Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Now I am really confused - was this person actually teaching you, and in their teaching were suggesting certain things they were teaching were 'certain' - in which case what were they teaching?

Or is it that in interactions outside of the teaching environment they expressed certainty in personal communication.

BTW I have no issue with teachers teaching things as certainly based on evidence that is beyond doubt, or even self defined - so for example lots of maths and plenty of physics and chemistry or certain elements of musical theory etc. That seems fine to me. Teaching morality or more subjective topics as certain seems wrong to me.

[Nearly Sane]

Now I am really confused - was this person actually teaching you, and in their teaching were suggesting certain things they were teaching were 'certain' - in which case what were they teaching?

Or is it that in interactions outside of the teaching environment they expressed certainty in personal communication.

BTW I have no issue with teachers teaching things as certainly based on evidence that is beyond doubt, or even self defined - so for example lots of maths and plenty of physics and chemistry or certain elements of musical theory etc. That seems fine to me. Teaching morality or more subjective topics as certain seems wrong to me.

They were teaching. At tertiary education level. Not at school. And they were stating morality was objective.

[ProfessorDavey]

They were teaching. At tertiary education level. Not at school. And they were stating morality was objective.

I know they were teaching at tertiary level - you've already told us this. What you haven't told us is what they were teaching.

And were they stating that morality was objective to students in the context of what they were teaching (in other words as part of the delivery of the curriculum), or was this outside of their teaching role, for example in a private conversation with students.

These really aren't hard questions - it seems bizarrely difficulty to get a straight answer out of you though.

[Nearly Sane]

I know they were teaching at tertiary level - you've already told us this. What you haven't told us is what they were teaching.

And were they stating that morality was objective to students in the context of what they were teaching (in other words as part of the delivery of the curriculum), or was this outside of their teaching role, for example in a private conversation with students.

These really aren't hard questions - it seems bizarrely difficulty to get a straight answer out of you though.

I thought the statement that they were teaching made it clear it wasn't in conversation. Amongst the subjects that it was stated that morality was objective were Criminal Law, Delict, and Constitutional Law. I've answered every question you have asked completely straight throughout this thread.
 

[SusanDoris]

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.

Of course a child feels more secure when brought up in a  caring family environment along with its traditions, but if that child – as children do – trusts that what those adults are teaching him is true and then finds out later that information they have vbeen given as factual turns out to have no objective evidence because  it needed 100% faithwhen they look for it, that  trustt will crumble into dust.
If, on the other hand the adults around a child always say this is what we believe to be true then there would, later on, be understanding.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Of course a child feels more secure when brought up in a  caring family environment along with its traditions, but if that child – as children do – trusts that what those adults are teaching him is true and then finds out later that information they have vbeen given as factual turns out to have no objective evidence because  it needed 100% faithwhen they look for it, that  trustt will crumble into dust.
If, on the other hand the adults around a child always say this is what we believe to be true then there would, later on, be understanding.

I can’t imagine it’s any harder for them than figuring out Father Christmas isn’t real and they presumably will figure it out quite early on about the lack of objective evidence when they encounter other beliefs and faiths. Do you have any evidence on this because I have never encountered anyone who felt their trust crumbled into dust?

[ProfessorDavey]

I thought the statement that they were teaching made it clear it wasn't in conversation. Amongst the subjects that it was stated that morality was objective were Criminal Law, Delict, and Constitutional Law. I've answered every question you have asked completely straight throughout this thread.

Sorry but this is (unless I missed it upthread) the first time you ever indicated that he was teaching law. As part of a specific law course, or embedded in another topic?

Nonetheless seems rather inappropriate to indicate that morality is objective. Maybe he meant that the law act as if morality is objective - in other words doesn't argue with the reasoning behind why a law is framed as it is (and the morality underlying the label basis), merely looks to apply it in practice.

[SusanDoris]

I can’t imagine it’s any harder for them than figuring out Father Christmas isn’t real and they presumably will figure it out quite early on about the lack of objective evidence when they encounter other beliefs and faiths. Do you have any evidence on this because I have never encountered anyone who felt their trust crumbled into dust?

Surely you cannot trhy to equate Father Christmas with god? Remember, there are zero adults who believe in father Christmas. There are billions who continue the 100% faith belief into adulthood.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Surely you cannot trhy to equate Father Christmas with god? Remember, there are zero adults who believe in father Christmas. There are billions who continue the 100% faith belief into adulthood.

I guess I am the wrong person to ask then. It doesn't seem a big deal to me but I tell my kids it's a belief and I don't remember being disillusioned when I was a kid and realised God wasn't real so I'm not sure what my parents told me. And then I went back to being a theist after about 10 or 12 years of atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I can’t imagine it’s any harder for them than figuring out Father Christmas isn’t real...

Say what now?
 

...and they presumably will figure it out quite early on about the lack of objective evidence when they encounter other beliefs and faiths. Do you have any evidence on this because I have never encountered anyone who felt their trust crumbled into dust?

Doesn't work. For it to work you'd need a Mum (ie, you) who did believe in Father Christmas (and apparently "derived value" from that belief), separate Father Christmas schools and daily acts of worship to Father Christmas in the rest, unfettered access to the media (perhaps a Father Christmas slot on radio 4 every morning), officials of the Father Christmas faith in the House of Lords, buildings of every other street corner dedicated to praising the big guy, perhaps with carvings of his sleigh delivering presents outside, maybe too devout Father Christmas-arian both as PM and as the head of state, Father Christmas-ism as the official state faith etc.

Once you had this behemoth of nonsense hiding in plain sight, then perhaps you could tell us about the lack of any evidence causing faith to crumble into dust.       

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside #309

Well said! I must remember the way you have put the uselessness of the Father Christmas comparison so that I can use it the next time the subject comes up elsewhere.

[ProfessorDavey]

bluehillside #309

Well said! I must remember the way you have put the uselessness of the Father Christmas comparison so that I can use it the next time the subject comes up elsewhere.

I must admit I don't really get the point that Gabriella is trying to make.

Is she implying that because kids believe in Father Christmas but don't as adults, but that some kids believe in god and some retain that belief as adults that somehow god is more real?

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry but this is (unless I missed it upthread) the first time you ever indicated that he was teaching law. As part of a specific law course, or embedded in another topic?

Nonetheless seems rather inappropriate to indicate that morality is object. Maybe he meant that the law act as if morality is objective - in other words doesn't argue with the reasoning behind why a law is framed as it is (and the morality underlying the label basis), merely looks to apply it in practice.

And I answered as it was the first time you had asked about the subject. I don't understand your question in the second sentence since I've already told you three different specific law course.

I find it bizarre that you have an interpretation of something that you weren't at that you appear to have made up to align with your own beliefs. It's a fabulous example of Dunning-Kruger in action

[ProfessorDavey]

And I answered as it was the first time you had asked about the subject.

I actually asked 4 times what subject they were teaching you before I got an answer:

Reply 293 'What was the topic (or topics) in which they were teaching certainty?'

Reply 295 'Sorry may have missed this upthread - but do you mean these people were teaching you physics?'

Reply 300 '... in which case what were they teaching?'

Reply 302 'What you haven't told us is what they were teaching.'

Only in your response to my 4th attempt to get you to answer did you actually answer my question, despite actually replying (but failing to answer the question about the topic they were teaching) to the other 3 posts.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I must admit I don't really get the point that Gabriella is trying to make.

Is she implying that because kids believe in Father Christmas but don't as adults, but that some kids believe in god and some retain that belief as adults that somehow god is more real?

No. She is saying that she doesn't know what the big deal is about trust crumbling to dust once you realise that something you believed or was taught as fact is not supported by evidence - whether that something is Father Christmas or God.

You seem to be having real trouble reading posts at the moment (other than the ones cheering you on from your fan club). Your brain seems to read the words and then interpret them to mean something completely different from what was written, based on your preconceptions. You should correct that - must be a real handicap in academia.

I am not seeing the  trauma of what Susan is describing - unless Susan has some evidence to the contrary. Susan seemed to think it would make people feel insecure if they were taught God was fact and then realised there was no evidence to support God.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't understand your question in the second sentence since I've already told you three different specific law course.

No you have told me 3 different law topics. They might have been part of a law course, or several law courses. Alternatively they could have been topics that are covered, briefly perhaps, in the context of a different subject. So for example I teach masters level course focussed on medical ethics, but in doing so I need to cover certain aspects of the law as they pertain to medical ethics. I cover law topics, but my students aren't taking a law course, let alone a law degree.

The point being the approach to how those topics are covered and taught may be completely different depending on context, i.e. as part of a law course and law qualification or as secondarily important material as part of a course and qualification that isn't law.

That's the reason for asking and I trusty you realise now that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for clarification on, and indeed thanks for clarifying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And I answered as it was the first time you had asked about the subject. I don't understand your question in the second sentence since I've already told you three different specific law course.

I find it bizarre that you have an interpretation of something that you weren't at that you appear to have made up to align with your own beliefs. It's a fabulous example of Dunning-Kruger in action

No it isn't - that's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect entails.

So the story now is that you had "teachers" (lecturers perhaps?) in law who were also atheists and who told you that moral values were objectively true.

Is that it? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

No. She is saying that she doesn't know what the big deal is about trust crumbling to dust once you realise that something you believed or was taught as fact is not supported by evidence - whether that something is Father Christmas or God.

You seem to be having real trouble reading posts at the moment (other than the ones cheering you on from your fan club). Your brain seems to read the words and then interpret them to mean something completely different from what was written, based on your preconceptions. You should correct that - must be a real handicap in academia.

I am not seeing the  trauma of what Susan is describing - unless Susan has some evidence to the contrary. Susan seemed to think it would make people feel insecure if they were taught God was fact and then realised there was no evidence to support God.

Leaving aside your continued reliance on insult in place of argument, you're kidding right? In the US in particular there are countless accounts of families torn apart when the child concludes that its parents' religious beliefs are a crock.

[Nearly Sane]

I actually asked 4 times what subject they were teaching you before I got an answer:

Reply 293 'What was the topic (or topics) in which they were teaching certainty?'

Reply 295 'Sorry may have missed this upthread - but do you mean these people were teaching you physics?'

Reply 300 '... in which case what were they teaching?'

Reply 302 'What you haven't told us is what they were teaching.'

Only in your response to my 4th attempt to get you to answer did you actually answer my question, despite actually replying (but failing to answer the question about the topic they were teaching) to the other 3 posts.

The first I read simply as topic  not subject about which they were teaching was objective - and as I had just answered SusanDoris about it being objective morality referred you to the answer. The second I didn't read as asking what subject as you had got confused by my referring to the 'physics master' introduced by bhs and so I stated that as the question asked it wasn't physics. The third, I missed,  for which, apologies


I take it you have now dropped your interpretation of events that you weren't at?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Say what now?
 
Doesn't work. For it to work you'd need a Mum (ie, you) who did believe in Father Christmas (and apparently "derived value" from that belief), separate Father Christmas schools and daily acts of worship to Father Christmas in the rest, unfettered access to the media (perhaps a Father Christmas slot on radio 4 every morning), officials of the Father Christmas faith in the House of Lords, buildings of every other street corner dedicated to praising the big guy, perhaps with carvings of his sleigh delivering presents outside, maybe too devout Father Christmas-arian both as PM and as the head of state, Father Christmas-ism as the official state faith etc.

Once you had this behemoth of nonsense hiding in plain sight, then perhaps you could tell us about the lack of any evidence causing faith to crumble into dust.       

Very entertaining.

Unfortunately for you people still seem to derive value from the privilege of religion as the privilege has not been revoked - c'est la vie.

Susan and I were discussing trust crumbling into dust, not faith crumbling into dust.

[ProfessorDavey]

The first I read simply as topic  not subject about which they were teaching was objective - and as I had just answered SusanDoris about it being objective morality referred you to the answer. The second I didn't read as asking what subject as you had got confused by my referring to the 'physics master' introduced by bhs and so I stated that as the question asked it wasn't physics. The third, I missed,  for which, apologies

I think it was pretty clear that I was asking what this person was teaching. But now I have the answer so all is well.

I take it you have now dropped your interpretation of events that you weren't at?

Nope - I will return to this later. There is a whole thread 'Fine details ...' that is around the veracity of comments recalled years later (I am presuming that you took these courses many years ago - if not please confirm when this was). Point being that it is very common for individuals to err in recollection, or perhaps more relevant here misinterpret what they see or here. All I was doing was asking whether you are sure this was what the person intended you to think or whether there may be other interpretations.

As someone who spends a considerable amount of time teaching students I am well aware that sometimes I think I am very clear in a point, but that some students misinterpret my meaning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Turns out the evidence you weren't seeing is even called a Syndrome!

http://marlenewinell.net/religious-trauma-syndrome-its-

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Very entertaining.

Thank you. Do you not think though that it would be more honest to say something like, "yes I suppose that would need to be the case for my analogy with Father Christmas to have worked. OK, I'll withdraw it then"?

Unfortunately for you people still seem to derive value from the privilege of religion as the privilege has not been revoked - c'est la vie.

But as you now know that "deriving value" tells you sweet FA about the epistemic claims of fact of their religions we both know that that's irrelevant don't we. For sure though the private jet flying, big suited televangelists with ambitious hair-dos derive a lot of "value" from it, I'll give you that.   

Susan and I were discussing trust crumbling into dust, not faith crumbling into dust.

So Religious Trauma Syndrome then?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it isn't - that's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect entails.

So the story now is that you had "teachers" (lecturers perhaps?) in law who were also atheists and who told you that moral values were objectively true.

Is that it? 

Yes, you're right it isn't Dunning Kruger, I'm not sure what it is an example of but it's very odd and strange to have someone making up stuff about something they weren't at to fit in with their beliefs.

And I used teachers in a religious context but didn't in the non religious context for a reason in the original comment. And have covered in a number of posts since that the context was tertiary education.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Leaving aside your continued reliance on insult in place of argument, you're kidding right? In the US in particular there are countless accounts of families torn apart when the child concludes that its parents' religious beliefs are a crock.

That wasn't an insult, it was describing my impression of what has happened recently when Davey was replying to my posts.

But leaving aside your irrelevant comments - though given the insults you use in place of argument (muppets ring a bell?) it must be nice for you to feel you are talking to a kindred spirit even if you do come across as a complete hypocrite in the process -  we were talking about religious privilege in the UK and I was talking about my experience of religion and Father Christmas in the UK. I am not commenting on the experiences of children in the US as I have no experience of that.