Religion in School

BigMonka

CabbageCat said:

lloyd said:

That's not evidence though is it? It's evidence that we don't understand these things, you're on the path to "god done it" when faced with things you (we as humans) don't understand, which is not the way to go about it.

Did you ever watch that documentary where they brought some Papua New Guinean tribesmen to London? When faced with the wonders of the large buildings and specifically automatic doors and escalators, their only explanation for it was some kind of god must have built them.

You're doing exactly the same thing but to a technology/occurance that is beyond your (and the rest of humanities) comprehension, we can call it many different things, but evidence of design it most certainly is not.

The Mandlebrot Set thing can be equated to a leaf falling off a tree and landing on a specific patch of ground, the chances of it landing on that patch are infinitely small, but land there it does, same as the chance of a rock in a nothing solar system in a patch of the universe has small chance of producing life but hey, here we are-there's no design behind it, it's just the way it is.

I agree to an extent (hence my conclusions) but I think you are using the word "evidence" when you mean "proof". All evidence can be written off with alternative explanations. A religious person would say that creation itself is evidence - which it sort of is. They could ask for evidence of evolution and respond to each example with, "Nah, that's God doing that."

A historian would say that the Bible is evidence of God. Unreliable, secondary evidence but still evidence, like Pepys with the plague.

As a spiritual and intellectual exercise, what would you consider to be evidence of a God? 

I'd agree with the evidence/proof thing. Then when you die you'll either:
a) think nothing at all because there's nothing beyond this life
b) major facepalm that you looked at all the "evidence" without coming to the conclusion that there was a god

You pays yer money takes yer choice
(and I'm not advocating just hedging your bets with which one you choose, I much prefer talking to people with a bit of courage to their convictions)

lloyd

CabbageCat said:

lloyd said:
The Bible and Pepys argument is also incorrect as Pepys accounts can be backed up by many many other separate accounts-death records, skeletons infected with plague dated to the same time, other independent witnesses etc...

So evidence is only evidence if it's also backed up by more evidence?

I confess that I thought that you would say that, though. Which is why I said the evidence/proof thing. I was taught in my history GCSE that written accounts at the time are considered to be evidence, albeit less reliable than real, tangible objects. Written accounts after the event (like the Bible...probably) are even less reliable, but still evidence.

You examples appear to be focussing on the Christian god. I was hoping for something a bit more general. If the Bible is a whole load of twaddle made up by Jesus Collins to settle a bet it doesn't mean that there is no God. Finding the Arc would only be evidence of Noah. If that is evidence of God then so would be finding Jerusalem.

Hmmm, I think we're straying to word play again, you could say that unreliable evidence is evidence in name, but I'd probably not give it the title evidence, if you know what I'm saying.

I think if one person told me there was a pig with wings flying past my window I'd not call it evidence, if a second did, i'd possibly turn round, if 50,000 people told me, I turned round and saw a pig flying past my window I'd concede that the first person's account was evidence, but before confirmation it cannot be called that.

If the Bible (or Hadith, Koran etc) is evidence (no matter how poor) of god's existence do you give similar weight to The Philosopher's Stone being evidence of Wizardry or to keep it religious, Joseph Smith's accounts as I wouldn't call JS's scribblings evidence.

God, Allah, Noah, Jesus etc are all interchangeable to me and I use the Christian examples as they are more familiar to me having grown up in a quasi-christian family in North Wales-we had semi religious assemblies in Primary School that gave us the christian fables.

To use an Islamic one, if we found the bones of a flying horse and also discovered that 1,200 years ago a massive fault-line appeared in the moon and split in two, I'd have to lean towards conversion to Islam.

I think you're wrong in saying that finding an ark would lend the same weight as evidence that there is a Jerusalem misses the point completely-Jerusalem is an actual city with a history and we know it was around many years before the Bible was written, whereas finding an ark would point to one of the stories in the bible being true.

It's like saying London and quidditch balls are mentioned in Harry Potter books so finding a quidditch ball can be given the same weight of evidence as London being a real  place.

CabbageCat

lloyd said:

CabbageCat said:

lloyd said:
The Bible and Pepys argument is also incorrect as Pepys accounts can be backed up by many many other separate accounts-death records, skeletons infected with plague dated to the same time, other independent witnesses etc...

So evidence is only evidence if it's also backed up by more evidence?

I confess that I thought that you would say that, though. Which is why I said the evidence/proof thing. I was taught in my history GCSE that written accounts at the time are considered to be evidence, albeit less reliable than real, tangible objects. Written accounts after the event (like the Bible...probably) are even less reliable, but still evidence.

You examples appear to be focussing on the Christian god. I was hoping for something a bit more general. If the Bible is a whole load of twaddle made up by Jesus Collins to settle a bet it doesn't mean that there is no God. Finding the Arc would only be evidence of Noah. If that is evidence of God then so would be finding Jerusalem.

Hmmm, I think we're straying to word play again, you could say that unreliable evidence is evidence in name, but I'd probably not give it the title evidence, if you know what I'm saying.

I think if one person told me there was a pig with wings flying past my window I'd not call it evidence, if a second did, i'd possibly turn round, if 50,000 people told me, I turned round and saw a pig flying past my window I'd concede that the first person's account was evidence, but before confirmation it cannot be called that.

If the Bible (or Hadith, Koran etc) is evidence (no matter how poor) of god's existence do you give similar weight to The Philosopher's Stone being evidence of Wizardry or to keep it religious, Joseph Smith's accounts as I wouldn't call JS's scribblings evidence.

God, Allah, Noah, Jesus etc are all interchangeable to me and I use the Christian examples as they are more familiar to me having grown up in a quasi-christian family in North Wales-we had semi religious assemblies in Primary School that gave us the christian fables.

To use an Islamic one, if we found the bones of a flying horse and also discovered that 1,200 years ago a massive fault-line appeared in the moon and split in two, I'd have to lean towards conversion to Islam.

I think you're wrong in saying that finding an ark would lend the same weight as evidence that there is a Jerusalem misses the point completely-Jerusalem is an actual city with a history and we know it was around many years before the Bible was written, whereas finding an ark would point to one of the stories in the bible being true.

It's like saying London and quidditch balls are mentioned in Harry Potter books so finding a quidditch ball can be given the same weight of evidence as London being a real  place.

In your examples the evidence only becomes evidence when it's evidence of something true. Proof. This might be word play but we are using words to communicate. I think that they are pretty important.

If there was an arc in the Natural History Museum and we all saw it all the time but there was no evidence of Jerusalem ever existing then there would be Lloyds saying that the arc wasn't evidence but finding Jerusalem would be.

Would finding evidence of characters from the Bible existing be considered god-evidence? People like Moses or Abraham? If so, why them and not the characters we "know" did exist?

Harry Potter was never posited as fact but if it was then the existence of London would be evidence that it is true, yes. So would the books. There is a load of evidence out there for things that are bullshit.

I wasn't very clear about the Christian thing either, sorry. I meant what would be evidence of a God as in evidence of a supreme being or creator. Not something from stories.

BigMonka

lloyd said:

The problem with providing evidence of god's existence is that it's pretty difficult, probably the only thing that I'd accept would be hearing a voice coming from the clouds telling us all to believe and we could go to heaven (if other people heard it too).

The thing is is that there is no evidence or proof of god however you want to dress it up. In 2000 years we have nothing that even hints towards it apart from a book that has massive plot holes running from start to finish.

Well of course there's been no evidence of god in 2000 years if the only thing you'd count as evidence is you personally hearing a voice

Myranda

The little girl I've been known to babysit once asked while I was making sure she went to bed "If I die when I'm sleeping will Jesus meet me in heaven"

... 

Um. What the f*** do you say to that? 

I'm an atheist, so is her mother, father, uncle, brother, boyfriend... literally no one in her family is the least bit religious - not even a one of them is remotely "spiritual" or anything approaching it.

So I said something like "I think you'll make it through the night" and hoped that was sufficient.

You tell a child that's young enough about god, even if it's a "people believe X, Y or Z" then they might hear "X, Y or Z is a fact" ... cognitively the ability to reason and argue is picked up around 8 years old ish ... below that is not really old enough to appreciate the nuance between learning about religion and learning religion

lloyd

CabbageCat said:

lloyd said:

CabbageCat said:

lloyd said:
The Bible and Pepys argument is also incorrect as Pepys accounts can be backed up by many many other separate accounts-death records, skeletons infected with plague dated to the same time, other independent witnesses etc...

So evidence is only evidence if it's also backed up by more evidence?

I confess that I thought that you would say that, though. Which is why I said the evidence/proof thing. I was taught in my history GCSE that written accounts at the time are considered to be evidence, albeit less reliable than real, tangible objects. Written accounts after the event (like the Bible...probably) are even less reliable, but still evidence.

You examples appear to be focussing on the Christian god. I was hoping for something a bit more general. If the Bible is a whole load of twaddle made up by Jesus Collins to settle a bet it doesn't mean that there is no God. Finding the Arc would only be evidence of Noah. If that is evidence of God then so would be finding Jerusalem.

Hmmm, I think we're straying to word play again, you could say that unreliable evidence is evidence in name, but I'd probably not give it the title evidence, if you know what I'm saying.

I think if one person told me there was a pig with wings flying past my window I'd not call it evidence, if a second did, i'd possibly turn round, if 50,000 people told me, I turned round and saw a pig flying past my window I'd concede that the first person's account was evidence, but before confirmation it cannot be called that.

If the Bible (or Hadith, Koran etc) is evidence (no matter how poor) of god's existence do you give similar weight to The Philosopher's Stone being evidence of Wizardry or to keep it religious, Joseph Smith's accounts as I wouldn't call JS's scribblings evidence.

God, Allah, Noah, Jesus etc are all interchangeable to me and I use the Christian examples as they are more familiar to me having grown up in a quasi-christian family in North Wales-we had semi religious assemblies in Primary School that gave us the christian fables.

To use an Islamic one, if we found the bones of a flying horse and also discovered that 1,200 years ago a massive fault-line appeared in the moon and split in two, I'd have to lean towards conversion to Islam.

I think you're wrong in saying that finding an ark would lend the same weight as evidence that there is a Jerusalem misses the point completely-Jerusalem is an actual city with a history and we know it was around many years before the Bible was written, whereas finding an ark would point to one of the stories in the bible being true.

It's like saying London and quidditch balls are mentioned in Harry Potter books so finding a quidditch ball can be given the same weight of evidence as London being a real  place.

In your examples the evidence only becomes evidence when it's evidence of something true. Proof. This might be word play but we are using words to communicate. I think that they are pretty important.

If there was an arc in the Natural History Museum and we all saw it all the time but there was no evidence of Jerusalem ever existing then there would be Lloyds saying that the arc wasn't evidence but finding Jerusalem would be.

Would finding evidence of characters from the Bible existing be considered god-evidence? People like Moses or Abraham? If so, why them and not the characters we "know" did exist?

Harry Potter was never posited as fact but if it was then the existence of London would be evidence that it is true, yes. So would the books. There is a load of evidence out there for things that are bullshit.

I wasn't very clear about the Christian thing either, sorry. I meant what would be evidence of a God as in evidence of a supreme being or creator. Not something from stories.

My examples of evidence aren't of things that become true, ok, lets look at it from a (simplistic) murder scene perspective:

Man A is dead on the floor, gun a few meters away, man B's fingerprints on the gun and gunpowder residue on his hands, his Mrs says they were at home all night and watched XYZ on the TV. Man B more than likely killed man A, but we can't say for definite.

Is his Mrs' account "evidence" or is it bollocks?

Is the fingerprint and gun residue evidence of a murder?

No it's evidence that at some point Man B has held the gun and at (however long gunpowder residue lasts) some point he's fired a gun and not washed his hands.

From that we can reasonably conclude that he probably done it, but individually it's not evidence of a murder in the same way that an Ark isn't proof of Noah, it's evidence of a boat, but if you add in the fact it has a load of stalls for enough animals to repopulate the world, a sprig of an olive branch wedged into the side and graffiti proclaiming Noah waz ere then we can start calling it evidence of the story of Noah's Ark being true, throw in some other evidence of other stories being true and we can start thinking more along the lines that the god stuff might be true-we have the sum total of fuck all to back any of it up.....

As far as I'm aware, the only people backed up by evidence in the Bible or people we "know" existed as you put it are historical figures that anyone of that time would have known existed, it's like me writing a story that a guy I know is  the son of god and including contemporary people and places in the story, it adds fuck all to the credibility, merely that the writer was aware of their contemporaries.

I used Harry Potter as I assume we're all more familiar with that than of other religious texts and did put in Joseph Smith's accounts but you've ignored that unfortunately.

professorben

7 pages in and we have yet to prove the existence of God.......
I find that unsatisfactory. 
And I still can't buy plasterboard fixings after 4pm on a Sunday. 
Its 2016 people ffs!!!!

professorben

BigMonka said:

lloyd said:

The problem with providing evidence of god's existence is that it's pretty difficult, probably the only thing that I'd accept would be hearing a voice coming from the clouds telling us all to believe and we could go to heaven (if other people heard it too).

The thing is is that there is no evidence or proof of god however you want to dress it up. In 2000 years we have nothing that even hints towards it apart from a book that has massive plot holes running from start to finish.

Well of course there's been no evidence of god in 2000 years if the only thing you'd count as evidence is you personally hearing a voice

A quick personal appearance wouldn't go amiss, maybe a greatest hits tour to keep the fans happy while he's still in the studio. 
2000 years is a long time for new material, even if Mutt Lange is producing it. 

slacker

professorben said:

7 pages in and we have yet to prove the existence of God.......
I find that unsatisfactory. 
And I still can't buy plasterboard fixings after 4pm on a Sunday. 
Its 2016 people ffs!!!

It's God's fault that your delay pedal has been held hostage?

professorben

slacker said:

professorben said:

7 pages in and we have yet to prove the existence of God.......
I find that unsatisfactory. 
And I still can't buy plasterboard fixings after 4pm on a Sunday. 
Its 2016 people ffs!!!

It's God's fault that your delay pedal has been held hostage?

Depending on your belief or lack of. 

CabbageCat

lloyd said:

Man A is dead on the floor, gun a few meters away, man B's fingerprints on the gun and gunpowder residue on his hands, his Mrs says they were at home all night and watched XYZ on the TV. Man B more than likely killed man A, but we can't say for definite.

Is his Mrs' account "evidence" or is it bollocks?

Is the fingerprint and gun residue evidence of a murder?

No it's evidence that at some point Man B has held the gun and at (however long gunpowder residue lasts) some point he's fired a gun and not washed his hands.

From that we can reasonably conclude that he probably done it, but individually it's not evidence of a murder in the same way that an Ark isn't proof of Noah, it's evidence of a boat, but if you add in the fact it has a load of stalls for enough animals to repopulate the world, a sprig of an olive branch wedged into the side and graffiti proclaiming Noah waz ere then we can start calling it evidence of the story of Noah's Ark being true, throw in some other evidence of other stories being true and we can start thinking more along the lines that the god stuff might be true-we have the sum total of fuck all to back any of it up.....

As far as I'm aware, the only people backed up by evidence in the Bible or people we "know" existed as you put it are historical figures that anyone of that time would have known existed, it's like me writing a story that a guy I know is  the son of god and including contemporary people and places in the story, it adds fuck all to the credibility, merely that the writer was aware of their contemporaries.

I used Harry Potter as I assume we're all more familiar with that than of other religious texts and did put in Joseph Smith's accounts but you've ignored that unfortunately.

Something can be evidence AND bollocks. When the police took his Mrs' account it would have been taken as evidence. Evidence. The finger prints and gun residue were evidence to the contrary.

If people that actually existed aren't allowed to be submitted as evidence of the Bible's accuracy then its on to a bit of a hiding to nothing.

professorben

Ok the thread got interesting again. 

professorben

So..........
if we hypothesise the existence of God. 
The question still remains. 









Jonny Lee Miller or Benedict Cumberbatch?
https://imgur.com/a/fFkaN

lloyd

Cc so we kind of agree (which is disappointing).

We could argue that evidence that is bollox can't really be classed as evidence? 

Rocker

lloyd said:

No, the point I'm making is that teaching your children to question everything and to put faith in the scientific method is not foisting your belief system on it. It's not even a belief system.

Children need to know about both sides of the argument - those for God and those who disbelieve in the existence of God.  How else can they come to a conclusion about religion, one that fits their understanding of things.  The crucial part is 'to question everything'.  Even the child's parents beliefs or ideas need questioning.  By the child.  Otherwise the parent is denying their child the right to do what the parent or his/her parents conditioned them into believing.  Or not believing if that is the case.

If any parent can honestly say they did that, then they have done well.  [This is not proving the existence of God or the reverse, that belief is the prerogative of every individual] 

Myranda

Rocker said:

lloyd said:

No, the point I'm making is that teaching your children to question everything and to put faith in the scientific method is not foisting your belief system on it. It's not even a belief system.

Children need to know about both sides of the argument - those for God and those who disbelieve in the existence of God.  How else can they come to a conclusion about religion, one that fits their understanding of things.  The crucial part is 'to question everything'.  Even the child's parents beliefs or ideas need questioning.  By the child.  Otherwise the parent is denying their child the right to do what the parent or his/her parents conditioned them into believing.  Or not believing if that is the case.

If any parent can honestly say they did that, then they have done well.  [This is not proving the existence of God or the reverse, that belief is the prerogative of every individual] 

So a massive pile of accumulated knowledge and thousands of years of observation and experimentation... and on the other a book about an invisible sky man?

Those two sides of the argument? You don't have to disbelieve to realise there's zero supporting evidence of god.CabbageCat said:

lloyd said:

Man A is dead on the floor, gun a few meters away, man B's fingerprints on the gun and gunpowder residue on his hands, his Mrs says they were at home all night and watched XYZ on the TV. Man B more than likely killed man A, but we can't say for definite.

Is his Mrs' account "evidence" or is it bollocks?

Is the fingerprint and gun residue evidence of a murder?

No it's evidence that at some point Man B has held the gun and at (however long gunpowder residue lasts) some point he's fired a gun and not washed his hands.

From that we can reasonably conclude that he probably done it, but individually it's not evidence of a murder in the same way that an Ark isn't proof of Noah, it's evidence of a boat, but if you add in the fact it has a load of stalls for enough animals to repopulate the world, a sprig of an olive branch wedged into the side and graffiti proclaiming Noah waz ere then we can start calling it evidence of the story of Noah's Ark being true, throw in some other evidence of other stories being true and we can start thinking more along the lines that the god stuff might be true-we have the sum total of fuck all to back any of it up.....

As far as I'm aware, the only people backed up by evidence in the Bible or people we "know" existed as you put it are historical figures that anyone of that time would have known existed, it's like me writing a story that a guy I know is  the son of god and including contemporary people and places in the story, it adds fuck all to the credibility, merely that the writer was aware of their contemporaries.

I used Harry Potter as I assume we're all more familiar with that than of other religious texts and did put in Joseph Smith's accounts but you've ignored that unfortunately.

Something can be evidence AND bollocks. When the police took his Mrs' account it would have been taken as evidence. Evidence. The finger prints and gun residue were evidence to the contrary.

If people that actually existed aren't allowed to be submitted as evidence of the Bible's accuracy then its on to a bit of a hiding to nothing.

I was on a train with David Cameron this morning and god visited to say "Hi" ... in a thousand years someone might take that statement as proof because David Cameron was a shiny faced robot that really existed around now

littlegreenman

Rocker said:

@littlegreenman what does a parent do if their child is learning from the other schoolchildren in the class? As often happens in practice.

I don't recall religious practises and belief systems being discussed with my peers at school when I was 5, do you? Or at 10. I appreciate there may be some differences in the demographic between the mainland and Ireland. There was some religious education once I was at what was then called "junior school" (year 4, 5?, I dunno).

By then I'd already been attending church 3 times weekly as part of my local church choir for many years (High Anglican, lots of bells and smells). 2 weekly rehearsals and singing at mass on Sunday. My Mum enrolled me in as I liked singing from an early age apparently, and it was known as a good choir. I started aged about 6 and continued until my voice broke at about 12 and could no longer sing soprano and left, having gained the lofty title of head chorister. I liked it because I liked the music and the pomp. I was surrounded by the whole religious aspect of what was going on and yet even at the age of 6 when I started I was unconvinced by what I heard, and remained that way. It just didn't make sense to the young me and the choir master and vicar never shye'd away from questions about evolution or dinosaurs. Perhaps I was lucky?

Worked out OK in the long run as I was proficient in reading dots long before I knew electric guitars even existed! It was a few years later that I figured out why the very young me liked Bohemian Rhapsody and Mr. Blue Sky as much as Handel's Messiah!

I'd put all of that down to the attitude at home, no coercion towards any faith or lack of, and an encouragement to use every part of our local library as my own personal version of a '70's internet. Left to my own devices, I discovered the scientific method, evolution, dinosaurs, philosophy and psychology, etc, etc.

In fact it was only really at my dear old Mum's funeral and at the reading of her will that I found out that she'd been a semi-secretly practising Anglican her whole life. Keeping her faith to herself to avoid influencing her sons one way or the other. Her choice of careers was obvious once that was out, Nurse, Health Visitor (in some very dodgy Liverpool neighbourhoods), HIV Outreach Health advisor to local street working prostitutes at risk. Even in the hospice at the end she was volunteering to help out!

Kept her faith to herself, but demonstrated it daily and never once tried to indoctrinate us, but encouraged us to explore all that is out there. That's a true Christian in my book.

capo4th

What about the people who attend church for a year to get their little boy or girl into the good religious school and then run a mile from the vicar once little Johnny is sat at his school desk learning his times tables whilst singing all things bright and beautiful.....

Sporky

capo4th said:

What about the people who attend church for a year to get their little boy or girl into the good religious school and then run a mile from the vicar once little Johnny is sat at his school desk learning his times tables whilst singing all things bright and beautiful.....

Any system with rules exists to be exploited. I'd rather faith schools were banned, but given that they exist I fully support any parents who game the system to get their kids the best education they can. Exploit the rules, break the system, win.

littlegreenman

capo4th said:

What about the people who attend church for a year to get their little boy or girl into the good religious school and then run a mile from the vicar once little Johnny is sat at his school desk learning his times tables whilst singing all things bright and beautiful.....

That, right there, is why there shouldn't be religious schools.

*caveat* I sang All things Bright and Beautiful at my secular school in the 70's, and I kicked ass, and knew my 12x table!