Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[SusanDoris]

NS

How can 'murder' be 'true'? The act of murder takes place far too often, but murder itself is just a word for an act. murder itself cannot be true or false.

[SusanDoris]

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.

That seems to be rather confused, but no matter.

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.

And do you think all the religious teachers in those schools would casually go along with that? In my opinion, one or some of  them will do their best to indoctrinate.

[Nearly Sane]

NS

How can 'murder' be 'true'? The act of murder takes place far too often, but murder itself is just a word for an act. murder itself cannot be true or false.

Apologies missed out 'is wrong' after murder

[bluehillside Retd.]

Surely the point is that faith schools have the whole extra rationale of "murder is wrong because God says so". If God says so, then how could the teacher be wrong - after all, it's written in a holy book!

That's the issue I think. Having set up an inerrant god a priori, it's no longer the teacher teaching something; it's the teacher acting as a post office for God.     

[SusanDoris]

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.

Sad to say, I have been out of teaching for a long time, so I do not know how morals are discussed now, but surely there must be enough science and biology taught nowadays to ensure that a reasonably large number of children understand that moral behaviour derives from our evolutionary history?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

I think you need to ask the question in a different way.

So rather than ask whether kids of atheist parents in faith schools become religious (very, very few do regardless of the school they go to), you need to ask whether children brought up in a religious household are more or less likely to retain that faith if they go to a school that reinforces that faith (a faith school of the same faith) rather than a school that doesn't (largely a non faith school). Given that about 50% of children brought up by 2 religious parent remain religious as adults.

I don't know the answer to this, and I'm not sure anyone actually does but it is pretty clear that (certainly for the catholic schools, which are those I have most vision of) that there is a clear view that attendance at catholic schools is important to ensuring the promulgation of the faith generation to generation. Certainly their approach to RE is effectively to develop a new generation of catholics - the wording used is very clear that they expect pupils to have and to deepen their catholic faith.

[ProfessorDavey]

The teaching of something as true and as if it is true.

Thanks - I see them as different - you can argue that they aren't, fair enough. I disagree and have explained why. If they are the same why is there any need to add the additional as if it is. Reason, because it subtly shifts the meaning, i.e. they aren't the same.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks - I see them as different - you can argue that they aren't, fair enough. I disagree and have explained why. If they are the same why is there any need to add the additional as if it is. Reason, because it subtly shifts the meaning, i.e. they aren't the same.

I think if you say that distinctly then I agree. As covered in reply to SusanDoris, I introduced the phrase as it was true because it isn't objectively.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think if you say that distinctly then I agree. As covered in reply to SusanDoris, I introduced the phrase as it was true because it isn't objectively.

I think we are arguing around in circles and the discussion isn't really going anywhere. My key points are in earlier posts. Unless there is anything startlingly new then let's leave it there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think if you say that distinctly then I agree. As covered in reply to SusanDoris, I introduced the phrase as it was true because it isn't objectively.

Isn't the point though that the suffix "because God says so" does away with any possibility of doubt, of questioning, of challenge? There have been some here for example who, when challenged, have said something along the lines of, "who are you to doubt the word of God?" as if "the word of God" was axiomatic. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to me to think that teachers in faith schools would do the same thing, especially if they use the Bible as their text book. 

Now you might say something like, "but young children probably wouldn't question their teachers anyway" which is true, but "I say so" and "God says so" have very different force nonetheless I think.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Isn't the point though that the suffix "because God says so" does away with any possibility of doubt, of questioning, of challenge? There have been some here for example who, when challenged, have said something along the lines of, "who are you to doubt the word of God?" as if "the word of God" was axiomatic. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to me to think that teachers in faith schools would do the same thing, especially if they use the Bible as their text book. 

Now you might say something like, "but young children probably wouldn't question their teachers anyway" which is true, but "I say so" and "God says so" have very different force nonetheless I think.   

Surely the position was that teaching things as facts that aren't is wrong? Does it matter what the force of the argument is to the principle.

Anyway as posted to SusanDoris, I'm happy that she would oppose teaching moral statements as fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely the position was that teaching things as facts that aren't is wrong? Does it matter what the force of the argument is to the principle.

When teaching it as a (supposed) fact is enabled by first building the bridgehead of an inerrant God whose thoughts are in a book, yes. It's the enabling role of "God" I was getting at, not the general principle that teaching things you can't know to be facts as facts is unsupportable. If the teacher has drunk the Kool Aid of "God", then he thinks his teachings on moral oughts are facts.       

Anyway as posted to SusanDoris, I'm happy that she would oppose teaching moral statements as fact.

Fair enough.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

When teaching it as a (supposed) fact is enabled by first building the bridgehead of an inerrant God whose thoughts are in a book, yes. It's the enabling role of "God" I was getting at, not the general principle that teaching things you can't know to be facts as facts is unsupportable. If the teacher has drunk the Kool Aid of "God", then he thinks his teachings on moral oughts are facts.       

Fair enough.

  The teacher may or may not. Certainly I had teachers who were religious in a religious school who taught doubt and atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty

[SusanDoris]

  The teacher may or may not. Certainly I had teachers who were religious in a religious school who taught doubt and atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty

That is interesting - do you happen to remember any of the things the atheist taught as certainty?

[Nearly Sane]

That is interesting - do you happen to remember any of the things the atheist taught as certainty?

That morality was objective and note I used the plural, atheists

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The teacher may or may not. Certainly I had teachers who were religious in a religious school who taught doubt and atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty

Is that true? Did you have "atheist" teachers (how did you know they were atheists by the way - did the physics master say, "By the way class, just so you know..." or some such?) who said something like, "No matter what reason or evidence may ever emerge, I'm certainly right about this"? Seems pretty unlikely to me, especially in the sciences.

How about religious teachers? Did any of them say something like, "Look, this God stuff looks ok to me but, you know, I could well be wrong about it so treat this as a working hypothesis" or similar?     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Is that true? Did you have "atheist" teachers (how did you know they were atheists by the way - did the physics master say, "By the way class, just so you know..." or some such?) who said something like, "No matter what reason or evidence may ever emerge, I'm certainly right about this"? Seems pretty unlikely to me, especially in the sciences.

How about religious teachers? Did any of them say something like, "Look, this God stuff looks ok to me but, you know, I could well be wrong about it so treat this as a working hypothesis" or similar?     

I didn't say that I was taught by atheists at school, My schooling was religious. Tertiary education I knew that some of those teaching me were atheists because if wide ranging discussions on the subjects

As to the religious teachers, and many of those were priests they would explain why they believed things but would happily admit that it was a matter of belief and that they often doubted things. They wouldn't use the term hypothesis for their beliefs because they wouldn't see them as testable in that sense,

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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? 

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.)   

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

Oh so you're not done then. It can't be that grim for you - you're still here. You must be enjoying it, regardless of your histrionics.

Regarding advertising, I think there is brand awareness of the CofE - if that is what you mean by works then yes, their brand is visible. So is the Catholic brand and the Muslim brand and the atheist brand. The atheists advertising must be really working given the drop in religiosity. If you can't be specific in how you think the CofE's privilege is working for it compared to the other religions or atheism, the point you are trying to make seems pretty irrelevant. Who knows if this is true but Islam apparently may be the fastest growing religion in the UK, without access to free advertising, so it is quite possible that the CofE might find consumers without free advertising or it might need a change in its brand image.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Church-of-England-in-decline-Islam-fastest-growing-in-UK-Survey/articleshow/47508471.cms

We only talked about this because I was being realistic and said when enough people want to revoke the CofE privilege, it will then be revoked. And you seemed to say its access to free advertising meant people were too influenced by the CofE to revoke its privilege. If you won't substantiate this but appear to be content with merely stating it must be so because that's what makes sense to you - that's not much of an argument.

I think regardless of its free advertising the drop in religious levels will lead to the privilege being revoked. Not sure how else you propose to revoke an existing privilege without getting the public to support the revocation, which will happen over time as culture changes?

As for your version of what you think happened regarding the discussions around faith and value - you will have to provide a link to such an exchange to substantiate your claim. I have stated many times that faith or utility are not ways to establish truth - including on this thread. This might come as a surprise to you but you don't control or define the discussions that happen on a thread so once we agree that faith and utility can't establish truth the discussion moves on to why religion still has a place in society because it provides value. You are free to participate in that part of the discussion or not - I'm still going to keep making that same point regardless of your views on it.

Well done - you have finally tried to link your Trump analogy to Welby - you are finally learning how to present analogies. I see you did not attempt something similar with your Nazi and Welby analogy.

And no, I don't think Welby saying he struggles with the issue of whether or not gay sex is sinful - which is a religious stance on his interpretation of a possibly imaginary God's laws from an ancient book, as opposed to Man's laws - is the same as Trump saying Mexicans bring to the US drugs, crime and they're rapists. "And some, I assume, are good people." The issue of drugs, crime and rapists that Trump refers to are in relation to breaking Man-made laws and he is stating Mexicans are clearly harming other people. Hence other people have a reason to fear them. Do you see the difference?

Are you about to use your powers of logic to prove how Welby's statement is the same as Trump's statement?
 
By the way, I don't expect my children to choose their beliefs - I think if they believe in God or want to practise Islam there are all kinds of factors that led to that result and next year it could lead to a different result. One of them seemed quite interested in Buddhism and both of them seemed to be trying out atheism at various points.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say that I was taught by atheists at school, My schooling was religious. Tertiary education I knew that some of those teaching me were atheists because if wide ranging discussions on the subjects

But you said:

'... atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty'

What was the topic (or topics) in which they were teaching certainty?

[Nearly Sane]

But you said:

'... atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty'

What was the topic (or topics) in which they were teaching certainty?

Yes, and  as covered in the post I was referring to tertiary education where I didn't have a 'physics master'


And As already covered in reply to Susan Doris - amongst other things that morality was objective

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, and  as covered in the post I was referring to tertiary education where I didn't have a 'physics master'

Sorry may have missed this upthread - but do you mean these people were teaching you physics?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you need to ask the question in a different way.

So rather than ask whether kids of atheist parents in faith schools become religious (very, very few do regardless of the school they go to), you need to ask whether children brought up in a religious household are more or less likely to retain that faith if they go to a school that reinforces that faith (a faith school of the same faith) rather than a school that doesn't (largely a non faith school). Given that about 50% of children brought up by 2 religious parent remain religious as adults.

I don't know the answer to this, and I'm not sure anyone actually does but it is pretty clear that (certainly for the catholic schools, which are those I have most vision of) that there is a clear view that attendance at catholic schools is important to ensuring the promulgation of the faith generation to generation. Certainly their approach to RE is effectively to develop a new generation of catholics - the wording used is very clear that they expect pupils to have and to deepen their catholic faith.

Ok - if we agree that 50% of children brought up by 2 religious parents do not go onto become religious as adults, that indicates a decline in religiosity over the generations.

If parents want to bring their children up with certain traditions and send them to a school that supports those traditions - including religious or behavioural or moral traditions - it seems to be a matter for the family to decide, given such a large percentage of children seem to be breaking free of these traditions in adult life, but may well enjoy some security from them when younger.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry may have missed this upthread - but do you mean these people were teaching you physics?

No, the 'physics master' was raised by bhs, and lead me to explain that I wasn't talking about atheists at school.

[SusanDoris]

Ok - if we agree that 50% of children brought up by 2 religious parents do not go onto become religious as adults, that indicates a decline in religiosity over the generations.

If parents want to bring their children up with certain traditions and send them to a school that supports those traditions - including religious or behavioural or moral traditions - it seems to be a matter for the family to decide, given such a large percentage of children seem to be breaking free of these traditions in adult life, but may well enjoy some security from them when younger.

How can it add to a child's security if s/he finds out later that the idea htaught as truth, whether as an inerrant truth or not,  has no objective evidence to back it up.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How can it add to a child's security if s/he finds out later that the idea htaught as truth, whether as an inerrant truth or not,  has no objective evidence to back it up.

It's my understanding that a child feels security from being part of a family and its traditions and that comes from a sense of belonging and identity. I am not aware of any evidence of insecurity from a lack of objective evidence of god but happy to take a look at some stats if you have a link?