Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Luckily for all of us, reality is not limited to solely what you or I are aware of

O.

But this whole thread is about what reality we are prepared to accept.
I was converted from one view to another. Would you let experience come in the way of your world view?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Unfortunately Gordon's full assertion was not only is it not historical fact, but that the resurrection is myth and story.
Gordon does not mention the word narrative but is talking about the resurrection itself.
That is as plain as anything.

And he was correct to do so – the resurrection claim satisfies the definitional criteria for “myth” and “story”, but falls short of the definitional criteria for “fact” and “historical”.

That is as plain as anything.

Anyway, enough already.

[Outrider]

But this whole thread is about what reality we are prepared to accept.

No, this whole thread is about whether our perception of reality is necessarily a reliable indicator of reality, and if not how we can attempt to remove some of that unreliability.

I was converted from one view to another. Would you let experience come in the way of your world view?

My world view is a product of my experience, as is everyone else's - I can no more stop my experiences shaping my world-view than I can stop having the experiences or a world-view. All i can do is rely on my experience to show me that things are often more complicated than they seem, and not to necessarily take experiences at face value. The world lies, people lie to us, we lie to ourselves...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was converted from one view to another.

Really Vlad?!?

I think we'd established previously that your upbringing was pretty christian, both in specific terms (attendance at church/Sunday School, going to a faith school for part of your education) and in general cultural/societal terms - people of our age brought up in the UK will have been brought up within a culture and society where the default view was that there was a god and that that god was the christian god.

So I'm struggling to see how you converted from one view to another - nope you seem to have folded into the view that you were brought up in.

So you seem to me to be the equivalent of someone who as a child is taught that father christmas exists, wears red and comes around on christmas eve. So when some years later one christmas eve you glimpse something red outside, out of the corner of your eye, and convince yourself this is father christmas.

[Maeght]

But this whole thread is about what reality we are prepared to accept.
I was converted from one view to another. Would you let experience come in the way of your world view?

What was your view pre conversion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What was your view pre conversion?

Agnostic non religious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really Vlad?!?

I think we'd established previously that your upbringing was pretty christian, both in specific terms (attendance at church/Sunday School, going to a faith school for part of your education) and in general cultural/societal terms - people of our age brought up in the UK will have been brought up within a culture and society where the default view was that there was a god and that that god was the christian god.

So I'm struggling to see how you converted from one view to another - nope you seem to have folded into the view that you were brought up in.

So you seem to me to be the equivalent of someone who as a child is taught that father christmas exists, wears red and comes around
on christmas eve. So when some years later one christmas eve you glimpse something red outside, out of the corner of your eye, and convince yourself this is father christmas.

No professor we had established nothing of the sort and you merely convinced of something within what you think a conversion is.

The last jibe is just your unalloyed childish pantwetting excitement that the Christ troller in chief,  has returned to the gang den.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agnostic non religious.

And before that Vlad - in other words your upbringing.

[ProfessorDavey]

No professor we had established nothing of the sort and you merely convinced of something within what you think a conversion is.

I think we'd established that as a child you:

1. Attended church services
2. Attended Sunday School
3. For a part of your education went to a faith school

[ProfessorDavey]

Agnostic non religious.

Vlad loves to portray himself as this non religious person who found christianity, but the reality is rather different. As far as I'm aware (and we discussed this at length on another thread), Vlad's upbringing was pretty standard religious of the time (church attendance, Sunday School, a faith school for a while). He appears to have stepped away from his religious upbringing for a while and then moved back to it in what he described as his 'conversion'.

So my issue is two-fold - first he seems happy to talk about his conversion, as he sees it from non-religious agnosticism to christianity, yet seems never to acknowledge an earlier 'conversion' from his broadly religious christian upbringing to non-religious agnosticism. My second problem is that I don't really see someone who is brought up in a particular religious manner and folds back into this as an adult, even if (as often happens) they stepped away from it for a while in teenage/early adult years as a conversion. Really all this is is a reversion to upbringing. In this regard Vlad seems rather similar to his idol C S Lewis - christian upbringing, rebelled for a while and then comfortably reverted to the religion of his upbringing.

[ProfessorDavey]

The last jibe is just your unalloyed childish pantwetting excitement that the Christ troller in chief,  has returned to the gang den.

Presumably that makes some kind of sense in your rather bizarre mind. For the rest of us, I suspect, it is gobbledegook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think we'd established that as a child you:

1. Attended church services
2. Attended Sunday School
3. For a part of your education went to a faith school

You've been to a garage but I'd hardly call you a car.
You've been to a cinema but you can hardly be called a movie star.
You've turned up for work each day but I'd hardly call you..........

[ProfessorDavey]

You've been to a garage but I'd hardly call you a car.
You've been to a cinema but you can hardly be called a movie star.
You've turned up for work each day but I'd hardly call you..........

Disingenuous in the extreme - I don't think your attendance at church/Sunday School/faith school was a one off. I understand these were things that you probably had little say over, but non-the-less attendance at such organisations as a child is indicative of a religious upbringing, given that most kids won't have attended Sunday School, church or a faith school.

And even with your examples - if you regularly went to a cinema as a child, encouraged by your parents I think that would be an indication that you were being brought up to appreciate and enjoy films.

[ProfessorDavey]

You've been to a garage but I'd hardly call you a car.
You've been to a cinema but you can hardly be called a movie star.
You've turned up for work each day but I'd hardly call you..........

I note no denial.

So we can conclude that as a child your parents chose to send you to church, Sunday School and a faith school. Hmm, why might they have done that - perhaps because they wanted you to have, and therefore gave you, a religious upbringing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Disingenuous in the extreme - I don't think your attendance at church/Sunday School/faith school was a one off. I understand these were things that you probably had little say over, but non-the-less attendance at such organisations as a child is indicative of a religious upbringing, given that most kids won't have attended Sunday School, church or a faith school.

And even with your examples - if you regularly went to a cinema as a child, encouraged by your parents I think that would be an indication that you were being brought up to appreciate and enjoy films.

Every ten years, there is a drive by the British Humanists, promoted by some famous people to get nominal Christians, people who may have been taken to church, attended Sunday school, to put down on the census what they actually were in terms of BELIEF...I.e. non religious. Most of the traffic at present is that way. There are historical reasons why people automatically put CofE or Roman Catholic.

And yet you see no difference between a nominal Christian and a believer.

The point is though is by conversion we are talking about the movement between nominal, familial choice,get married in the church,get the kids into a good school religion to an actual belief and adult commitment to a faith.....not an organisation, not a community, but a faith.

I know that, Richard Dawkins knows that, Humanist uk knows that......and you?

Also you are shooting yourself in the foot as using your logic it can be argued that atheists and apatheists “get it from their upbringing”

[ProfessorDavey]

Every ten years, there is a drive by the British Humanists, promoted by some famous people to get nominal Christians, people who may have been taken to church, attended Sunday school, to put down on the census what they actually were in terms of BELIEF...I.e. non religious. Most of the traffic at present is that way. There are historical reasons why people automatically put CofE or Roman Catholic.

Which is, of course, about a person's position at a specific moment. There are other surveys that also ask about a person's upbringing. That is my point - you were brought up as a christian in a largely christians societal setting, hence the notion of the truthfulness of christian claims will have been imbued in you from a very early age.

It is then disingenuous of you to claim some kind of massive 'conversion' to christianity, when that was the religion you were brought you were brought up to believe. And if you want to claim a 'conversion' why do you never talk about the necessary other conversion, for your later conversion to make any kind of sense, that from your christian upbringing to being agnostic and non religious, as you claim.

And yet you see no difference between a nominal Christian and a believer.

Children tend to 'believe' in a different way to an adult - I think there is even a bible quote about this! So, of course, your childhood christian beliefs are unlikely to be the same as your adult christian beliefs. But they were there nonetheless, supported by your attendance in church, at Sunday School, within a faith school. So you cannot deny the link.

A good analogy would be a child whose parents take them to gymnastics every week - as a child they aren't particularly good, might be quite grumpy about going, but they are being taught the basics and taught to enjoy and love it eventually. Even if they perhaps stepped back from it for a while, if that person became a professional gymnast as an adult are you really claiming that their adult abilities and commitment to gymnastics have absolutely nothing to do with their childhood experience. And also it is pretty unlikely that they would have come to full professional gymnast status as an adult without that childhood experience. Firstly because they'd have been way behind in learning the basics, but perhaps more importantly their parents might have inculcated a different 'love', perhaps playing the piano so gymnastics would be something they probably would never have encountered or considered.

[ProfessorDavey]

Also you are shooting yourself in the foot as using your logic it can be argued that atheists and apatheists “get it from their upbringing”

Except it can't.

While it is true that virtually every religious person was brought up as religious - and in the vast majority of cases a person who is an adherent of a specific religion was brought up to believe in that religion the same cannot be said for atheists and the non religious.

Sure people brought up non religious will almost certainly end up non religious as adults - but that is looking at it the other way around. The key difference is that about 50% of people brought up in a religious household choose to turn their backs on that upbringing, becoming non religious or perhaps atheist as adults.

So the bottom line is that (except in very rare circumstances) to be religious as an adult requires that you were brought up religious. To be non religious as an adult, or atheist, does not require you to have been brought up in a non religious household or even atheist. Our current numbers of adult non religious people are split pretty evenly between those brought up non religious and those brought up in a religious household.

So non-religion is 'believable' even if you weren't brought up in that manner. Religion is (by and large) only believable to those brought up religious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is, of course, about a person's position at a specific moment.

Then it's funny that over the past few years i've never caught you in one of your christian or hindu moments...I always seem to catch you on an atheist day

There are other surveys that also ask about a person's upbringing. That is my point - you were brought up as a christian in a largely christians societal setting, hence the notion of the truthfulness of christian claims will have been imbued in you from a very early age.

And yet I went through a period as a grown ass man as treating them as myth and before that several years as well meaning morality tales.

It is then disingenuous of you to claim some kind of massive 'conversion' to christianity, when that was the religion you were brought you were brought up to believe.

I think you are suggesting here that since the majority of christian bought up to believers as you call them go the secular way that there is something odd about me. Sure, i'm not an apatheist. Also weare back to your definition of convert. What is blindingly clear here is you are sticking to your definition of convert, which incidently I shared, right up to the moment of converting and committing my life to Christ

And if you want to claim a 'conversion' why do you never talk about the necessary other conversion, for your later conversion to make any kind of sense, that from your christian upbringing to being agnostic and non religious, as you claim.

so you believe that christian converts never truly are atheist, agnostics or non religious. I thought as much...although you have contradicted yourself on this by saying ''Which is, of course, about a person's position at a specific moment''

Children tend to 'believe' in a different way to an adult - I think there is even a bible quote about this! So, of course, your childhood christian beliefs are unlikely to be the same as your adult christian beliefs. But they were there nonetheless, supported by your attendance in church, at Sunday School, within a faith school. So you cannot deny the link.

I think many converts would talk about their transition prior to conversion, of christians they had come into contact with, and of literature they would have read and suffice it to say that non contact or deliberate avoidance of which results in non conversion.

A good analogy would be a child whose parents take them to gymnastics every week - as a child they aren't particularly good, but they are being taught the basics and taught to enjoy and love it. Even if they perhaps stepped back from it for a while, if that person became a professional gymnast as an adult are you really claiming that their adult abilities and love of gymnastics have absolutely nothing to do with their childhood experience. And also it is pretty unlikely that they would have come to full professional gymnast status as an adult without that childhood experience. Firstly because they'd have been way behind in learning the basics, but perhaps more importantly their parents might have inculcated a different 'love', perhaps playing the piano so gymnastics would be something they probably would never have encountered or considered.

I would call this poor analogy since you are likening getting on the equipment and doing it to sitting in a church reluctantly listening to a crusty droning on where being with your parents in church is like being with your parents in Marks and Spencer.

Again you are contradicting yourself by claiming that churchgoing as a child, where there might be no faith or familial faith rather than personal conversion and commitment to and encounter with christ, is the crowning experience of faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except it can't.

While it is true that virtually every religious person was brought up as religious - and in the vast majority of cases a person who is an adherent of a specific religion was brought up to believe in that religion the same cannot be said for atheists and the non religious.

Sure people brought up non religious will almost certainly end up non religious as adults - but that is looking at it the other way around. The key difference is that about 50% of people brought up in a religious household choose to turn their backs on that upbringing, becoming non religious or perhaps atheist as adults.

So the bottom line is that (except in very rare circumstances) to be religious as an adult requires that you were brought up religious. To be non religious as an adult, or atheist, does not require you to have been brought up in a non religious household or even atheist. Our current numbers of adult non religious people are split pretty evenly between those brought up non religious and those brought up in a religious household.

So non-religion is 'believable' even if you weren't brought up in that manner. Religion is (by and large) only believable to those brought up religious.

I see no reference here to the views of Humanist UK that people are claiming religious affiliation by census but not registering their actual non religion

Since you talk about the effect of societal religion, you are contradicting yourself by talking here of non religious households. If a society is christian then there cannot be non religious households or indeed uninfluenced people at all.

Finally you can transmit familially a lack of something. Divorcees raise divorcees apparently, people with a lack of cultural appreciation raise people with a lack of cultural appreciation.

Vast majorities are the stuff of argumenta ad populum.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet I went through a period as a grown ass man as treating them as myth and before that several years as well meaning morality tales.

So what, we are discussing your upbringing, which was clearly christian. Your 'conversion' was a reversion to the religion of your childhood. Had you suddenly become a hindu having not been brought up as a hindu then we might be talking about conversion, regardless of whether you'd had a period thinking your childhood christianity was a myth.

I think you are suggesting here that since the majority of christian bought up to believers as you call them go the secular way that there is something odd about me.

Actually I'm not describing you as being odd, nor unusual actually. There are plenty of people with exactly your profile - brought up in a specific religious context, drift away for a while, and then fold right back into the faith of their childhood. There are, of course, others who are brought up in that manner, drift away and never revert. What is exceptionally rare is someone brought up in a non-religious manner who suddenly converts to a religious faith as an adult.

I would call this poor analogy since you are likening getting on the equipment and doing it to sitting in a church reluctantly listening to a crusty droning on where being with your parents in church is like being with your parents in Marks and Spencer.

Actually I'm not - in my edited version (edited before you posted) I actually specifically said that the child might be pretty grumpy about being taken to gymnastics every week. I think the gymnastics analogy is a good one, as it is about parents doing something because of how they want their child to be brought up. That is completely different to M&S where trapsing round with your parents would be a completely practical manner. No parent decided they want to instil in their child a belief in M&S.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see no reference here to the views of Humanist UK that people are claiming religious affiliation by census but not registering their actual non religion

Because that is a totally separate issue. HumanistsUK have campaigned over this due to be the non neutral wording of the census question, which pushes people into thinking that they must have a religion ("what is your religion?") and therefore may see the reference as the religion of their upbringing despite not being at all religious at the point they are answering the census.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because that is a totally separate issue. HumanistsUK have campaigned over this due to be the non neutral wording of the census question, which pushes people into thinking that they must have a religion ("what is your religion?") and therefore may see the reference as the religion of their upbringing despite not being at all religious at the point they are answering the census.

No it isn't. Your definition of being non religious is at variance with their's since apparently,according to you someone who becomes a Christian was never an atheist, agnostic or non religious. You come out a very confused bunny professor.

The humanists have campaigned on two fronts firstly to get nominal christians or whatever faith to put ''non religious'' and secondly they have campaigned to have the census changed to reflect belief.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since you talk about the effect of societal religion, you are contradicting yourself by talking here of non religious households. If a society is christian then there cannot be non religious households or indeed uninfluenced people at all.

Not really - in the UK it is difficult to assess the impact of societal religious setting as that will largely be the same for everyone, so there is no easy 'control' group to compare. There will be very rare examples, but these will largely be ultra-religious communities that largely cut themselves off from broader society.

That's why studies have focussed on the upbringing of children within a household. In other words is that household religious or non-religious and whether there is evidence of an active decision to bring up a child within a specific religion, which would be layered on top of the broader societal 'mood music'.

So if you were a child in the UK growing up in the 60s and 70s you couldn't escape the christian mood music and no doubt at school (faith or non faith) you'd be regularly singing hymns, saying christian prayers etc etc. Where the distinction would lie would be whether your parents went up and beyond that societal mood music. For example by talking you to church (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to church regularly) enrolled your child in Sunday School (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to Sunday School) or perhaps chose a faith school with a specific mission to bring children up in a specific religion (most kids in the 60s and 70s didn't go to a faith school).

So in my case, yes there was the mood music, my non faith schooling included a heavy dollop of christian practice. But beyond that my parents didn't add an overlay of religion, nor were they themselves overtly religious. There were some tensions and distinctions with earlier generations, so I am now aware (I wasn't then) that there was discussion between my father's parents (who were quite domineering) and my father as to why the kids weren't going to church/Sunday School. And very occasionally we were required to attend church when visiting the grandparents. But this was pretty clearly a visiting 'obligation' as it didn't reflect what happened week in, week out in my actual household. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Theophany stories occur in many religious traditions…

In ancient Greece Semele was enculturated to the Greek gods, and had an episode she ascribed to an encounter with Zeus.

In the Hindu faith people enculturated to the Hindu avatars have episodes they ascribe to encounters with Vishnu, Krishna and Rama.

In various tribal theisms people enculturated to spirit animals have episodes they ascribe to encounters with those animals. 

Vlad was enculturated to the Christian faith and had an episode he ascribes to an encounter with the Christian man/god.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing, and ‘twas ever thus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias     

[ProfessorDavey]

No it isn't. Your definition of being non religious is at variance with their's since apparently,according to you someone who becomes a Christian was never an atheist, agnostic or non religious.

Where have I ever said that Vlad. My point isn't that someone might not have been, for a time, agnostic or atheist. My point is there is a major different in terms of conversion/reversion between:

1. Someone brought up christian (or another religion), becomes atheist/agnostic/non-religious for a while, and then reverts back to christianity (or their previous religion)
2. Someone brought up in a non religious manner, then converts to christianity

or indeed:

3. Someone brought up christian who later converts to hinduism (whether or not they had a period of agnosticism/atheism) and
4. Someone brought up christian, becomes atheist/agnostic/non-religious and retains that lack of religion

You are in the first camp Vlad and if you want to describe your shift from atheism/agnosticism to christianity as conversion, then your shift from christianity to atheism/agnosticism is also a conversion. In fact it is more so as you'd never had a tradition of atheism/agnosticism/non-religion, whereas your 'conversion' to christianity from atheism/agnosticism cannot be seen outside of the context of having been brought up as a christian. So perhaps your real journey is:

1. Someone brought up christian, converts to atheist/agnostic for a while, and then reverts back to christianity

And by the way scenarios 1 and 4 are pretty common, scenarios 2 and 3 are extremely rare.