Religions have succeeded

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What, it was culturally ingrained in the Sunday School you attended and the Faith School you attended that christians were oddballs. I mean, really?!?

There are lots of cultures and sub-cultures so wouldn't surprise me if Vlad felt it was culturally ingrained. At school, the Bible-bashers and practising Christians in our year at school were a minority so it was the culture of the pupils at my school to talk disparagingly of their beliefs behind their backs. We quoted Monty Python and there were a lot of shows on TV that we watched that made fun of religion. 

But you've told us previously that you used to attend church as a child - how can this be the first time you attended church then Vlad?

Umm... it's fairly obvious that he meant when he attended church for the first time after he converted from atheism to Christianity as an adult, not the first time he attended church ever in his life.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sure christians are very good at telling us all about the great voluntary work they do, implying that they do more voluntary work than others, 'cos of their religion'.

Dumb generalisation about Christians. I don't recall inferring that all Christians did more voluntary work than non-Christians, just because some Christians, if asked, spoke about the role their faith played in their charitable actions. Your inference may be due to your personal experiences and possibly some bias on your part.

But, of course, it isn't true. Proper research on volunteering has found no difference in the rate of volunteering (both formal and informal) between religious and non religious people in the UK. And that is despite the fact that churches often run on volunteers doing stuff - so arranging flowers or handing out service sheets etc. But while these activities will be counted under 'volunteering' they are hardly equivalent to helping Romanian orphans.

It's not a competition. Communities run because of the people (religious and non-religious) who volunteer to do the smaller tasks that are necessary for people to be able to connect with each other.

Loneliness is a huge problem for people, especially as they get older.  Religious communities help contribute to the availability of valuable community services that provide ways for people to find some human connection and kindness, food, warmth etc. And a lot of these community groups also fundraise and contribute towards funding charitable projects for less fortunate people such as the Romanian orphans. Every link in the chain is important.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are lots of cultures and sub-cultures so wouldn't surprise me if Vlad felt it was culturally ingrained.

Ingrained that christians are oddballs (not some christians are oddballs) at Sunday School and a Faith School. Come on VG?

At school, the Bible-bashers and practising Christians ...

Not the same thing of course, so not correct to lump them together. While 'bible bashers' as you call them may have been very overt and 'in your face' in their beliefs, I suspect there would have been plenty of church attenders whose attendance was completely unknown to you.

... in our year at school were a minority so it was the culture of the pupils at my school to talk disparagingly of their beliefs behind their backs.

Kids are often horrible at school to anyone perceived as 'different' - whether that be of a different ethnicity, religion, with a disability etc. That isn't really what we are talking about. And how about the 'atheists' - presumably these would have been in a minority to, although I suspect you wouldn't have know who most of them were which is kind of my point.

We quoted Monty Python and there were a lot of shows on TV that we watched that made fun of religion.

Blimey - scraping the barrel now - quoting Monty Python - sure 'he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy' - yup we did it too along with the dead parrot sketch, and a little 'waffer thin mint' and plenty of others - none of this was aimed at christians. 

Umm... it's fairly obvious that he meant when he attended church for the first time after he converted from atheism to Christianity as an adult, not the first time he attended church ever in his life.

But that isn't what he said, is it. And the point is that Vlad likes us not to recognise that he was brought up christian as it undermines his claimed massive conversion from atheism to christianity, which was in reality merely a reversion to the religion of his upbringing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dumb generalisation about Christians. I don't recall inferring that all Christians did more voluntary work than non-Christians, just because some Christians, if asked, spoke about the role their faith played in their charitable actions. Your inference may be due to your personal experiences and possibly some bias on your part.

Not really - it is an extremely common thread from the faith sector that charitable/voluntary work is effectively driven by religious people.
 

It's not a competition. Communities run because of the people (religious and non-religious) who volunteer to do the smaller tasks that are necessary for people to be able to connect with each other.

I agree which is why I why I have no truck with religious people who claim (wrongly) that they are more likely to be involved in voluntary work.

Loneliness is a huge problem for people, especially as they get older.  Religious communities help contribute to the availability of valuable community services that provide ways for people to find some human connection and kindness, food, warmth etc.

You are falling into that well worn trap. The word 'religious' is entirely redundant at the beginning of your second sentence because, in reality, religious and non religious communities and individuals help in that manner. Adding the word religion, clearly gives the impression that this is what religious communities and individual do, but non religious communities and individuals don't.

The point is when you actually look at religious and non religious people they are equally involved in voluntary work, but from the media portrayal along with religions are cheerleaders you'd belief that at the least religious people were more involved in voluntary work.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You people...

Which people?

...keep on and on about neurological correlations with spiritual experiences.

No-one does that.

That only proves that the brain is involved in some way in these experiences..which is not disputed at all. Just as the axle and pistons of a car are involved in its movement.

A false analogy because no-one disputes that a car has more parts than axles and pistons, but ok...

Point is that, that's not all....there is lots more.

Why do you think that there's more than a neurological explanation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What, it was culturally ingrained in the Sunday School you attended and the Faith School you attended that christians were oddballs. I mean, really?!?

Dear old Davey, game as ever with his science tells us you couldn't possibly have lived THAT life schtick

But you've told us previously that you used to attend church as a child - how can this be the first time you attended church then Vlad?

the Sunday School you attended

And as you have been told, an early refuser although no doubt science tells you that my religious zealot parents tied me to their dogcart and whipped me into sunday school if I refused. I must also remind you that an hour on sunday isn't one's full exposure to culture and that were your theory correct we would not see the fall in numbers claiming religious adherence that we do

the Faith School you attended

Oh yes 10 minutes a morning assembly and a prayer at the end of the day.....Faith school where we learned the name of God...''Harold be thy name'' and learned about the two persons of the trinity from the hymn ''Immortal, invisible, God..Ernie wise. In light inaccessable hid from our eyes''
I said I was an early refuser of sunday school held away from the main body of the church I bet we all paid strange visits we didn't fully ''get'' to strange churches but the church I attended after conversion I'd never attended before.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I imagine that atheists and atheism in the 1970s UK were akin to gay people and homosexuality in the 1950s - society ran itself as if they didn't exist.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ho ho ho. I don't think i've read such an extreme and ridiculous and totally inaccurate assumption of victimhood in my life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dear old Davey...

etc

Quite a co-incidence though don't you think that the very god you think you "encountered" or some such as an adult just happened to be exactly the same god that these various organisations peddled to the young and impressionable you?

What are the chances eh?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ingrained that christians are oddballs (not some christians are oddballs) at Sunday School and a Faith School. Come on VG?

I haven't been to either so don't know what cultures might have made an impression on Vlad when he attended.

Not the same thing of course, so not correct to lump them together. While 'bible bashers' as you call them may have been very overt and 'in your face' in their beliefs, I suspect there would have been plenty of church attenders whose attendance was completely unknown to you.

We called people Bible-bashers if they spoke about their faith. Sure there were people in our year who went to church for the community aspect, the parties and to snog boys, but were dismissive about Christianity. The people who spoke about their faith were in the minority. People attend churches or events for all kinds of reasons but it's what they say about it that I would take as the culture of the time.

Kids are often horrible at school to anyone perceived as 'different' - whether that be of a different ethnicity, religion, with a disability etc. That isn't really what we are talking about. And how about the 'atheists' - presumably these would have been in a minority to, although I suspect you wouldn't have know who most of them were which is kind of my point.

Our school did not really give the impression that kids were horrible - true, no one would have admitted to being gay in the 1980s in our school. But culturally, it was considered cool to be an atheist. The decline of religion amongst the pupils seemed pretty well-established. People used to scribble the names of their favourite bands etc on their white school lab coats. I had used a thick black marker pen to write in big Gothic script  across the back of my school lab coat in the mid-80s: "God did not create Man, Man created God". I didn't get any grief about it and lots of pupils mentioned it. It upset someone - possibly a teacher, as a new rule came down soon after to say we all had to wash all the writing off our lab coats and no one was allowed to write on their lab coats

Blimey - scraping the barrel now - quoting Monty Python - sure 'he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy' - yup we did it too along with the dead parrot sketch, and a little 'waffer thin mint' and plenty of others - none of this was aimed at christians.

Nope - not scraping the barrel at all - Life of Brian did really well at the box office. It was aimed at Christians and pretty much all theists and also political factions e.g. The People's Front of Judea vs the the Judean People's Front. Apart from films, Monty Python also did a lot of sketches satirising religion e.g. the Spanish Inquisition. Other popular shows on TV that satirised religion that I remember watching off the top of my head were Black Adder, Dave Allen's stand up, Spitting Image. It didn't seem like atheists were invisible when I was at school.

But that isn't what he said, is it.

Depends how you interpret it - he said first time attending church after converting - so I didn't interpret it as him saying he had never attended church before. 

And the point is that Vlad likes us not to recognise that he was brought up christian as it undermines his claimed massive conversion from atheism to christianity, which was in reality merely a reversion to the religion of his upbringing.

What "claimed massive conversion"?

Is that like you claiming to be an atheist on here but lying because you're still a massive Christian just in a little bit of denial? 

What is a "massive conversion" anyway....as opposed to any other type of conversion? What is the criteria for adding the word "massive"? And why does it matter whether it's massive or just a normal-sized conversion? What's your point?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are lots of cultures and sub-cultures so wouldn't surprise me if Vlad felt it was culturally ingrained. At school, the Bible-bashers and practising Christians in our year at school were a minority so it was the culture of the pupils at my school to talk disparagingly of their beliefs behind their backs. We quoted Monty Python and there were a lot of shows on TV that we watched that made fun of religion.  Umm... it's fairly obvious that he meant when he attended church for the first time after he converted from atheism to Christianity as an adult, not the first time he attended church ever in his life.

Exactly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ho ho ho. I don't think i've read such an extreme and ridiculous and totally inaccurate assumption of victimhood in my life.

Just to note that, as a pupil at a bog-standard comprehensive in the 1970s when school assemblies always included some element of religious BS there were always a few kids made to wait outside because their parents refused to let them participate. Not sure I would characterise them as “victims” as such, but they were considered the weirdos by the rest of us just for being an out group. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to note that, as a pupil at a bog-standard comprehensive in the 1970s when school assemblies always included some element of religious BS there were always a few kids made to wait outside because their parents refused to let them participate. Not sure I would characterise them as “victims” as such, but they were considered the weirdos by the rest of us just for being an out group.

Yes a very good friend of mine at school was the only chap I was conscious of of such a removal. The chap himself was very anti religious but we took it that was because his father was
I remember the RE teacher going off on one over my friend recasting the entry into Jerusalem by Jesus and the disciples as the Hole in the Wall gang riding into Tombstone.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not really - it is an extremely common thread from the faith sector that charitable/voluntary work is effectively driven by religious people.

Yes really since you were responding to my post, where I had made no such claim. Just seems to be an excuse for you to air your bias.

I agree which is why I why I have no truck with religious people who claim (wrongly) that they are more likely to be involved in voluntary work.

Again so what? I hadn't claimed this in my post.

You are falling into that well worn trap. The word 'religious' is entirely redundant at the beginning of your second sentence because, in reality, religious and non religious communities and individuals help in that manner. Adding the word religion, clearly gives the impression that this is what religious communities and individual do, but non religious communities and individuals don't.

No it doesn't - just you showing your bias again. My first sentence was "Communities run because of the people (religious and non-religious) who volunteer" and then I said religious communities contribute to valuable community services that combat loneliness. This means the available community services are not just religious ones. 

The point is when you actually look at religious and non religious people they are equally involved in voluntary work, but from the media portrayal along with religions are cheerleaders you'd belief that at the least religious people were more involved in voluntary work.

Again that was not what i said in my post. That's just your bias colouring your interpretation. Religious people might talk about their faith motivating them if asked by the media - 'what motivated you' is a standard media question. Not seeing the problem with people wanting to talk about their motivations or what inspired them to act, if asked.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vlad,
 etc

Quite a co-incidence though don't you think that the very god you think you "encountered" or some such as an adult just happened to be exactly the same god that these various organisations peddled to the young and impressionable you?

What are the chances eh?

Your brain makes sense of its experiences through the filter of stored information available to it. Brains rely on the previously 'stored information to create their reality. So it's logical that if a person thinks they 'experienced' something supernatural in a religious context, their brain would seek to make sense of it with the information they have been exposed to at various times in their life.

I like curry because my parents peddled curry to me when I was young and impressionable.

I connect with 80s music because various organisations peddled 80s music to a young and impressionable me.
 
I follow certain values and morals because various organisations including schools peddled those values and morals to the young and impressionable me.

I view history a certain way because various organisations peddled those historical views to the young and impressionable me.

Why should religion be any different? I became Muslim because my brain interpreted the words I read in the Quran based on previously stored information in my brain about religion, spirituality and God etc. For me to believe that Man created God when I was young, I must have had a concept of God that I had learnt from the culture around me - whether from Hindu, Christian or Muslim believers or from atheists. Were you expecting people to come up with entirely new concepts they have never previously encountered before, when they experience something?

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Your brain makes sense of its experiences through the filter of stored information available to it. Brains rely on the previously 'stored information to create their reality. So it's logical that if a person thinks they 'experienced' something supernatural in a religious context, their brain would seek to make sense of it with the information they have been exposed to at various times in their life.

I like curry because my parents peddled curry to me when I was young and impressionable.

I connect with 80s music because various organisations peddled 80s music to a young and impressionable me.
 
I follow certain values and morals because various organisations including schools peddled those values and morals to the young and impressionable me.

I view history a certain way because various organisations peddled those historical views to the young and impressionable me.

Why should religion be any different? I became Muslim because my brain interpreted the words I read in the Quran based on previously stored information in my brain about religion, spirituality and God etc. For me to believe that Man created God when I was young, I must have had a concept of God that I had learnt from the culture around me - whether from Hindu, Christian or Muslim believers or from atheists. Were you expecting people to come up with entirely new concepts they have never previously encountered before, when they experience something?

What you “like”, “follow” etc are expressions of the subjective desires and preferences you have. “God made himself known to me” on the other hand is a claim of an objective fact about the universe (ie, “God”).

Your analogy fails accordingly.     

[Sriram]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909085942.htm

Excerpts..

***********

Individuals who can unconsciously predict complex patterns, an ability called implicit pattern learning, are likely to hold stronger beliefs that there is a god who creates patterns of events in the universe, according to neuroscientists at Georgetown University.

Our hypothesis is that people whose brains are good at subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment may ascribe those patterns to the hand of a higher power," he adds.

"A really interesting observation was what happened between childhood and adulthood," explains Green. The data suggest that if children are unconsciously picking up on patterns in the environment, their belief is more likely to increase as they grow up, even if they are in a nonreligious household. Likewise, if they are not unconsciously picking up on patterns around them, their belief is more likely to decrease as they grow up, even in a religious household.

"Afghans and Americans may be more alike than different, at least in certain cognitive processes involved in religious belief and making meaning of the world around us. Irrespective of one's faith, the findings suggest exciting insights into the nature of belief."

"A brain that is more predisposed to implicit pattern learning may be more inclined to believe in a god no matter where in the world that brain happens to find itself, or in which religious context," Green adds, though he cautions that further research is necessary.

"Optimistically," Green concludes, "this evidence might provide some neuro-cognitive common ground at a basic human level between believers of disparate faiths."

***********

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Excerpts..

***********

Individuals who can unconsciously predict complex patterns, an ability called implicit pattern learning, are likely to hold stronger beliefs that there is a god who creates patterns of events in the universe, according to neuroscientists at Georgetown University.

Our hypothesis is that people whose brains are good at subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment may ascribe those patterns to the hand of a higher power," he adds.

"A really interesting observation was what happened between childhood and adulthood," explains Green. The data suggest that if children are unconsciously picking up on patterns in the environment, their belief is more likely to increase as they grow up, even if they are in a nonreligious household. Likewise, if they are not unconsciously picking up on patterns around them, their belief is more likely to decrease as they grow up, even in a religious household.

"Afghans and Americans may be more alike than different, at least in certain cognitive processes involved in religious belief and making meaning of the world around us. Irrespective of one's faith, the findings suggest exciting insights into the nature of belief."

"A brain that is more predisposed to implicit pattern learning may be more inclined to believe in a god no matter where in the world that brain happens to find itself, or in which religious context," Green adds, though he cautions that further research is necessary.

"Optimistically," Green concludes, "this evidence might provide some neuro-cognitive common ground at a basic human level between believers of disparate faiths."

None of which requires there actually to be a "god", a "presence", a "force" etc you'll notice. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

What you “like”, “follow” etc are expressions of the subjective desires and preferences you have. “God made himself known to me” on the other hand is a claim of an objective fact about the universe (ie, “God”).

Your analogy fails accordingly.     

How do you interpret it as a claim of objective fact about the universe and also as a supernatural claim? The supernatural is claimed to be outside the natural world, and not subject to the laws of the natural world.

Vlad's belief is that God made himself known to him and not as a physical presence, but present in his consciousness. True, Vlad's consciousness is in the universe. Are you suggesting that anything in anyone's consciousness is a claim of objective fact? 

ETA - also the point was that  many of my thoughts were peddled to me when I was young and impressionable by various people and organisations. That's the information my brain draws on to make sense of experiences and to form my views.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

How do you interpret it as a claim of objective fact about the universe and also as a supernatural claim? The supernatural is claimed to be outside the natural world, and not subject to the laws of the natural world.

Vlad's belief is that God made himself known to him and not as a physical presence, but present in his consciousness. True, Vlad's consciousness is in the universe. Are you suggesting that anything in anyone's consciousness is a claim of objective fact?

It's still a claim of objective fact (a god who makes house calls) as opposed to a statement of subjective preference. The “about the universe” part is irrelevant for this purpose.   

A. I grew up in a coffee drinking household. I now prefer coffee to tea.

B. I grew up in a dragonist household. There’s a noise coming from my garage – therefore there’s a dragon in my garage.

Can you see the qualitative difference between these statements? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

It's still a claim of objective fact (a god who makes house calls) as opposed to a statement of subjective preference. The “about the universe” part is irrelevant for this purpose.   

A. I grew up in a coffee drinking household. I now prefer coffee to tea.

But what about those who drank coffee and later discovered tea and stopped drinking coffee then much later developed a preference for coffee

B. I grew up in a dragonist household.

Do you mean me? I never grew up in a religious household although Davey seems to think science tells him that I did. What's your excuse?

There’s a noise coming from my garage

– That'll be the Leprechauns.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

None of which requires there actually to be a "god", a "presence", a "force" etc you'll notice.

It however requires that there are people whose  'brains are good at subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment'.  If people lack this ability they will not be able to pick up subconsciously, the hidden patterns in their environment and will probably become atheists!

It is not just about culture and background......

[Bramble]

How do you interpret it as a claim of objective fact about the universe and also as a supernatural claim? The supernatural is claimed to be outside the natural world, and not subject to the laws of the natural world.

Vlad's belief is that God made himself known to him and not as a physical presence, but present in his consciousness. True, Vlad's consciousness is in the universe.

If the supernatural is outside the natural world how could it be experienced inside the natural world? As you say, consciousness is in the universe - so presumably it cannot be supernatural. How then can the natural experience the supernatural? How could God (supernatural) be present and act within the universe (natural)? This is all much too clever for me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the supernatural is outside the natural world how could it be experienced inside the natural world? As you say, consciousness is in the universe - so presumably it cannot be supernatural. How then can the natural experience the supernatural? How could God (supernatural) be present and act within the universe (natural)? This is all much too clever for me.

Floating boats is an analogy I find useful. If the universe is mechanistic then there is a connection between all things as in a machine however a boat is never part of the ocean it bobs up and down on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But what about those who drank coffee and later discovered tea and stopped drinking coffee then much later developed a preference for coffee

What about them? They just changed their preference is all – they didn’t though overreach into a claim of one hot beverage being objectively better than the other.

Do you mean me? I never grew up in a religious household although Davey seems to think science tells him that I did. What's your excuse?

It doesn’t have to be a “household” – “culture”, “environment”, "Sunday school" etc do the job just as well.

– That'll be the Leprechauns.

If I’d grown up in a leprechaunist household/culture/environment and wasn’t given to much self-reflection I might conclude that, yes. There’s nothing special about you for likely doing the same thing.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Floating boats is an analogy I find useful. If the universe is mechanistic then there is a connection between all things as in a machine however a boat is never part of the ocean it bobs up and down on.

Provided the boat is the Flying Dutchman or similar rather than a material one presumably?