The H O Lords debate about religion, schools etc.

[ippy]

This lot's from Hansard have a read, interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/hvfxpgr

ippy

Moderator: long URL replaced.

Cheers thank you very much.

[Hope]

A very interesting passage of Hansard.  What might your point be, ippy?  That religion should be done away with?  That the recent practice of allowing the Church of England to make its own decisions and appointments independently of Parliament should be encouraged?  That the CoE's practice of partnering with those of other faiths and none should be encouraged?

I especially liked the comment from Lord Singh of Wimbledon:

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for securing this important debate. As a Sikh, I see religion—I include beliefs such as humanism—as commonsense guidance on how to meet the many challenges of trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life.

Unfortunately, not everyone sees religion in that way. A year ago in a debate in this Chamber, religion was blamed as being “out of step” with society. To me, that is a bit like someone complaining that his sat-nav was not following his directions. The argument for banishing religions to the margins of society would carry some weight if secular society was seen to be leading to a fairer and more contented and peaceful society. But all the evidence is that it is not. Every day in this House, we have Oral Questions on the lines of, “What are the Government doing about this or that concern?” The general response, couched in elegant terms, is, “We are doing a lot more than the previous lot when they were in power”. This is not a criticism of government. The truth is that Governments can, at best, only put legal boundaries around unacceptable behaviour; they cannot make us better people.

I also liked the bit about ACE schools from Lord Warner:

There is a network of 30 to 40 private ACE schools in the UK. The curriculum is a fundamentalist Christian one that originated in the United States. It is widely considered to be creationist, homophobic and misogynistic. The teaching materials used in these schools that were presented to us certainly supported this view. Much of the material is in a comic strip format with characters that could only be described as risible if they were not being used to brainwash and indoctrinate young minds. It was very scary that the so-called science teaching was leading to certification that was being used to progress children to further education.

I have had first hand experience of ACE - albeit nigh on 30 years ago.  Back then, the description given here would not have been in any way accurate, but I still gave it a wide berth because of its major divergence from educational theory and practice that I grew up with as both a pupil and teacher.

[Jack Knave]

The first quote in Hopes post is incorrect. The validity of a religion is based on its premise of its God, not if it is creating a fairer society etc. The sat-nav is back to front because of this.

[Shaker]

I especially liked the comment from Lord Singh of Wimbledon

As a Sikh, I see religion—I include beliefs such as humanism

Why? Humanism rejects root and branch the greater part of those things that many people regard as defining religion.

as commonsense guidance on how to meet the many challenges of trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life.

Most people, an increasing number of people come to that, see nothing 'commonsense' (one of those fifth-wheel words again - it's there, but it doesn't do any useful work) about adhering to beliefs which are drastically incompatible with everything we have learnt about the universe thus far (methodology supplied on request), least of all with regard to trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life. Most people work that one out by thinking about stuff - about what's important to them, about the way they act with regard to others and how their actions impact upon other people, upon animals, on the environment and the planet as a whole. You can do that within a religious worldview, but goodness only knows why - it adds nothing.

The argument for banishing religions to the margins of society would carry some weight if secular society was seen to be leading to a fairer and more contented and peaceful society. But all the evidence is that it is not.

Sounds like cherry-picking, or a religiously-inspired case of Nelson's eye. For all the sundry and diverse problems in society which I am the first one to admit freely, it takes a deliberate and dedicated negativist not to see that society is fairer, is more contented, is more peaceful. All poverty is relative, but in this country more people live more materially comfortable lives than ever before at any point in history. We take equality very seriously indeed; minority groups who in the past were at best marginalised and at worst actively and explicitly persecuted - women; gay people; the disabled; the elderly; ethnic/religious minorities and so forth - enjoy legal equality/protection. While there's a long way to go before we get to a truly egalitarian society with equality of opportunity for all, we have laws against racism and sexism and ageism in the street and in the workplace. Gay couples can get married. In some cases the progressive measures which have been brought in to ensure equality for some minorities and personal freedom - equal marriage as already referred to; easy access to contraception; availability of abortion - have been actively opposed by many religions and only exist in spite of them and not because of them ... something that Lord Singh seems to have forgotten, given the fact that he is where he is and occupies the position that he does only because of the sort of legal and social changes that I'm referring to. He's living on its capital, and yet appears not to see it. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

The truth is that Governments can, at best, only put legal boundaries around unacceptable behaviour; they cannot make us better people.

Religion's record on that one being luminous, no doubt he would have us believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? Humanism rejects root and branch the greater part of those things that many people regard as defining religion.
Most people, an increasing number of people come to that, see nothing 'commonsense' (one of those fifth-wheel words again - it's there, but it doesn't do any useful work) about adhering to beliefs which are drastically incompatible with everything we have learnt about the universe thus far (methodology supplied on request), least of all with regard to trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life. Most people work that one out by thinking about stuff - about what's important to them, about the way they act with regard to others and how their actions impact upon other people, upon animals, on the environment and the planet as a whole. You can do that within a religious worldview, but goodness only knows why - it adds nothing. Sounds like cherry-picking, or a religiously-inspired case of Nelson's eye. For all the sundry and diverse problems in society which I am the first one to admit freely, it takes a deliberate and dedicated negativist not to see that society is fairer, is more contented, is more peaceful. All poverty is relative, but in this country more people live more materially comfortable lives than ever before at any point in history. We take equality very seriously indeed; minority groups who in the past were at best marginalised and at worst actively and explicitly persecuted - women; gay people; the disabled; the elderly; ethnic/religious minorities and so forth - enjoy legal equality/protection. While there's a long way to go before we get to a truly egalitarian society with equality of opportunity for all, we have laws against racism and sexism and ageism in the street and in the workplace. Gay couples can get married. In some cases the progressive measures which have been brought in to ensure equality for some minorities and personal freedom - equal marriage as already referred to; easy access to contraception; availability of abortion - have been actively opposed by many religions and only exist in spite of them and not because of them ... something that Lord Singh seems to have forgotten, given the fact that he is where he is and occupies the position that he does only because of the sort of legal and social changes that I'm referring to. He's living on its capital, and yet appears not to see it. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.
Religion's record on that one being luminous, no doubt he would have us believe.

Anyone who thinks society is getting fairer is living in cloud cuckoo
land and is focussing on selected improvements.

The Secular humanist exhorts every group to reflect on what they do.........except themselves. That filling reservoir of self righteousness does not bode well.

[Shaker]

Anyone who thinks society is getting fairer is living in cloud cuckoo land and is focussing on selected improvements.

And of course you're not focusing on selected deteriorations at all in any way whatever, Vlad.

The Secular humanist exhorts every group to reflect on what they do.........except themselves. That filling reservoir of self righteousness does not bode well.

The humanists that I've heard speak and whose writings I've read reflect very deeply and seriously on what they do, the principles they hold and how/why they hold them, but for the full skinny on that, find a humanist and ask them. You must still know a few.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And of course you're not focusing on selected deteriorations at all in any way whatever, Vlad.
The humanists that I've heard speak and whose writings I've read reflect very deeply and seriously on what they do, the principles they hold and how/why they hold them, but for the full skinny on that, find a humanist and ask them. You must still know a few.

References?: Can you cite an equivalent of the great writings of religious people about their personal journeys of self realisation and reflection. Ones which don't spend a lot of time on how oppressed they had been by God or other people?

[Shaker]

References?: Can you cite an equivalent of the great writings of religious people about their personal journeys of self realisation and reflection. Ones which don't spend a lot of time on how oppressed they had been by God or other people?

Philosophers Without Gods edited by Louise Antony would be a good place to start.

[Rhiannon]

References?: Can you cite an equivalent of the great writings of religious people about their personal journeys of self realisation and reflection. Ones which don't spend a lot of time on how oppressed they had been by God or other people?

Well for many people their journeys will include unpleasant experiences with religion so discounting that would be dishonest. But there are many, many books out there written by humanists and atheists that fit your criteria that don't make a thing of secularism, humanism or atheism. The difference with religious writing is that it immediately shuts out those who don't believe, whereas a reader who does believe is free to add God into the mix in the writings of those that don't mention a relationship to deity.

[ippy]

A very interesting passage of Hansard.  What might your point be, ippy?  That religion should be done away with?  That the recent practice of allowing the Church of England to make its own decisions and appointments independently of Parliament should be encouraged?  That the CoE's practice of partnering with those of other faiths and none should be encouraged?

I especially liked the comment from Lord Singh of Wimbledon:
I also liked the bit about ACE schools from Lord Warner: I have had first hand experience of ACE - albeit nigh on 30 years ago.  Back then, the description given here would not have been in any way accurate, but I still gave it a wide berth because of its major divergence from educational theory and practice that I grew up with as both a pupil and teacher.

My point was make your own judgment without any of my input, it's an interesting debate.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Philosophers Without Gods edited by Louise Antony would be a good place to start.

Never heard of it....i'll put it on my ''read'' list.

[Shaker]

Good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well for many people their journeys will include unpleasant experiences with religion so discounting that would be dishonest. But there are many, many books out there written by humanists and atheists that fit your criteria that don't make a thing of secularism, humanism or atheism. The difference with religious writing is that it immediately shuts out those who don't believe, whereas a reader who does believe is free to add God into the mix in the writings of those that don't mention a relationship to deity.

I'm not discounting that...and since the majority on here are antireligious we already have a diet of the unpleasantness of religion.

But then we already have a diet of the ''pleasantness'' and unself critical reasonableness of secular humanism also.

Religious writing does not shut out those who don't believe as I have experienced. That is just plain nonsense.

The only recent memoirs I've scanned of secular humanists are from Dawkins who self congratulates on what a smart little prodigy he was and a recent interview of Laurence Krauss by Jim Alkalili in which Laurence er self congratulated on what a smart little prodigy he was.

I think there are many reasons why there is no great secular humanist journey of self discovery and that is because it is getting out of oneself, ignoring oneself and depending on one's identity in a larger movement.....in other words it's a hunt for the good old permanent ecstatic state.

Also of course there is no longer a self but society or zeitgeist.......except, getting back to Krauss and Dawkins when it comes to self congratulating one's academic brilliance.

In short good self exists but bad self............'e don't.

I guess the self examination of the mid 20th century existentialists was just bad PR.

[Sassy]

This lot's from Hansard have a read, interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/hvfxpgr

ippy

Moderator: long URL replaced.

Cheers thank you very much.

Not interesting just boring.... there is still 75 per cent with beliefs. So I am not sure what it is you want to say, Ippy?

[ippy]

Not interesting just boring.... there is still 75 per cent with beliefs. So I am not sure what it is you want to say, Ippy?

I'm sure I left this discussion open for anyone to have a read and make whatever they like of it?

What's the problem Sass?

You still haven't tried to supply evidence that this god of yours exists, naturally without that god proves the bible, the bible proves god nonsense.

To prove any of it, it would need you to supply verifiable evidence that this he, she or it thing you refer to as god    actually does exist before anything you quote from your bible would have any authority.

You must admit Sass its so very unlikely this god figure/idea of yours does in fact exist, other than in the minds of believers, believers that are unable to substantiate any of it?

I can appreciate how difficult it must be to supply a sensible answer to my requests to you asking for some form of credible evidence that would prove your belief to be anything more than man made magical, mystical superstitious belief.

See if you can prove anything without quoting the bible Sass, tall order I know but try your best.

ippy   

[Hope]

You still haven't tried to supply evidence that this god of yours exists, naturally without that god proves the bible, the bible proves god nonsense.

To prove any of it, it would need you to supply verifiable evidence that this he, she or it thing you refer to as god    actually does exist before anything you quote from your bible would have any authority.

ippy, the problem is that what scientifically provable evidence there is, is generally summarily dismissed by some here; but more importantly, the benchmark for testing most of the evidence is outside of the remit of science.  Quite understandably, those who believe that everything is answerable to naturalistic, scientific thinking will dismiss anything beyond that benchmark, but that doesn't mean that that benchmark is the ultimate one.

If you believe that it is, perhaps you can provide evidence to that effect.

You must admit Sass its so very unlikely this god figure/idea of yours does in fact exist, other than in the minds of believers, believers that are unable to substantiate any of it?

Actually, since my and others view of life is that a lot of it exceeds the limitations of the naturalistic scientific method, it is more unlikely that 'this god figure/idea of yours' doesn't in fact exist.

I can appreciate how difficult it must be to supply a sensible answer to my requests to you asking for some form of credible evidence that would prove your belief to be anything more than man made magical, mystical superstitious belief.

If anything, it is hard to understand how someone who has - apparently - lived as broad a life as any of the rest of us can't see that life is greater than the parameters of science.

See if you can prove anything without quoting the bible Sass, tall order I know but try your best.

ippy   

Can you prove anything without quoting science, ippy? I've replied because you aren't going to get a reply from Sass for another month or so.

[Shaker]

Have you got anything to offer other than a predictably feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof?

No, thought not.

[Stranger]

Quite understandably, those who believe that everything is answerable to naturalistic, scientific thinking will dismiss anything beyond that benchmark, but that doesn't mean that that benchmark is the ultimate one.

Hope, it is a blatant lie to keep claiming that people here are dismissing the notion of god on the basis of requiring some "naturalistic" or "scientific" evidence (in particular, ippy's post mentioned neither).

You have been told endless times that any sound reasoning or objective methodology, that can distinguish your claims about god from just guessing, will do.

Actually, since my and others view of life is that a lot of it exceeds the limitations of the naturalistic scientific method, it is more unlikely that 'this god figure/idea of yours' doesn't in fact exist.

This is a bizarre non sequitur. How the hell do you get from life exceeding the "limitations of the naturalistic scientific method" to your god being likely?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope, it is a blatant lie to keep claiming that people here are dismissing the notion of god on the basis of requiring some "naturalistic" or "scientific" evidence (in particular, ippy's post mentioned neither).

You have been told endless times that any sound reasoning or objective methodology, that can distinguish your claims about god from just guessing, will do.

This is a bizarre non sequitur. How the hell do you get from life exceeding the "limitations of the naturalistic scientific method" to your god being likely?

I'm afraid that once out of science we are into philosophy and your complaint of a lack of sound reasoning is rendered debate able.

One of the problems with an antitheist author recommended by Shaker to me is not only does he incorrectly pitch religion against science. He pitches religion against philosophy which left ne aghast.

Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?

[ippy]

ippy, the problem is that what scientifically provable evidence there is, is generally summarily dismissed by some here; but more importantly, the benchmark for testing most of the evidence is outside of the remit of science.  Quite understandably, those who believe that everything is answerable to naturalistic, scientific thinking will dismiss anything beyond that benchmark, but that doesn't mean that that benchmark is the ultimate one.

If you believe that it is, perhaps you can provide evidence to that effect.
Actually, since my and others view of life is that a lot of it exceeds the limitations of the naturalistic scientific method, it is more unlikely that 'this god figure/idea of yours' doesn't in fact exist.
If anything, it is hard to understand how someone who has - apparently - lived as broad a life as any of the rest of us can't see that life is greater than the parameters of science.
Can you prove anything without quoting science, ippy? I've replied because you aren't going to get a reply from Sass for another month or so.

You're truly amazing Hope, is this post of yours all you can come up with? You come up with something rational I'll join you, on the other side so to speak.

Can't see there'll be any changes here anytime soon; I see your health has been an issue just lately, I wish you well and hope you have many good days to look forward to.

Kind regards, ippy

[Stranger]

I'm afraid that once out of science we are into philosophy and your complaint of a lack of sound reasoning is rendered debate able.

Feel free to produce some...

I mean an actual sound argument, that can distinguish a claim for the existence of some (defined) god, from just guessing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Feel free to produce some...

I mean an actual sound argument, that can distinguish a claim for the existence of some (defined) god, from just guessing.

When you answer this which I put to you earlier:

Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?

[Stranger]

Vlad,

You claimed my complaint about lack of sound reasoning was debatable. I've invited you to provide some sound reasoning in order to demonstrate your point.

Can you do that or not (as if I need to ask)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You claimed my complaint about lack of sound reasoning was debatable. I've invited you to provide some sound reasoning in order to demonstrate your point.

Can you do that or not (as if I need to ask)?

When you answer this which I put to you earlier:

Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?

[Stranger]

You claimed my complaint about lack of sound reasoning was debatable. I've invited you to provide some sound reasoning in order to demonstrate your point.

Can you do that or not (as if I need to ask)?

When you answer this which I put to you earlier:

Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?

I'll take that as an (entirely predicable) 'no'.

I'm not going to get drawn into some tangent about philosophy, either you can back up your claim or you can't...