics use the term 'unchurched' in describing the weakening of affiliation within families. 

Again I think not bothered fits the majority. There was a religious uncle in our family who seemed to be under familial surveillance for any indoctrination of younger or more elderly members. He was a figure of fun too.

I don't think of religious people as 'figures of fun' though, and none of the few I know are inclined to proselytise.
 

Religiosity is also an attitude an outlook and philosophy to so we have to really look at that. On the other hand Apatheism can be a doctrine and where it is “not bothered” isn’t an equivalent. That is definitely not apatheist.

I suspect 'apatheism' is actually quite close to 'not bothered', but isn't code for atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Mind you people like yourself were when I was being brought up were rare.

Possibly, since I suspect most children born in 1952 whose parents weren't affiliated to religions other that Christianity ended up being routinely christened as Christians.
   

There were only a couple of boys in my class openly hostile to RE. One was actually excused by his atheist parents and since he was my friend Senior was the only atheist I knew.

I wasn't hostile to RE: I was given the option to sit it out, which I took.

I think what I am saying is that those in the not bothered not discussed category looked on declared atheists as Odd in the same way we viewed the religious as odd. And of course  the Odd are invariably treated with suspicion. I guess the question is, is do apatheists, four wheeled Christians, non dogmatic atheists, not bothered never talk about it, something thereists, see you and the other public atheists here as oddballs today? Again I wonder if your zeal in what you describe as an apatheistic, not bothered family casts you in the same light as I remember my uncle being. A figure of fun given to indoctrination. Of course with the internet Gordon, we can both restrict our zeal for our positions to forums like this.

I think your imagination is getting the better of you, again: and I'm not apatheist, as I explained earlier, since I did take active steps to ensure that my children weren't exposed to proselytising at school (and I'd have to say that the schools concerned were themselves alert to this risk, and also that some parents may not wish their children to participate in religious observances, such as attending services in local churches, for which they sought consent).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have it to hand to check, but it would seem odd to me to say you were affiliated to a religion but you didn't necessarily believe in the tenets of that religion: there could be some cultural familiarity I suppose, but if so that won't help the decline in Christianity: I've heard Christian clerics use the term 'unchurched' in describing the weakening of affiliation within families. 

I don't think of religious people as 'figures of fun' though, and none of the few I know are inclined to proselytise.
 
I suspect 'apatheism' is actually quite close to 'not bothered', but isn't code for atheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Possibly, since I suspect most children born in 1952 whose parents weren't affiliated to religions other that Christianity ended up being routinely christened as Christians.
   
I wasn't hostile to RE: I was given the option to sit it out, which I took.

I think your imagination is getting the better of you, again: and I'm not apatheist, as I explained earlier, since I did take active steps to ensure that my children weren't exposed to proselytising at school (and I'd have to say that the schools concerned were themselves alert to this risk, and also that some parents may not wish their children to participate in religious observances, such as attending services in local churches, for which they sought consent).

No , I know you are not an apatheist. But I do suspect that if you were to demonstrate and profess what you do as an active atheist, you might be tempted to think that those apatheists and vague believers in something are impressed by its virtue rather than scratching there heads and thinking of you as an odd fellow. I suffer from no illusions that if I confess Christianity to people they are likely to think of me as odd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have it to hand to check, but it would seem odd to me to say you were affiliated to a religion but you didn't necessarily believe in the tenets of that religion.

The Humanists and The Dawkinists challenged the sentence on the wording of the religious affiliation question. The Humanists failed...The Humanists Failed...The Humanists FAILED in there demands since their reworking demanded response by virtue of belief rather than affiliation. Of course, there are as many beliefs as people, Not so with societal affiliation.

[Gordon]

No , I know you are not an apatheist. But I do suspect that if you were to demonstrate and profess what you do as an active atheist, you might be tempted to think that those apatheists and vague believers in something are impressed by its virtue rather than scratching there heads and thinking of you as an odd fellow. I suffer from no illusions that if I confess Christianity to people they are likely to think of me as odd.

Vlad

We're all a bit odd: no exceptions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

We're all a bit odd: no exceptions.

So you concede active atheism is odd.

[ippy]

Prior to becoming a christian with the exception of a few weeks leading up to it, I didn't take religion seriously. When I began to find out more about it and acquired understanding of it I realised I needed to. Before this I not only did not take religion seriously but thought the religious were odd people with mental illness. After, I realised that there had never been any foundation for that thinking. The assumption had been put there by acquiring it from my environment. In other words I had been conditioned by the society I was in not to take religion seriously. A condition I think you and others remain in although I have not heard your account of how you came to your position.

Catching up on a few posts this morning I noticed you've asked me about how I came to my decision about how I relate to religions, Vlad, well I was sent to Sunday school and found that if I spoke when the teacher was speaking they sent me out of the class so I made a point of speaking every week, spot on it worked every time.

I can't remember any time in my life where religion had any relevance for me and although it wasn't like a knife blade coming down but when I was somewhere around twelve years old I can remember seeing my sister singing in the church choir with one of those four cornered flat hats on her bonce, it was then I thought this stuff is a load of old bollocks and I didn't take it seriously for a long time until my wife and I found we wouldn't be having our own natural children that we both really wanted. this didn't exactly warm us toward religious people in general or their beliefs.

If you were not a believer just over forty years ago we learnt a very hard lesson, no religion, no gettie children, this didn't exactly warm us toward religious people in general or their beliefs, so then after that we found out more about secularism and how it does it's best to remove the so many unwarranted privileges the various religions have.

I am a Secular Humanist and I will admit whilst sharing the humanist ideals I do enjoy the secularist lets go and get them attitude.

Having said that now I suppose I've always thought how do these people manage to take these primitive scribblings so seriously when they don't even have some sort of evidenced made back up especially in the mythical, magical and superstition based elements of these beliefs and the most annoying part of the religious lot is they insist on passing this nonsense on to the next generation as though they were evidence based beliefs, we think this is  unforgivable. 

[Gordon]

So you concede active atheism is odd.

No. I simply noted that you thinking that some might think you odd wouldn't be unique to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

Then I would suggest you are strongly deluded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am a Secular Humanist and I will admit whilst sharing the humanist ideals I do enjoy the secularist lets go and get them attitude.

So Ippy, having said that, Why do you think it wrong to describe your actions as “axe grinding”?

[ippy]

So Ippy, having said that, Why do you think it wrong to describe your actions as “axe grinding”?

Not so much axe grinding Vlad, More putting things in place, levelling the playing field, if you like.

[Alan Burns]

Well, claiming absolute certainty is something you do more than most. The difference mainly being that you are unable to ptovide any supporting evidence or logic.

My claim to be right is a result of my freedom to consciously contemplate the factors involved and drive my thought processes to reach a verifiable conclusion.  I concede that my conclusion may well be wrong, but the responsibility for claiming the conclusion lies entirely with the conscious entity which is "me".

However your claim to be right will (using your deterministic logic) just be an inevitable consequence of chains of cause and effect events, each of which will have been entirely defined by previous events beyond your conscious control.  Please explain how the concept of reaching a consciously perceived correct conclusion can occur within such a scenario.  And how can your conscious self claim any personal responsibility for achieving a conclusion which is a result of chains of physically predefined uncontrollable reactions within a material brain?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not so much axe grinding Vlad, More putting things in place, levelling the playing field, if you like.

And this is where the oddness comes in.......all the problems of the world, most of them down to inertia and you guys have alighted on something like the church. Bypassing capitalism, communism, politics, consumerism etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

The WLC objective morality schtick? If moral realism has a weak hand, moral irrealism doesn’t even have a hand.

Still no argument to support your notion of objective morality then? Of course not.

Anyway, as you’re so dismissive or what you call “moral irrealism” that must mean you’re a moral “realist” then – ie, you think there are moral facts and values that exist “out there”, independent of our intuitions and opinions on the matter. And moreover you think this to be evidence for “God” (by which you mean the Christian one) too right? It’s ok, you can say it - we know anyway that’s what you think. Thanks for confirming though, albeit unwittingly.   

[Stranger]

My claim to be right is a result of my freedom to consciously contemplate the factors involved and drive my thought processes to reach a verifiable conclusion.

But it isn't verifiable at all - at least you have provided not one hint of an iota of either reasoning or evidence with which to do so. Your conclusion seems to be based on nothing but incredulity, blind faith, and an assortment of other bad reasoning (aka fallacies).

I concede that my conclusion may well be wrong...

Why then do you so often asserted the opposite? You keep on telling us that we are more than can possibly be explained by the material world and that nothing would convince you that your god was not real.

However your claim to be right will (using your deterministic logic) just be an inevitable consequence of chains of cause and effect events, each of which will have been entirely defined by previous events beyond your conscious control.

But it's those events that actually produce "conscious control" (to the extent it means anything at all). Do some honest introspection. You do not consciously choose the next thought that enters your conscious mind (that would be an infinite regress), you cannot choose to think of something that just doesn't occur to you at the time. You cannot choose to think like somebody else. You cannot be "free" from being you and having your mind. The only actual difference is that I'm saying that you and me are the way we are because of reasons (nature, nurture, and experience) and you are appealing to self-contradictory magic and a totally incoherent idea of "freedom".

Please explain how the concept of reaching a consciously perceived correct conclusion can occur within such a scenario.

Why should it not? In what way would being able to have done differently, without randomness (which is inherently self-contradictory anyway) help with reaching a "consciously perceived correct conclusion"? You keep on trying to conflate human cognitive abilities with your nonsensical conception of "freedom", yet you have provided no hint as to how the two are logically connected.

Look, nobody is suggesting that we cannot consciously contemplate the world and draw conclusions, think and reason about things, and do all the other things humans obviously do. You have made no connection between that and what you insist is "freedom", yet when asked to defend your version of "freedom" you just switch to pointing out that we can do the things that nobody disputes we can do.

You need to connect the one to the other (with more than personal incredulity) and stop pretending they are the same thing.

[torridon]

However your claim to be right will (using your deterministic logic) just be an inevitable consequence of chains of cause and effect events, each of which will have been entirely defined by previous events beyond your conscious control.  Please explain how the concept of reaching a consciously perceived correct conclusion can occur within such a scenario.  And how can your conscious self claim any personal responsibility for achieving a conclusion which is a result of chains of physically predefined uncontrollable reactions within a material brain?

A deterministic mind might reach a correct conclusion, or it might reach an incorrect conclusion.  The fact that it operates deterministically has no bearing on the matter. The fact that consciousness is part of a mind's modus operandi again is not an issue, we have no control over how consciousness is synthesised, remember ? Just to remind yourself, go look at the sky and choose to experience it as purple, not blue.  You can't can you, evidence that brain function and consciousness are indeed fundamentally deterministic.  A brain that functioned indeterministically would not be viable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,
 

Still no argument to support your notion of objective morality then? Of course not.

Anyway, as you’re so dismissive or what you call “moral irrealism” that must mean you’re a moral “realist” then – ie, you think there are moral facts and values that exist “out there”, independent of our intuitions and opinions on the matter. And moreover you think this to be evidence for “God” (by which you mean the Christian one) too right? It’s ok, you can say it - we know anyway that’s what you think. Thanks for confirming though, albeit unwittingly.   

sometimes I find it easy to suppose we are arguing about morality and then I’m reminded you have no way of moral adjudication. What you are talking about when talking of morality.......isn’t. It’s always something else.

The question of morality remains unsettled and certainly not settled in your favour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

sometimes I find it easy to suppose we are arguing about morality and then I’m reminded you have no way of moral adjudication. What you are talking about when talking of morality.......isn’t. It’s always something else.

Yes I know the argumentum ad consequentiam is one of your preferred fallacies (albeit from a crowded field of fallacies), but what you were actually asked was whether your out of hand dismissal of moral “irrealism” means you’re a moral “realist”, there being no third option (other than, "I have no opinion either way" that is).

The question of morality remains unsettled and certainly not settled in your favour.

Did that mean something in your head when you typed it?

[Gordon]

And this is where the oddness comes in.......all the problems of the world, most of them down to inertia and you guys have alighted on something like the church. Bypassing capitalism, communism, politics, consumerism etc.

What makes you think that those of us who have concerns about the influence of religion don't have views about the other issues you mention?

[Alan Burns]

A deterministic mind might reach a correct conclusion, or it might reach an incorrect conclusion.  The fact that it operates deterministically has no bearing on the matter.

I am not arguing against our conscious mind being deterministic.

The question I am concerned with is what determines a conscious conclusion.
If it is determined by nothing but an endless string of uncontrollable reactions to past events, how can the conclusion be verified to be a correct one by your conscious awareness?  How can your conscious awareness guide these past events in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not arguing against our conscious mind being deterministic.

You’re not “arguing” anything – you’re just asserting it.

The question I am concerned with is what determines a conscious conclusion.

You’re implying a need for an independent “something” to do the determining when the emergent property model of consciousness requires no such thing.

If it is determined by nothing but an endless string of uncontrollable reactions to past events, how can the conclusion be verified to be a correct one by your conscious awareness?

Easily – it’s verified by the application of reason to observable phenomena. 

How can your conscious awareness guide these past events in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion?

“Past events” don’t need to be “guided” – that’s just you begging the question (yet another fallacy).

Oh, and even if the answers to all these question was “don’t know”, that would take you not one step forward in making an argument for your explanatory narrative. Try to remember that.