IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTI

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS - this is where you and I disagree. You seem to think that personal faith beliefs in gods are in a different category from other beliefs in abstract concepts that people can't agree definitions on, and I disagree. And I explained my thinking in relation to Welby's view on "justice" and Pratchett's view on "justice". Defining words like justice using another abstract concept like fairness is not really defining anything. What is fairness? How do you define it in order to establish that it has been achieved?

I’m not sure there’s much point in continuing with this other than to say, if person A says “god is hate” and person B says “god is love” there’s no way to arbitrate between them. Both are faith claims. By contrast, if person A says “justice is the process of seeking to apply various principles of fairness and equality” and person B says “justice is the process of randomly shooting every third person you meet” it’s easy to arbitrate who’s right and who’s wrong about that. How? By looking to the agreed, consensual definition of “justice” around which almost everyone coheres.     

Hence my view that fairness seems to be based on a feeling of rightness, which is different for each individual who views an issue, and which is no different to the feeling of rightness a theist has in relation to the god they believe in. Some theists may tell you their definition of god is an eternal supernatural entity that is the source of the creation of the universe and judges the actions of humans. Other theists may have a less grandiose concept. I see no problem with dealing with each individual's definitions of "god" or "fairness" or "justice" as I find them.

You’ve just fallen back here into issues of what actually is just, fair etc which is a different matter from the conceptual principle of what justice etc concerns. What’s right and wrong might be different for every person, but the meaning of the word for seeking to apply principles of rightness and fairness (no matter what they happen to be) isn’t.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure you are an exception Gabriella - although you have clearly shifted from the religion of your upbringing to a different religion as an adult. But that is a religious to religion shift, not non religious to religious, which is the thing which is very rare.

Now I've had a similar discussion with Vlad, who claimed to have been brought up in a non religious household yet was sent to Sunday School. I think this misunderstands what a non religious household and non religious upbringing means. Let's not forget that only about 10% of people in the UK (probably far less than that) participate in organised religious activities on any kind of regular basis, such as going to church, temple, mosque etc (except for weddings, funerals or perhaps once a year at Christmas). So the 90+% is what a non religious household looks like, what a non religious upbringing looks like - you don't go to church, you don't go to the temple, you don't go to Sunday school etc, etc. So regardless of how you perceive your patents religiosity they were clearly in that tiny proportion of activity religious people as they regularly went to the temple and took you - indeed it would appear that they were fairly insistent you go.

So Gabriella - whichever way you look at it, in the contexts of the research you were brought up in a religious household, not a non religious one.

And it isn't uncommon for people to 'rebel' against their upbringing as a teenager. Indeed it is very common. So you will find all sorts of people who claim to have been atheist and then became religious (Vlad is one I think, and you in a slightly less overt manner is another). But the reality is that you, and Vlad were brought up in a actively religious manner (temple, Sunday School), may have spent some time rebelling against that upbringing but largely folded back into it, albeit in your case into a different religion.

But I think moving from one religion to another is very different from genuinely moving from being non religious to being religious. The point being that most, if not all, religions are based around belief in a god, faith, tradition, custom and ceremony. If you are comfortable with that as you were brought up in that manner, then even a different religion will have very familiar elements to it. If, on the other hand you were brought up in a non religious manner those fundamental elements of religion may seems alien, unfamiliar and frankly unfathomable and implausible.

You seemed to ignore that a non religious parent could utilise a Sunday school for childminding purposes or for social purpose.
The way I think we can rationalise your definition of non religion is that you view the non religious as not countenancing that a non religious person would want their child exposed to religion. This is an active stance and does not consider the vast bulk of atheists who are apatheists. A committed and public atheist like yourself is unlikely to mix with the apatheist hoi Paloi though. So the idea of an atheist using a Sunday school might be foreign to you.

Lastly there is a paragraph in your post that looks like you are shaking hands with the no true Scotsman fallacy.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seemed to ignore that a non religious parent could utilise a Sunday school for childminding purposes or for social purpose.

Hmm, what activity might parents regularly do on, say a Sunday morning, for perhaps an hour that they might need such regular child-care. Hmm, can't think.

Out of interest would you find it similarly so normal for a non religious family to drop their child off at Hebrew School at their local synagogue or weekend Islamic School at their local mosque in order to spend a couple of hours shopping.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There’s no such thing as “atheists” in the sense you’re attempting that we all think the same way, but the “talk of tests” is merely telling you that the burden of proof rests with the theist (or with the leprechaunist for that matter) to explain why his assertions should be taken seriously. That you cannot or will not do that doesn’t make the problem go away.   

Atheists are no more “seeking a way of finding God” than you’re seeking a way of finding leprechauns. Why would anyone “seek” anything when there are only unqualified assertions that they exist at all.   

Why do you insist on lying about this?

No, it’s just because we’ve been given no good reasons of any kind to conclude otherwise.

As “that basis” is a lie your supposed questioning is redundant.

What reason do you have other than not being given good reasons to believe it?

Well that’s all you, Hillside speaking on behalf of other people again.

I believe I put it as seeking a way of finding God or otherwise.

So a reading of your post would reveal that not only
You are not seeking a way of finding God you are not seeking a way of confirming an atheist status quo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hmm, what activity might parents regularly do on, say a Sunday morning, for perhaps an hour that they might need such regular child-care. Hmm, can't think.

Out of interest would you find it similarly so normal for a non religious family to drop their child off at Hebrew School at their local synagogue or weekend Islamic School at their local mosque in order to spend a couple of hours shopping.

We are talking about a gap of over fifty years since I went to Sunday school. We’re talking about a decade before people like Bernard Manning had millions of viewers and were awarded CBE’s etc.
It wouldn’t have happened in those days and doesn’t happen on grounds of  culture/ race. There wasn’t in any case any nearby mosques or synagogues or nearby followers of Islam. Would a synagogue have been open to goyim?I don’t know. Non religious people of the sort who would have forbade their kids from Sunday school, RE lessons, nativities etc were extremely, extremely fringe.

You are viewing how religiously I was brought up in the nineteen sixties through the eyes of 2020.
I’m just laughing at the historical inaccuracy of what you have said and wonder why an intelligent chap like yourself keeps making this same mistake time and again. I put it down to your active non religious persuasion with a large helping of confirmation bias.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that it is pretty self evidence that in a country where less than one in ten people participate in religious activities such as regularly going to religious worship, then if your household does (or did) then that is a religious household.

I think some people can lack perspective - effectively not seeing the whole spectrum in which the vast majority never engage in religious activity and then conclude that perhaps because they know some people at their church (or temple) who attend more often, or perhaps seems more fervent, or many engage in a range of ancillary activities within the church or temple, then somehow that means their household isn't really religious at all. If your household actively and regularly participate in religious worship or other religious activities then, by definition your household is religious. Non religious households simply don't do that.

I agree and I don't think it's surprising that people can lack perspective on something they have not experienced. That is the thrust of many arguments about minorities being represented. I don't know any atheist families who brought their children up as atheist so have no experience of what life is like in those households.

My impression was that my parents stuck with the religion more to keep my grandparents happy and also as immigrants there is more of an incentive to try and retain some of the culture from your country of birth and religion covers a lot of those cultural bases. Once my grandparents died my parents made a bit of an effort for a while but soon became pretty uninterested in going to the temple, but while my grandparents were alive religion was certainly practised.

But yes I can certainly relate to the idea of people being baffled by aspects of alien cultures they have not had much prior experience of and being totally uninterested in engaging with them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I’m not sure there’s much point in continuing with this other than to say, if person A says “god is hate” and person B says “god is love” there’s no way to arbitrate between them. Both are faith claims. By contrast, if person A says “justice is the process of seeking to apply various principles of fairness and equality” and person B says “justice is the process of randomly shooting every third person you meet” it’s easy to arbitrate who’s right and who’s wrong about that. How? By looking to the agreed, consensual definition of “justice” around which almost everyone coheres.

Ok. But why would you need to arbitrate between them if god is a personal experience? Your choice would be based on your preference - a feeling of rightness. If you have no such feeling you would choose neither. 

You’ve just fallen back here into issues of what actually is just, fair etc which is a different matter from the conceptual principle of what justice etc concerns. What’s right and wrong might be different for every person, but the meaning of the word for seeking to apply principles of rightness and fairness (no matter what they happen to be) isn’t.   

If there aren't really agreed principles, what's the point of talking about them - it's all personal preference.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well that’s all you, Hillside speaking on behalf of other people again.

You’re off to a bad start again. I wasn’t speaking on behalf of other people at all – rather I was just explaining that you can’t just assume that all atheists think alike (especially when you’ve just flat out misrepresented yet again what atheism actually entails).

I believe I put it as seeking a way of finding God or otherwise.

Wrongly, for the reason I explained and you’ve ignored.

So a reading of your post would reveal that not only…

That would be a mis-reading – you’re Vlad remember?

You are not seeking a way of finding God you are not seeking a way of confirming an atheist status quo.

I’m not “seeking” anything. I merely explain to you that no matter how many times you balls up an argument or just lie about what people here say, you’re still not one step closer to demonstrating that your claim “god” isn’t epistemically equivalent to my claim “leprechauns”.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Ok. But why would you need to arbitrate between them if god is a personal experience? Your choice would be based on your preference - a feeling of rightness. If you have no such feeling you would choose neither.

Because if people want to have a dialogue about “god” then they must agree first what it is they’re attempting to discuss. It’s the basic definitional necessity for any dialogue if the participants aren’t just to talk past each other.   

If there aren't really agreed principles, what's the point of talking about them - it's all personal preference.

What the point of talking about something is and whether it can be talked about are different matters. We could for example have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for societies to strive for justice in order to maintain cohesion without once troubling ourselves with a different discussion about what “just” would mean in any specific case. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Because if people want to have a dialogue about “god” then they must agree first what it is they’re attempting to discuss. It’s the basic definitional necessity for any dialogue if the participants aren’t just to talk past each other.

Yes and I think that could be done at the start of any discussion, where people define what they each mean by god. What they mean by god is part of what makes the discussion interesting. In the same way people could define what they each mean by "justice" or "right" or "wrong" at the start of a discussion - because none of those exist. It's just driven by individual people's feelings - what feels right or wrong or fair or just - so instead of using the words justice or fair - they could just say "I feel comfortable with this outcome."

What the point of talking about something is and whether it can be talked about are different matters. We could for example have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for societies to strive for justice in order to maintain cohesion without once troubling ourselves with a different discussion about what “just” would mean in any specific case.

Not really  - it would be a meaningless statement if no one can agree on what justice is because it is based on feelings. You could just as easily talk about the need for people in societies to strive for feeling comfortable about the interaction of rights and responsibilities and limitations to freedom in order to maintain cohesion. We could also have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for people in societies to have a religion as a way of continuing cultural traditions that are important to them as a way of uniting generations and maintaining cohesion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You seemed to ignore that a non religious parent could utilise a Sunday school for childminding purposes or for social purpose.
The way I think we can rationalise your definition of non religion is that you view the non religious as not countenancing that a non religious person would want their child exposed to religion. This is an active stance and does not consider the vast bulk of atheists who are apatheists. A committed and public atheist like yourself is unlikely to mix with the apatheist hoi Paloi though. So the idea of an atheist using a Sunday school might be foreign to you.

Lastly there is a paragraph in your post that looks like you are shaking hands with the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Yes I would agree with you that one part of PD's response does seem to read like a No True Scotsman fallacy.  I don't agree with PD's idea of people claiming to be atheist. I was an atheist and then I wasn't. It's perfectly possible to change your mind - as PD pointed out - many people change from being theist to atheist as they get older - and labelling that as rebelling sounds as though it was not a reasoned out position. I agreed with the part that when I changed my mind and became a theist that I was more comfortable with theist ideas than someone who had not been exposed to religion in the household.

And I don't know any atheist families where their children do not have some exposure to religion because it's everywhere in the culture. I know atheist families whose children went to faith schools and the parents went to church and sang in the choir.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes and I think that could be done at the start of any discussion, where people define what they each mean by god. What they mean by god is part of what makes the discussion interesting. In the same way people could define what they each mean by "justice" or "right" or "wrong" at the start of a discussion - because none of those exist. It's just driven by individual people's feelings - what feels right or wrong or fair or just - so instead of using the words justice or fair - they could just say "I feel comfortable with this outcome."
Not really  - it would be a meaningless statement if no one can agree on what justice is because it is based on feelings. You could just as easily talk about the need for people in societies to strive for feeling comfortable about the interaction of rights and responsibilities and limitations to freedom in order to maintain cohesion. We could also have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for people in societies to have a religion as a way of continuing cultural traditions that are important to them as a way of uniting generations and maintaining cohesion.

I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”

[Stranger]

I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”

It is entirely up to you, it's a simple part of the burden of proof. If you make a claim and also say that neither empirical evidence nor logic can be used to support it, then it's your job to provide something else - basically something (anything) that can distinguish your claim from random guessing and all the other claims that cannot be supported by logic or empirical evidence (leprechauns and the like).

How many more times do you need this explaining?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”

I think having a discussion is fine but we are all aware that a discussion does not necessarily involve taking anyone's claims seriously.

I think the issue of a method is in relation to the specific atheist challenge that if theists want their claim of God as fact to be taken seriously by anyone who currently does not hold a belief in gods or that specific god, the theist needs to provide a method to justify their claim. As there is no method currently, it justifies the atheist position - which is that they do not share the theist's belief about gods.

It just makes the point that theism is based on a belief - for which there is no objective evidence. So while there might be some historical evidence that atheists find convincing that a person called Muhammad probably existed in 7th century Arabia, there is no evidence that he received a message from gods or any evidence that gods exists. He is said, according to the traditional stories, to have been illiterate, but there is no way of verifying this. And not having an explanation for the origins of the universe does not make gods any more plausible.

So gods remain a belief - a personal experience - a feeling unique to each individual whose mind interprets their feelings as a belief in a particular god. I think your suggestion that atheists are god-dodging sounds as patronising as PD's suggestion that some people claim to be atheists but they weren't really. I think I know what you are getting at, but having examined my feelings of belief, I don't think I am dodging the concept of the Trinity etc any more than you are dodging Allah.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”

Basic shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. Again. “God” is your claim – it’s therefore your job to propose a method to verify it. If you don’t then that’s all you have - a claim.

Incidentally, if you’d only put your relentless dishonesty to one side for a moment you’d realise that you could answer your own question: the method I’m asking for is one that, if I attempted it to justify my claim “leprechauns”, you wouldn’t be able to falsify.   

[ProfessorDavey]

We are talking about a gap of over fifty years since I went to Sunday school. We’re talking about a decade before people like Bernard Manning had millions of viewers and were awarded CBE’s etc.

No I'm not, and I think you are doing the equivalent of people who assume that individuals get more religious as they get older simply because churches tend to be full of old people. That misunderstands the process.

You seem to be suggesting that back in the 60s and 70s it was commonplace for non religious people to send their kids routinely to Sunday School - presumably because far more kids went to Sunday school then than now - but that is a naive assertion because, of course, far more adults went to church in the 60s and 70s than do now. When we had this discussion some while ago I did a bit of research, comparing decline in overall church attendance and decline in Sunday school attendance and guess what. They almost perfectly mirror each other, both in terms of proportion of people attending church and children attending Sunday School and the rate of decline. Now you will always be able to find exceptions but the clear conclusion is that overwhelmingly the kids who went to Sunday School in the 60s and 70s had parents who attended church, and the same is true now. The difference in numbers is driven by the fact that far fewer parents attend church now than in the 60s and 70s so, unsurprisingly, fewer children (their children) attend Sunday school.

[ProfessorDavey]

Non religious people of the sort who would have forbade their kids from Sunday school, RE lessons, nativities etc were extremely, extremely fringe.

Completely inappropriate comparisons.

RE lessons, nativities have always been part of the mainstream school curriculum and activities (in all schools, not just faith ones), so parents who object need to opt out of those activities and you are correct it tends to be a tiny fringe who will do so.

Sunday school is completely separate from normal schooling so parents need to opt in - entirely different to opt out from RE lessons etc. It is not an extreme fringe who forbid their children from Sunday School - indeed not sending your children to Sunday School is not a fringe or extreme position - it is the norm, the vast majority of parents in the UK do not send their children to Sunday school (i.e. opt in) and this was also true in the 60s and 70s when most parents didn't send their kids to Sunday school. But also most of those parents who choose not to send their kids to Sunday school will also not opt out of RE.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not, and I think you are doing the equivalent of people who assume that individuals get more religious as they get older simply because churches tend to be full of old people. That misunderstands the process.

You seem to be suggesting that back in the 60s and 70s it was commonplace for non religious people to send their kids routinely to Sunday School - presumably because far more kids went to Sunday school then than now - but that is a naive assertion because, of course, far more adults went to church in the 60s and 70s than do now.

My parents didn't. I think you are wrong also to conflate my bit of biography about myself as was originally intended with any statistical analysis. Are you actually providing the citations and references for all this stuff anyway?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not, and I think you are doing the equivalent of people who assume that individuals get more religious as they get older simply because churches tend to be full of old people. That misunderstands the process.

You seem to be suggesting that back in the 60s and 70s it was commonplace for non religious people to send their kids routinely to Sunday School - presumably because far more kids went to Sunday school then than now - but that is a naive assertion because, of course, far more adults went to church in the 60s and 70s than do now. When we had this discussion some while ago I did a bit of research, comparing decline in overall church attendance and decline in Sunday school attendance and guess what. They almost perfectly mirror each other, both in terms of proportion of people attending church and children attending Sunday School and the rate of decline. Now you will always be able to find exceptions but the clear conclusion is that overwhelmingly the kids who went to Sunday School in the 60s and 70s had parents who attended church, and the same is true now. The difference in numbers is driven by the fact that far fewer parents attend church now than in the 60s and 70s so, unsurprisingly, fewer children (their children) attend Sunday school.

I think there has been a general drop in many community activities. Pub attendance has also dropped as has membership of clubs and societies.
One point of interest though in the sixties and seventies is the decline of church youth clubs now a lot of people from non religious family used them. I would imagine church youth club attendance merely matches the decline in council or local non religious youth clubs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Basic shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. Again. “God” is your claim – it’s therefore your job to propose a method to verify it. If you don’t then that’s all you have - a claim.

Incidentally, if you’d only put your relentless dishonesty to one side for a moment you’d realise that you could answer your own question: the method I’m asking for is one that, if I attempted it to justify my claim “leprechauns”, you wouldn’t be able to falsify.   

You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.

Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.

[Stranger]

You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.

Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.

It's not a confusion. If you're saying that the methods usually employed to distinguish the probably true from random guesses are not applicable then it's part of your burden of proof to come up with something else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.

Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.

How is it possible for you to be so relentlessly, obdurately wrong about something no matter how many times you’re corrected on it?

Leprechauns are an objective fact. This claim is not amenable to naturalistic means of investigation or verification. It’s therefore your job to come up with an alternative method to do that job for me.   

Can you see anything wrong with that? Anything at all? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a confusion. If you're saying that the methods usually employed to distinguish the probably true from random guesses are not applicable.

Yes and you should be saying that as well.
You are suggesting method here what do you mean by method.

It's simple. All you have to do is move your finger in a manner which will tell me what you mean by method.

[Gordon]

You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.

Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.

Method, and methodology, are commonly used terms, Vlad: I have a method for cooking boiled eggs for breakfast, and I feel sure if you felt similarly inclined when it comes to breakfast tomorrow morning I'd guess that the method you'll use will be broadly similar to mine, and if not we could consider the differences - have a think on that example and see if you can extrapolate from it to other things.

Alternatively, if you find the term 'method' confusing, have you considered using a dictionary? 

[Stranger]

Yes and you should be saying that as well.
You are suggesting method here what do you mean by method.

It's simple. All you have to do is move your finger in a manner which will tell me what you mean by method.

No matter how much you stamp your little foot, it's still your job, and nobody else's, to provide some means to distinguish your claims from random guesses. Nobody else is under any obligation to help you.