Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Hope]

If you are proposing there are 'supernatural' explanations then you are proposing an oxymoron.

Only because you don't accept that there is anything other than the natural.

Presumptive assertion - you are not in a position to describe in any detail how much, or little, change in re-telling is involved since you have no idea of what was circulating at the time, say, of the death of Jesus - your start point of the NT text is decades post-hoc: this argument, that you often advance, is a red-herring.

Actually, we do have a good idea of what was circulating - Paul refers to it in material dating only a decade or so after Jesus' death and resurrection.

All verifiable explanations of events (like claimed resurrections, as opposed to the moral climate of the time and place) are naturalistic: in that they involve cause and effect, probability etc, so any 'supernatural explanation', apart from being an oxymoron as things stand, are indistinguishable from fiction without a suitable method to do the distinguishing with - any luck with that yet?

As I pointed out above, you only see the world in physical terms.  I and others don't.

[Shaker]

Only because you don't accept that there is anything other than the natural.
As I pointed out above, you only see the world in physical terms.  I and others don't.

And yet when asked, as you have been many, many times by many different people, to provide any reason why anybody else should take this even remotely seriously, you blob it every time.

[Gordon]

Only because you don't accept that there is anything other than the natural.

That would be because there seems to be no method to substantiate that there are non-natural things in reality as opposed to imagination, so you need to demostrate your method of apprehending non-natural phenomena.

Actually, we do have a good idea of what was circulating - Paul refers to it in material dating only a decade or so after Jesus' death and resurrection.

A decade or so is a notable interval between the anecdotal claim being made and it being recorded - enough time for human fallibility to influence matters. Even so, this doesn't address the other problem here, which involves the risk that the source anecdotes may have involved mistakes or lies. If so, and even if any original mistakes or lies we're accurately re-told over intervening years they would still be mistakes and  lies - so how have you excluded these risks?

As I pointed out above, you only see the world in physical terms.  I and others don't

Up to you then to demonstrate something that is non-physical, and to save time I don't mean the abstractions (e.g. 'beauty') that are examples of how our biology works.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that that is a irrefutable fact, Gordon.  What they have argued is that given all the evidence on both sides of the debate

But Christians ignore most of the evidence and give undue weight to the evidence that supports their claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would be because there seems to be no method to substantiate that there are non-natural things in reality as opposed to imagination, so you need to demostrate your method of apprehending non-natural phenomena.

A decade or so is a notable interval between the anecdotal claim being made and it being recorded - enough time for human fallibility to influence matters.

And yet antitheists have no problem with it in any other historical context.
Utter humbug Gordy....and you know it.

[Gordon]

And yet antitheists have no problem with it in any other historical context.
Utter humbug Gordy....and you know it.

As they say, Vlad, evasion noted.

[jeremyp]

And there is a methodology that you have yourself outlined - that when all the various elements and evidences are taken into account (the 'physical' natural explanations, and the more spiritual, 'supernatural' ones)

You still need to tell us how you evaluate supernatural "evidence".

For instance the oft-repeated example of Chinese Whipsers which is only ever exemplified from within the context of a highly-literate society as we are today, as opposed to a largely oral society that would have existed in 1st Century Palestine.

But it has been demonstrated that, no matter what kind of society existed at the time, the early Christians did not preserve the gospel accounts accurately.

the problem with your 'naturalistic' arguments is that they are often made from within a context that assumes that modern thinking applies across time

What makes you think Bayes' Theorem was different in first century Palestine? What makes you think that the scientific method wouldn't have worked then if people had known about it and applied it?

So not only are you limiting one's arguments to a naturalistic one

We have to because, despite being asked hundreds of times, you have provided no means of evaluating the truth of supernatural arguments.

[jeremyp]

Actually, we do have a good idea of what was circulating - Paul refers to it in material dating only a decade or so after Jesus' death and resurrection.

False. Paul does not refer to any of the gospel texts we have now. Furthermore, Paul explicitly denies receiving his version of the gospel from the people that knew Jesus.

[Shaker]

You still need to tell us how you evaluate supernatural "evidence".

Indeed ... still being very much the operative word.

[Bubbles]

One benefit in allowing state funded faith schools, rather than totally private ones is it allows the state to have more say in what is taught.

A private school doesn't have to follow the national currriculum


https://www.gov.uk/types-of-school/private-schools

I think that's a backwards step if you are wanting all children to have a rounded education.

It's the private schools that are often the problem, not state funded ones.

Perhaps it's private faith schools you need to fund, as opposed to not fund.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30129645

[jeremyp]

One benefit in allowing state funded faith schools, rather than totally private ones is it allows the state to have more say in what is taught.

That's only a benefit if it means that the private schools don't exist.

[Bubbles]

That's only a benefit if it means that the private schools don't exist.

That was my point.

Rather than complain about state funded faith schools, perhaps the answer is only to allow state funded faith schools.

It's another way of coming at it 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still need to tell us how you evaluate supernatural "evidence".

But it has been demonstrated that, no matter what kind of society existed at the time, the early Christians did not preserve the gospel accounts accurately.
What makes you think Bayes' Theorem was different in first century Palestine? What makes you think that the scientific method wouldn't have worked then if people had known about it and applied it?
We have to because, despite being asked hundreds of times, you have provided no means of evaluating the truth of supernatural arguments.

The scientific method is only truly possible and enforcible where there is sufficient surveillance and instrumentation.........but that's what it's eventually down to in secular humanism......control, enforcement, surveillance, instrumentation, measurement, monitoring, standardisation, conformity, improvement of the species.....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

False. Paul does not refer to any of the gospel texts we have now. Furthermore, Paul explicitly denies receiving his version of the gospel from the people that knew Jesus.

So, he is independent of them but the same things are believed.

Looking less like a story spun in a room by a committee of evil.

[Gordon]

So, he is independent of them but the same things are believed.

Looking less like a story spun in a room by a committee of evil.

Or Paul is especially susceptible to propaganda, him not having first-hand knowledge - this NT stuff is looking more and more like a story spun in a room by a committee of evil.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or Paul is especially susceptible to propaganda, him not having first-hand knowledge - this NT stuff is looking more and more like a story spun in a room by a committee of evil.

That's all in your head.

[Hope]

False. Paul does not refer to any of the gospel texts we have now. Furthermore, Paul explicitly denies receiving his version of the gospel from the people that knew Jesus.

Sorry, jeremy, but if you read Paul's letters, he refers to the fact that he had originally been involved in persecuting the early Church and that his own conversion had occurred on one of these 'expeditions'.  He also talks about what had been taught by the apostles on their visits to various places.  He didn't have to have met the apostles - though I'd be very surprised if he didn't speak to them about the situation oin the occasions he met them (that wouldn't mean that he 'received his version of the gospel from them').

[Hope]

Or Paul is especially susceptible to propaganda, him not having first-hand knowledge - this NT stuff is looking more and more like a story spun in a room by a committee of evil.

I supose iut would be the latter, Gordon, if you assume that the actors in the drama are all highly literate and in a position to compare information with each other - two things that I suspect weren't the case in this situation.

[Gordon]

I supose iut would be the latter, Gordon, if you assume that the actors in the drama are all highly literate and in a position to compare information with each other - two things that I suspect weren't the case in this situation.

I'm not assuming anything.

I'm simply noting that humans are fallible, early Christians were presumably fallible too, and that there is a risk in any circumstances that those involved, either individually or in groups, in supporting a cause may make mistakes or lie.

I've yet to see this risk meaningfully addressed by Christians as regards the less than certain provenance of their holy book.     

[Hope]

I've yet to see this risk meaningfully addressed by Christians as regards the less than certain provenance of their holy book.   

Clearly, you haven't read any theological material.  The issue has been the subject of debate for centuries, and especially since the advent of Biblical criticism.

[Gordon]

Clealy, you haven't read any theological material.  The issue has been the subject of debate for centuries, and especially since the advent of Biblical criticism.

All theology is doing for you here is providing an argument from authority since the detail can't be known even where archaeology can narrow down some possibilities around the objects and writing styles etc.

However none of this can, for instance, confirm that the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him (putting translation issues on one side for now). For example, how could you exclude the risk that some of what Jesus is said to have said during the Sermon on the Mount anecdote was added for effect by no doubt well meaning supporters?

This is surely a risk is it not?

[jeremyp]

So, he is independent of them but the same things are believed.

But are they independent of him? The usual explanation for why Paul never talks about the gospels is that they hadn't been written yet.

Looking less like a story spun in a room by a committee of evil.

I don't think it is claimed by anybody that the Jesus story was spun by a committee of evil. There's so many straw men in your arguments, we'll have to start calling you Vlad the Baler.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, jeremy, but if you read Paul's letters, he refers to the fact that he had originally been involved in persecuting the early Church and that his own conversion had occurred on one of these 'expeditions'.

So?

He also talks about what had been taught by the apostles on their visits to various places.

No he doesn't. He says he met Peter (years after his conversion), but he never says he was taught anything by Peter. In fact, he claims that his gospel came to him by revelation directly from Jesus. There is precious little about the life of Jesus in Paul's letters and the source of what there is is never disclosed.

[Outrider]

Yes the article did have that Trumpesques tone that indeed most secular humanist appeals seem to have.

Translation: "I didn't like the conclusions she came to."

It seems to be taken as read that religious people are evil swivel eyed with invariably the worst intent.

No, it seems to notice that some religious people are intent on blowing each other up.

We are a post Christian society but are we yet a New atheist society? I think not.

And that's relevant because no-one was claiming it or advocating it... um...? What?

In terms of Nicky Morgan she is first and foremost a Conservative minister of Education which means that she uses the case for faith schools (established popular schools with a local connection) and extends it to justify whole chains of schools sponsored and run by big business which I would move have far less of a case to run schools( No expertise, shifting and inappropriate imposition of business models and no local connection). So it's a case of support Cameron get Morgan.

You can have an opinion on Faith schools that's independent of whom you vote for because you accept the need to compromise on certain issues. You can recognise the inherent divisiveness of segregating children on the basis of the faith-position of their parents.

O.

[Outrider]

OK, so we will stop all public funding of any form of 'faith'.

I think faith groups should be funded on the same criteria as any other charitable institution or formal gathering and association: as a rugby club we have a degree of social provision, and so have special tax statuses we can apply, or we can incorporate as a form of business if we prefer, and there are pros and cons to that. I fail to see why churches are any different.

Not sure how political parties would take this     Perhaps we ought to stop all funding of any group that teaches anything to do with 'belief systems'.

I think we should stop teaching churches as somehow 'special' because they teach belief systems, and stop holding them to different standards on no obvious basis. I'd not support a blanket ban on funding religious institutions any more than I'd advocate a blanket ban on any other form of organisation.

Each case needs to be judged on its own merits.

O.