Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Do you have any actual evidence to support this, or mere assertion and anecdote.

I would accept that academically good schools (based on results, progress etc), including those rated highly by Ofsted tend to be more popular those those that are achieve less well on those measures.

However the 'faith school deficit' remains - compare a fantastic (in Ofsted and other results terms) faith school with a similarly fantastic non faith school and the non faith will get more applications. Likewise comparing middling schools or poor ones.

I mentioned the most popular faith school in my area - Loretto College - this is a catholic girls school with excellent results and rated Outstanding by Ofsted across the board - 490 applications for its 160 places, 3.06 applications per place

Best comparison is with St Albans Girls School (non faith) also with excellent results and rated Outstanding by Ofsted across the board - 958 applications for its 210 places, 4.56 applications per place

You can do any number of like for like comparisons and the non faith school alway wins by a country mile. So this in nothing about the relative academic/Ofsted merits of faith vs non faith schools in a particular area.

I don't have access to a database of applications and allocations so can't provide any stats about which schools are the most oversubscribed in different areas.

My atheists friends lived in Tunbridge Wells and were trying to get their children into a faith primary that was very popular.
https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/tunbridge-wells-most-oversubscribed-primary-606771

In my area the most popular primary schools based on largest number of applications are non-faith primary schools.

I don't oppose faith schools on principle - if it meets a need for sectors of the community and gets good results then I see a purpose in continuing with them. If non-faith schools are more popular then more non-faith schools need to open in that area or funding should be allocated to expand existing popular non=faith schools.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,.

Stop digging. Seriously, stop doing this to yourself. Businesses spend huge amounts on advertising for a reason – to defend or to increase market share. Mainstream faiths have massive (and free) “advertising” inasmuch as they have open access to media outlets, faith schools set aside for their beliefs (and mandatory acts of worship even in other schools), seats by right in the legislature, countless buildings up and down the country with big signs outside them, carvings of a man being crucified etc.

Your, “but people will make up their own minds” effort is otiose unless you can come up with some argument to explain why advertising does sell Volkswagens but doesn’t sell God. Not providing statistics for how many extra sales VW's advertising budget causes doesn't moreover take away from the demonstrable fact that it does work - hence the huge investment involved.     

You’re not the only one here who doesn’t understand how analogy works. The reference to nazis would have been about a specific issue, not suggesting that the Archbish was one. Take your regular resorting to, “but people derive value from their faith” when the conversation is actually about the epistemic value of the supposed facts some faiths assert. I might in reply (after several failed attempts to get you to see your problem) say something like, “that’s the “at least Hitler built the autobahn’s defence””. That wouldn’t for one moment be to suggest that you had anything in common with nazis though – it would just be using an analogy to explain the problem of addressing an argument you don’t like with an irrelevance.       

One “generalised principle” is that faith does not verifiably establish facts yes, necessarily so as there’s no methodology to test the claims of fact it makes. What you have done though is to fall back on anecdote frequently (“I”, “my daughter”, “my friends” etc) when various arguments about generalised phenomena (that advertising works for example) are put to you.

Look, I get that your faith is important to you. I really do. Just throwing irrelevancies, ad homs, anecdotes etc at the the undermining of the arguments you think support you does you no credit though. Why not instead just address openly and honestly the arguments themselves and see where that takes you?         

Got any stats or data to back up your claims?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Got any stats or data to back up your claims?

You haven't understood a word have you. Not a word.

First, arguments in logic don't rely on statistics.

Second, on claims of fact then yes I have. So have you if you could be bothered to look. Here for example:

http://www.autonews.com/article/20161209/RETAIL03/161209824/volkswagen-group-leads-automotive-spending-on-advertising

is a link that tells you that VW Group spend $6.6 billion on advertising in 2015.

Why do you suppose they did that if advertising had no effect? 

How much do you you think its advertising would cost if religions didn't get it for free in societies in which it enjoys privileges in schools, media, legislature etc?

Look, unless you're prepared to be honest here I think we're done. Lashing out and engaging are not the same thing. They're really not. 

[SusanDoris]

Steve, take note:

He doesn't exist so ignore him.

Oh dear, what a petty remark.

[SusanDoris]

I don't oppose faith schools on principle - if it meets a need for sectors of the community and gets good results then I see a purpose in continuing with them.

I oppose faith schools for many reasons but the most important one is that, if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true, they are being told falsehoods  since all teachers should know that whatever they present as fact needs objective evidence to support it. If there is not such objective evidence then that must be designated as a don’t know.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

SteveH and Robbie are the Statler and Waldorf of this mb ("Statler and Waldorf are a pair of Muppet characters known for their cantankerous opinions and shared penchant for heckling. The two elderly men first appeared in The Muppet Show in 1975, where they consistently jeered the entirety of the cast and their performances from their balcony seats".:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statler_and_Waldorf )

Nether seems interested in arguing for anything, but they cheer on anyone they see as a fellow traveller and snipe at those whose arguments they don't like. It all adds to the colour of the place I suppose. 

[Nearly Sane]

I oppose faith schools for many reasons but the most important one is that, if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true, they are being told falsehoods  since all teachers should know that whatever they present as fact needs objective evidence to support it. If there is not such objective evidence then that must be designated as a don’t know.

So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?

That's a category error: "God is" is a claim of objective fact about the universe; "murder is wrong" is a moral position.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That's a category error: "God is" is a claim of objective fact about the universe; "murder is wrong" is a moral position.

And if someone states it as a moral fact? You can't remove the intention of the person making a statement from what they say just to keep you happy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You haven't understood a word have you. Not a word.

You seem to like to tell yourself this when people disagree with your opinions and polemics - it seems to be your coping mechanism.

First, arguments in logic don't rely on statistics.

Second, on claims of fact then yes I have. So have you if you could be bothered to look. Here for example:

http://www.autonews.com/article/20161209/RETAIL03/161209824/volkswagen-group-leads-automotive-spending-on-advertising

is a link that tells you that VW Group spend $6.6 billion on advertising in 2015.

Why do you suppose they did that if advertising had no effect? 

How much do you you think its advertising would cost if religions didn't get it for free in societies in which it enjoys privileges in schools, media, legislature etc?

Look, unless you're prepared to be honest here I think we're done. Lashing out and engaging are not the same thing. They're really not.

If you know this then stop lashing out and start presenting an actual argument.

Your dishonest claims is not the same as you putting forward an argument in logic - so if that means you think you are done here, ok.

Unless of course you can be honest enough to provide a quote to substantiate your claim that I implied that faith or utility can be used establish truth or facts.

Your claim that people like me or Welby for that matter, who have a faith, provide intellectual cover for people who commit criminal acts isn't much of an argument let alone one based on logic. Especially if you can't identify how referring to something as a sin leads to someone else voluntarily committing an assault without this voluntary act leading to a break in the chain of causation.

And your attempt to try and use an analogy referring to the Nazis while presenting absolutely no specifics about the chain of causation in your analogy nor how your analogy therefore supports your intellectual cover claim about Welby doesn't help you make an argument. If you can't show the relevance of the analogies they are worthless, a joke - like I said they are entertaining but no more valid than my anecdotes.

Your VW analogy is similarly vague and irrelevant. So what if companies spend on advertising - that does not necessarily translate into increased sales. See Superbowl adverts and sales.
http://time.com/money/4206369/super-bowl-ads-affect-sales/

And asking questions like "Why do you suppose they did that if advertising had no effect?" isn't making an argument. You do these questions a lot by the way - it's just laziness on your part not an argument.

Regardless of privilege and any advertising benefit that brings, there are falling numbers in the CofE and if this continues I see no reason why eventually their privilege might not be revoked, as people appear to be less and less inclined to stick with tradition. Not seeing the problem with it taking time for cultures to change and for people to let go of their allegiances to tradition.

Oh and by all means, feel free to believe that people can choose their beliefs but not sure why you expect your belief to be taken seriously.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?

So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?

And

if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true

Spot the difference

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And if someone states it as a moral fact?

If someone did that they’d have to find a way to get from an ought to an is (as you well know). Religious faith is the typical approach (“because God says so”), but any other statement of certainty would be a faith position too.

You can't remove the intention of the person making a statement from what they say just to keep you happy.

?

[Nearly Sane]

So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?

And

if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true

Spot the difference

Why add in in a motivation which you cannot substantiate? And in terms of teaching something as if it is true, and something as true, how do children tell the difference?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

If someone did that they’d have to find a way to get from an ought to an is (as you well know). Religious faith is the typical approach (“because God says so”), but any other statement of certainty would be a faith position too.

?

And? If they can't it doesn't stop them teaching it as true.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Susan,

SteveH and Robbie are the Statler and Waldorf of this mb ("Statler and Waldorf are a pair of Muppet characters known for their cantankerous opinions and shared penchant for heckling. The two elderly men first appeared in The Muppet Show in 1975, where they consistently jeered the entirety of the cast and their performances from their balcony seats".:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statler_and_Waldorf )

Nether seems interested in arguing for anything, but they cheer on anyone they see as a fellow traveller and snipe at those whose arguments they don't like. It all adds to the colour of the place I suppose.

Except they have both presented arguments on various topics on this board. Why make it so easy to show yourself up as wrong? Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

Susan is often on here cheering people on that she sees as fellow travellers but not offering any arguments of her own. So being charitable, maybe you just got confused when you were replying to Susan. But I wouldn't categorise Susan as not being interested in arguing for anything - she does also present arguments of her own.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why add in in a motivation which you cannot substantiate? And in terms of teaching something as if it is true, and something as true, how do children tell the difference?

Personally I think there is a significant difference in that teaching something is true leaves no room for argument or debate. Teaching something as if it is true leave open that debate, and indeed is often a deliberate starting point for that debate along there lines of, 'lets for the sake of argument accept that murder is wrong as if it is true', where does that lead us. Are there exceptions? Is this justifiable or verifiable? How might we argue against such an assertion? etc

So I do see a difference - but hey, ho, perhaps that's because I teach ethics.

Actually your example of murder is a poor one - as murder, by definition, is defined as killing that is 'wrong'. So it is a kind of circular argument.

[Nearly Sane]

Personally I think there is a significant difference in that teaching something is true leaves no room for argument or debate. Teaching something as if it is true leave open that debate, and indeed is often a deliberate starting point for that debate along there lines of, 'lets for the sake of argument accept that murder is wrong as if it is true', where does that lead us. Are there exceptions? Is this justifiable or verifiable? How might we argue against such an assertion? etc

So I do see a difference - but hey, ho, perhaps that's because I teach ethics.

Actually your example of murder is a poor one - as murder, by definition, is defined as killing that is 'wrong'. So it is a kind of circular argument.

But what I am asking is where murder is taught as true, not where a statement is made where it is being taught as if it is true, And murder is only wrong in the sense you cover here by accepting the definition as you point out but you aren't covering the opportunity to discuss whether the definition is accepted.

[ProfessorDavey]

But what I am asking is where murder is taught as true, not where a statement is made where it is being taught as if it is true,

They seem to me to be distinct, one a statement of dogmatic correctness, not to be challenged. The other a well accepted teaching approach to allow issues to be probed and challenged etc.

And murder is only wrong in the sense you cover here by accepting the definition as you point out but you aren't covering the opportunity to discuss whether the definition is accepted.

Actually valid point here is the distinction between that which is legal or illegal and that which is morally right or wrong. But that is a somewhat different (albeit valid point, and again one I cover in my teaching of ethics. But the point is that murder, by definition, is unlawful killing.

A better approach would be to use a more neutral terms e.g. killing (still a bit directed and definitionally judgemental) or better still taking a human life.

[Nearly Sane]

They seem to me to be distinct, one a statement of dogmatic correctness, not to be challenged. The other a well accepted teaching approach to allow issues to be probed and challenged etc.
Actually valid point here is the distinction between that which is legal or illegal and that which is morally right or wrong. But that is a somewhat different (albeit valid point, and again one I cover in my teaching of ethics. But the point is that murder, by definition, is unlawful killing.

A better approach would be to use a more neutral terms e.g. killing (still a bit directed and definitionally judgemental) or better still taking a human life.

Yes they are distinct if they are made distinct - I asked about when they aren't

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I oppose faith schools for many reasons but the most important one is that, if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true, they are being told falsehoods  since all teachers should know that whatever they present as fact needs objective evidence to support it. If there is not such objective evidence then that must be designated as a don’t know.

Do you think children can't disregard "God exists" statements, especially if their family is atheist? I can't find any evidence that children at faith schools are increasing the number of practising adult CofE goers, given religious observance is in chronic decline.

I would not be against a faith school if it provides a particular ethos that meets the needs of members of the community and gets good results. I think any religious teaching can be safely ignored.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes they are distinct if they are made distinct - I asked about when they aren't

Please explain:

What are distinct?

[SusanDoris]

So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?

For a start, I hope that the rightness or wrongness of murder would not be a subject for teaching with very young children. If a specific instance came up in their community, then specialist counsellors would be needed.

And I do not know what sort of intelligence or training a teacher would have had if s/he told children that *murder is wrong as if it is true*. That phrase doesn't make sense to me anyway.  Murder as a subject would be discussed in history, or humanities, or RS, and one would hope that such a discussion would come to the conclusion that murder is generally wrong, but there  would be an area where uncertainty would lead to varying view points.

[Nearly Sane]

Please explain:

What are distinct?

The teaching of something as true and as if it is true. If I just teach children that x is wrong, I;m not opening up that distinction I am teaching it as objective fac. Note the example itself doesn't matter as it's teaching something as objective fact that is the issue

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

If you know this then stop lashing out and start presenting an actual argument.

Your dishonest claims is not the same as you putting forward an argument in logic - so if that means you think you are done here, ok.

Using argument and logic to show you where you go wrong isn’t “lashing out”. Failing to deal with any of it and using pejorative language, ad homs, personal anecdotes etc in response on the other hand probably is. 

Look, I’ll help you:

Advertising works, otherwise businesses wouldn’t spend big money on it. Do you agree or disagree?

Organised religions effectively have huge amounts of advertising for free because of the position they’re afforded in society. Do you agree or disagree?

There’s no argument (or at least none from you) to suggest that advertising sells VWs but doesn’t sell God. Do you agree or disagree? 

Unless of course you can be honest enough to provide a quote to substantiate your claim that I implied that faith or utility can be used establish truth or facts.

Congratulations – I think you’ve just invented the double straw man. What’s actually happened (as I suspect you well know) is that on various occasions when I’ve talked about the epistemic worthlessness of faith you’ve responded by telling me that people derive value from it, as if deriving value in some unexplained way was relevant to the point.     

Your claim that people like me or Welby for that matter, who have a faith, provide intellectual cover for people who commit criminal acts isn't much of an argument let alone one based on logic. Especially if you can't identify how referring to something as a sin leads to someone else voluntarily committing an assault without this voluntary act leading to a break in the chain of causation.

You can assert that all you like but it doesn’t change anything. As you won’t address the issue direct, let's return to an analogy (yes, one of those) and I’ll take you through that too.

Trump is far more ambivalent on race issue at best than his predecessor, and is often outright racist. Do you agree or disagree?

Since his inauguration, there has been a significant rise in neo-nazi activity in the US expressly emboldened by the tacit approval of an authority figure. Do you agree of disagree?

There’s no argument (or at least none from you) to suggest that the phenomenon in the US (where Trump talks about rapist Mexicans) should not apply here too (where Welby talks about the “problem’, “sin” of homosexuality. Do you agree or disagree?

Note by the way that at no time has Trump said, “burn a cross on your lawn” any more than Welby has said, “beat up a gay man”.

They don’t need to though do they.     

And your attempt to try and use an analogy referring to the Nazis while presenting absolutely no specifics about the chain of causation in your analogy nor how your analogy therefore supports your intellectual cover claim about Welby doesn't help you make an argument. If you can't show the relevance of the analogies they are worthless, a joke - like I said they are entertaining but no more valid than my anecdotes.

You’ve lost it entirely now. The “at least Hitler built the autobahns” line is just an analogy (that word again) to illustrate that posting an irrelevance (“faith is epistemically worthless”/”but people derive value from it” etc) is rhetorically hopeless.     

Your VW analogy is similarly vague and irrelevant. So what if companies spend on advertising - that does not necessarily translate into increased sales. See Superbowl adverts and sales.
http://time.com/money/4206369/super-bowl-ads-affect-sales/

And asking questions like "Why do you suppose they did that if advertising had no effect?" isn't making an argument. You do these questions a lot by the way - it's just laziness on your part not an argument.

This is getting grim. Really, VW wouldn’t spend $6 billion on advertising if it didn’t work. They might not know how many more cars exactly it sells (or how many lost sales it prevents), which bit of the $6 billion does the job most effectively, how they could change the ads to be even more effective etc) but what they do know is that it works.

What magic process in your head suggest that it doesn’t work though for the C of E? (Remember, you’re weaned off anecdote in place of argument now so, “but my local church only has three old dears in it on a Sunday so advertising can’t work” is now out of bounds.)   

Regardless of privilege and any advertising benefit that brings, there are falling numbers in the CofE and if this continues I see no reason why eventually their privilege might not be revoked, as people appear to be less and less inclined to stick with tradition. Not seeing the problem with it taking time for cultures to change and for people to let go of their allegiances to tradition.

And right on cue…

How much quicker do you think those numbers would fall if tomorrow the church became a private members’ club and had to pay for its own advertising? Increasing sales is one measure of the effectiveness of advertising, but so is slowing sales losses. You do know that right? 
 

Oh and by all means, feel free to believe that people can choose their beliefs but not sure why you expect your belief to be taken seriously.

Tell it to the children of religious parents. Yours might be a good place to start. 

[Nearly Sane]

For a start, I hope that the rightness or wrongness of murder would not be a subject for teaching with very young children. If a specific instance came up in their community, then specialist counsellors would be needed.

And I do not know what sort of intelligence or training a teacher would have had if s/he told children that *murder is wrong as if it is true*. That phrase doesn't make sense to me anyway.  Murder as a subject would be discussed in history, or humanities, or RS, and one would hope that such a discussion would come to the conclusion that murder is generally wrong, but there  would be an area where uncertainty would lead to varying view points.

The praise is used because as with god, murder isn't an objective fact. You can substitute true and have it as the same formulation as your post about god.  Not sure where we have got to very young children from since your post just covered children. And if you advocate the teaching above I'm happy with that but my experience is that morality at a basic level gets taught as if there are moral facts.