The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

16970727475108

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited April 2018 Posts: 17,728
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.

    I don't believe that I ever claimed to be sitting on mountains of evidence, but anyway.

    I need to find the exact quote but you did say the events of the Bible were proven true beyond doubt, if I'm not mistaken you mentioned archeological evidence.

    Allow me Sir:
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The point isn’t evidence, it’s about having faith. If there was strong evidence to prove the religion, everyone would join.

    Well, yes, that is what it boils down to.

    I will ask again a question I asked before: what's the difference between an existing God and an inexistant God if the only way you determine said existence is by faith alone?

    Well there is the Bible, for a start. Biblical archaeology has proved a lot of things too. There are many books on the subject that are well worth reading.

    So, it's not just a case of blind faith alone. The Bible is a history book in part too. It's a whole series of books collected together, in fact. It's very easy to forget that at times.There is evidence out there too that proves it is factually correct.
    'Factually correct' quite a bold statement indeed.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Well I rescind any such comment.
    You rescind in it the sense that you admit you have no 'evidence' that 'proves it is factually correct' or that you have given up your belief and have come to realise what a load of old cobblers it all is?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The belief in an afterlife or a soul isn t the same as belief in a religion. Many get those mixed up.

    This is true enough: some theists don't believe in an afterlife and Buddhists do not believe in a God but believe in souls... that said neither beliefs are supported by evidence.

    What I find truely ironic about this is I can give you all the historical accounts all the research done all the eyewitness testimony from the days of Moses to now and you won’t believe not due to a lack of evidence but due to your own stubbornness (though I think Wizard doesn’t believe out of spite)...

    Plus the obvious irony you “believe” there is no god. See atheists have faith too inspite of their denial of it just faith in the wrong thing (at least from my perspective) and (again in my perspective) are no different from the thousands of other false religions throughout time. Sure you clergymen are called different names then the others your places of worship are different as well but the undeniable truth is your placing your life and soul (if such a thing exists I believe science has proven it does and I will get into it in a moment but still so Wizard doesn’t have a heart attack due to anger I figure I will put the caveat in) on a gamble.. no different from those who make their living playing at casinos. Again show me the scientific evidence show me the data convince me I waste my time on Sunday’s and that sad truth is like children with funny hats you convinced yourselves you are pirates and explorers on the quest for truth when you seemingly are just ignoring the truth standing in front of you

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Sigh what have the aethist said except there is no god and laughed

    Yes, that's what we have done and that's what we do. What else is there to do? You keep going in circles about how god exists because god exists because the truth is that God exists and if God doesn't exist then how come he exists because he really does exist? So we tell you no, God doesn't exist; the theist crowd goes bonkers, and we have ourselves a couple of good laughs. We're being showered with strange logic like God exists because where else does morality come from?; God exists because how else can we distinguish between good and evil?; God exists because science can't prove everything just yet. Voila! So god exists.

    And to that, we say: no, we disagree. It's like telling a child when it's grown old enough, that Santa doesn't exist. Then we can laugh about it. We don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, you know. In fact, we can't. It's not possible to prove that something undefinable, irrational does or doesn't exist. I bet we could make up thousands of weird creatures and entities and whatnot, and you wouldn't be able to prove they don't exist. If I told you the resurrected corpse of Elvis Presley is sitting next to me right now, but you can't see or touch him, go ahead and prove me wrong.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Plus the true humor is I posted a site for two quantum physicians discussing quantum consciousness and yet you guys ask what does that have to do with the soul.... ok you either can’t comprehend what quantum consciousness is or you don’t bother to look at the evidence anymore I am assuming out of fear...

    But please hit me with your best shot let’s see the intelligent athiest

    Whoa, okay, time-out!
    The principles of quantum theory are understood by a majority of all active physicists. These principles are nevertheless exotic and hard to approach intuitively because few things in our daily experience seem to be directly linked to them. Consequently, it's also possible to read too much into the seemingly infinite possibilities quantum physics offers. Most of quantum physics has the appearance of being talk in thin air anyway, even if it isn't. One of the major frustrations of the quantum physics community is that some scientists tend to take the more intriguing notions of the theory a few notches too far, resulting in speculative talk, bordering on esoteric nonsense, but brought to you by eloquent and otherwise smart people who know how to sell an idea. Yet evidently there's a difference between presenting the world with a spectacular hypothesis, even if it is built on, for the most part, rock solid quantum physics, and actually performing empirical tests which offer reproducible results and are submitted for scrutinous peer evaluation. Scientists think up lots of hypotheses and bury most of them very soon thereafter. Only a small percentage survives the first tests. Those that do are then further examined. Usually, it takes a very long time before a new theory is accepted.

    However, with many scientists being pressured to achieve something and the Internet a very unreliable forum for all people with a keyboard and lots of good or false ideas, certain hypotheses leak out into public awareness long before even the first batch of tests has been set up. Even some of the most respectable scientists have pondered over many curious topics, have then dropped an interesting hypothesis and have thus reached the world with still little to no evidence in hand. A beautiful example is Hugh Everett's quantum multiverse hypothesis, presented as an answer to Schrödinger's cat paradox. It was a clever way out of a possible theoretical paradox and science fiction writers still worship at the man's altar for that spark of creative genius, yet thus far, not a single test has been performed to conclusively demonstrate that the quantum multiverse is, indeed, reality. A wise scientist understands the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, between speculation and fact, between a good idea and a tested one. And a good scientist will be honest about that too. When I introduce the quantum multiverse to my students, I tell them what it is: a hypothesis, not a theory nor a fact, but a hypothesis, yet to be tested and therefore not yet a reliable piece of science.

    But some scientists are less concerned with "hygienic" science communication. An interesting idea can sell books, put food on the table, lead to name recognition. Scientists are people too, and sometimes people bring ulterior motives to the game. A "quantum consciousness" or "quantum soul" sounds good, but @Risico007, the real tests have yet to be performed. And until then, please forgive my lack of impulsive enthusiasm. Understand also that I'm not trying to convince this forum of my "scientific brilliance". The gentlemen in your linked source are no doubt far better educated than I am. But that doesn't mean I will follow them unconditionally. Einstein was probably far more brilliant than any of us, yet he spent the last three decades of his life trying to steer quantum physics in a totally different direction, away from where it was making progress, to a place that would have obstructed progress rather than facilitate it. I admire the man for his explanations of the photoelectric effect and the Brownian motion and for all of his predictions which have ultimately led to the very successful branch of physics known as relativistic physics. But I also know that even the great Einstein made errors in the final three decades of his career. His example is a very good one. No matter who tries to sell the idea, the idea itself must be amply tested before it can be accepted.

    Ergo, your quantum conscience scientists have yet to show us empirical evidence to support their ideas. Until they do, I'm afraid I choose not to accept their sayings as a valid argument in our debate about the soul. If I did accept anything without conclusive evidence, I'd be a bad scientist anyway and a terrible example for my students. I hate to say it, @Risico007, but you'll have to do better than that, as I cannot be convinced on the basis of a few men with the proper credentials saying something that might as well be false.

    I love the last line of this “I can not be convinced by a few men with proper credentials” ok so how many men would it take 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000?

    Please share with us the number and I will meet and exceed said number.

    What I find 'ironic' is that it's never occurred to you that where you're born usually dictates what religion you are. Middle east - Islam, far east - Buddhism, the west - Christianity, etc....well what a massive coincidence!

    Could it be that the children of these regions are being indoctrinated? Or do people just wake up one day and say "Ooh I'm feeling the catholic vibe today, I'm off to church!"???

    These poor brainwashed children then grow up and as adults suffer from the affliction, 'belief perseverance'.....the tendency to stick with an initial belief even after receiving contradictory or disconfirming information about that belief.

    Self delusion at its saddest
    Well said Sir.

    No, I quite simply rescind that statement (which didn't say or promise very much to start with) in the sense that I no longer care to discuss religion in this thread or on this forum. I'm quite prepared to leave to get away from it all in fact.
  • Posts: 14,800
    I'm not saying this teacher represents all faith teachers I'm saying the school system that is de facto confessional with a Christian bias allows her to hurt children and their development. Same secular school had some teacher, maybe the same maybe a different one, dismiss evolution.

    And I'm saying this is an attitude that is allowed to strive when you give religions special privilege in schools. And in this instance, supposedly secular schools.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Having worked in a so called "secular" school in the UK, my wife having done the same in a different school, I can witness of the harmful nature of religion even there. There was a compulsory assembly prayer conducted by the local vicar or the head teacher, which is basically coercing worship, even if pupils were of various faiths, some of no faith at all. Of course there's no compulsion to pray, but the fact that there is a form of worship already stygmatize those in the school, pupils or staff, who would not pray.

    And as I mentioned before on this thread one of my wife's friend and colleague (at the time) who was also a TA at the same school had her daughter (7 or 8 then) come back in tears after RE. When asked why, she said that she was "not special". It turned out the teacher had told the class baptized children are special in the eyes of God and he loves them all very much for it.

    But no, @NicNac there's no religious indoctrination in schools. Nothing that could harm children in any way, no religious favoritism.

    I'm not arguing that any religion is harmless. I was playing devil's advocate if you will, and asking Dimi to clarify his point.

    But, on your point there - Are you saying that this one teacher represents all faith teachers? Are you saying this is a general attitude throughout faith schools?

    Well it surely stands to reason that a faith school is going to push their own chosen faith over others (if they teach them at all). They're hardly going to say 'The stuff we believe is a load of old bollocks, Islam has got it nailed though.'

    And the term 'faith' school is another thing that needs stopping as well. A school is a place of learning, critical thinking, enlightenment whereas 'faith' (whatever the hell such a wishy washy concept is supposed to mean - it's just a euphemism for self delusion isn't it?) is the very opposite of this.
    I don’t know enough about faith school teachings outside of our village school, which does teach about other religions. And, for that matter, science as well.


  • Posts: 14,800
    If science, or indeed history, were to contradict a Catholic dogma, or something held as true by practicing Catholics, what would the faith school favour? The truth or the belief? I daresay the latter. Whether it's the nature of holy water or the Nativity story.

    And it's bad enough in a faith school. In a secular state school I'd say it's borderline criminal.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    @NicNac

    The ones I'm confronted with:

    - Catholics, but typically foreign (African, Polish, ...)
    - Protestants (the worst!!)
    - Muslims

    No Jews, Hindus, ... in my school.
  • Posts: 14,800
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @NicNac

    The ones I'm confronted with:

    - Catholics, but typically foreign (African, Polish, ...)
    - Protestants (the worst!!)
    - Muslims

    No Jews, Hindus, ... in my school.

    Could you elaborate about the issues each group brings?

    Somehow I'm not surprised Protestants are the worse.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    We don't want to see you leave the forums @Dragonpol, but you have sworn off visiting this thread numerous times over the past few days. I'd just stop clicking on it if you don't care for the arguments and conversations presented.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    We don't want to see you leave the forums @Dragonpol, but you have sworn off visiting this thread numerous times over the past few days. I'd just stop clicking on it if you don't care for the arguments and conversations presented.

    That's good advice, @Creasy47 and it's clearly what I must do now.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    NicNac wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Having worked in a so called "secular" school in the UK, my wife having done the same in a different school, I can witness of the harmful nature of religion even there. There was a compulsory assembly prayer conducted by the local vicar or the head teacher, which is basically coercing worship, even if pupils were of various faiths, some of no faith at all. Of course there's no compulsion to pray, but the fact that there is a form of worship already stygmatize those in the school, pupils or staff, who would not pray.

    And as I mentioned before on this thread one of my wife's friend and colleague (at the time) who was also a TA at the same school had her daughter (7 or 8 then) come back in tears after RE. When asked why, she said that she was "not special". It turned out the teacher had told the class baptized children are special in the eyes of God and he loves them all very much for it.

    But no, @NicNac there's no religious indoctrination in schools. Nothing that could harm children in any way, no religious favoritism.

    I'm not arguing that any religion is harmless. I was playing devil's advocate if you will, and asking Dimi to clarify his point.

    But, on your point there - Are you saying that this one teacher represents all faith teachers? Are you saying this is a general attitude throughout faith schools?

    Well it surely stands to reason that a faith school is going to push their own chosen faith over others (if they teach them at all). They're hardly going to say 'The stuff we believe is a load of old bollocks, Islam has got it nailed though.'

    And the term 'faith' school is another thing that needs stopping as well. A school is a place of learning, critical thinking, enlightenment whereas 'faith' (whatever the hell such a wishy washy concept is supposed to mean - it's just a euphemism for self delusion isn't it?) is the very opposite of this.
    I don’t know enough about faith school teachings outside of our village school, which does teach about other religions. And, for that matter, science as well.
    In fairness despite what we would certainly term a certain amount of indoctrination by my parents and also my teachers I was still taught science properly and I wouldn't say that I feel particularly damaged by the experience. But of course in a village in middle England mine was quite a diluted form of brainwashing so perhaps if I had been somewhere a bit more hardcore or been a tad more gullible then who knows what might have happened to me?

    It clearly works on some though as this is from the homepage of my school and that guy was in my class. He was reasonably bright (not in my league obviously), but certainly not an idiot, but even then myself and my little cabal of religion disbelievers used to ridicule his happy clappy schtick. I just googled his name on a whim when thinking about the school brainwashing we were discussing and (not entirely unexpectedly to be fair) seem to have hit the jackpot:
    http://www.bwh.staffs.sch.uk/News/New-Lay-Chaplain-to-enrich-pastoral-care/

    That's given me a chuckle. I thought I had made a shambles of my life but to see a bloke who used to be extremely popular with the girls now fatter, balder and with a far rougher wife than me, not to mention working in the service of the Lord, is most gratifying.

    I'm almost tempted to actually sign up for Facebook and Twitter if it produces such enjoyable levels of schadenfreude on a regular basis.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Not to mention running away from the argument is hardly something to be proud of is it?

    No, but I don't have what you chaps are looking for and nothing I bring forward would ever satisfy you so there's little point in my continuing with this thread. It's all just going round in circles now.

    Not so much circles as an impasse. Yourself and @Risico007 claim to be sitting on mountains of evidence, we are waiting for you to deliver, you don't.

    I don't believe that I ever claimed to be sitting on mountains of evidence, but anyway.

    I need to find the exact quote but you did say the events of the Bible were proven true beyond doubt, if I'm not mistaken you mentioned archeological evidence.

    Allow me Sir:
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    The point isn’t evidence, it’s about having faith. If there was strong evidence to prove the religion, everyone would join.

    Well, yes, that is what it boils down to.

    I will ask again a question I asked before: what's the difference between an existing God and an inexistant God if the only way you determine said existence is by faith alone?

    Well there is the Bible, for a start. Biblical archaeology has proved a lot of things too. There are many books on the subject that are well worth reading.

    So, it's not just a case of blind faith alone. The Bible is a history book in part too. It's a whole series of books collected together, in fact. It's very easy to forget that at times.There is evidence out there too that proves it is factually correct.
    'Factually correct' quite a bold statement indeed.
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Well I rescind any such comment.
    You rescind in it the sense that you admit you have no 'evidence' that 'proves it is factually correct' or that you have given up your belief and have come to realise what a load of old cobblers it all is?
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The belief in an afterlife or a soul isn t the same as belief in a religion. Many get those mixed up.

    This is true enough: some theists don't believe in an afterlife and Buddhists do not believe in a God but believe in souls... that said neither beliefs are supported by evidence.

    What I find truely ironic about this is I can give you all the historical accounts all the research done all the eyewitness testimony from the days of Moses to now and you won’t believe not due to a lack of evidence but due to your own stubbornness (though I think Wizard doesn’t believe out of spite)...

    Plus the obvious irony you “believe” there is no god. See atheists have faith too inspite of their denial of it just faith in the wrong thing (at least from my perspective) and (again in my perspective) are no different from the thousands of other false religions throughout time. Sure you clergymen are called different names then the others your places of worship are different as well but the undeniable truth is your placing your life and soul (if such a thing exists I believe science has proven it does and I will get into it in a moment but still so Wizard doesn’t have a heart attack due to anger I figure I will put the caveat in) on a gamble.. no different from those who make their living playing at casinos. Again show me the scientific evidence show me the data convince me I waste my time on Sunday’s and that sad truth is like children with funny hats you convinced yourselves you are pirates and explorers on the quest for truth when you seemingly are just ignoring the truth standing in front of you

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Sigh what have the aethist said except there is no god and laughed

    Yes, that's what we have done and that's what we do. What else is there to do? You keep going in circles about how god exists because god exists because the truth is that God exists and if God doesn't exist then how come he exists because he really does exist? So we tell you no, God doesn't exist; the theist crowd goes bonkers, and we have ourselves a couple of good laughs. We're being showered with strange logic like God exists because where else does morality come from?; God exists because how else can we distinguish between good and evil?; God exists because science can't prove everything just yet. Voila! So god exists.

    And to that, we say: no, we disagree. It's like telling a child when it's grown old enough, that Santa doesn't exist. Then we can laugh about it. We don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, you know. In fact, we can't. It's not possible to prove that something undefinable, irrational does or doesn't exist. I bet we could make up thousands of weird creatures and entities and whatnot, and you wouldn't be able to prove they don't exist. If I told you the resurrected corpse of Elvis Presley is sitting next to me right now, but you can't see or touch him, go ahead and prove me wrong.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Plus the true humor is I posted a site for two quantum physicians discussing quantum consciousness and yet you guys ask what does that have to do with the soul.... ok you either can’t comprehend what quantum consciousness is or you don’t bother to look at the evidence anymore I am assuming out of fear...

    But please hit me with your best shot let’s see the intelligent athiest

    Whoa, okay, time-out!
    The principles of quantum theory are understood by a majority of all active physicists. These principles are nevertheless exotic and hard to approach intuitively because few things in our daily experience seem to be directly linked to them. Consequently, it's also possible to read too much into the seemingly infinite possibilities quantum physics offers. Most of quantum physics has the appearance of being talk in thin air anyway, even if it isn't. One of the major frustrations of the quantum physics community is that some scientists tend to take the more intriguing notions of the theory a few notches too far, resulting in speculative talk, bordering on esoteric nonsense, but brought to you by eloquent and otherwise smart people who know how to sell an idea. Yet evidently there's a difference between presenting the world with a spectacular hypothesis, even if it is built on, for the most part, rock solid quantum physics, and actually performing empirical tests which offer reproducible results and are submitted for scrutinous peer evaluation. Scientists think up lots of hypotheses and bury most of them very soon thereafter. Only a small percentage survives the first tests. Those that do are then further examined. Usually, it takes a very long time before a new theory is accepted.

    However, with many scientists being pressured to achieve something and the Internet a very unreliable forum for all people with a keyboard and lots of good or false ideas, certain hypotheses leak out into public awareness long before even the first batch of tests has been set up. Even some of the most respectable scientists have pondered over many curious topics, have then dropped an interesting hypothesis and have thus reached the world with still little to no evidence in hand. A beautiful example is Hugh Everett's quantum multiverse hypothesis, presented as an answer to Schrödinger's cat paradox. It was a clever way out of a possible theoretical paradox and science fiction writers still worship at the man's altar for that spark of creative genius, yet thus far, not a single test has been performed to conclusively demonstrate that the quantum multiverse is, indeed, reality. A wise scientist understands the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, between speculation and fact, between a good idea and a tested one. And a good scientist will be honest about that too. When I introduce the quantum multiverse to my students, I tell them what it is: a hypothesis, not a theory nor a fact, but a hypothesis, yet to be tested and therefore not yet a reliable piece of science.

    But some scientists are less concerned with "hygienic" science communication. An interesting idea can sell books, put food on the table, lead to name recognition. Scientists are people too, and sometimes people bring ulterior motives to the game. A "quantum consciousness" or "quantum soul" sounds good, but @Risico007, the real tests have yet to be performed. And until then, please forgive my lack of impulsive enthusiasm. Understand also that I'm not trying to convince this forum of my "scientific brilliance". The gentlemen in your linked source are no doubt far better educated than I am. But that doesn't mean I will follow them unconditionally. Einstein was probably far more brilliant than any of us, yet he spent the last three decades of his life trying to steer quantum physics in a totally different direction, away from where it was making progress, to a place that would have obstructed progress rather than facilitate it. I admire the man for his explanations of the photoelectric effect and the Brownian motion and for all of his predictions which have ultimately led to the very successful branch of physics known as relativistic physics. But I also know that even the great Einstein made errors in the final three decades of his career. His example is a very good one. No matter who tries to sell the idea, the idea itself must be amply tested before it can be accepted.

    Ergo, your quantum conscience scientists have yet to show us empirical evidence to support their ideas. Until they do, I'm afraid I choose not to accept their sayings as a valid argument in our debate about the soul. If I did accept anything without conclusive evidence, I'd be a bad scientist anyway and a terrible example for my students. I hate to say it, @Risico007, but you'll have to do better than that, as I cannot be convinced on the basis of a few men with the proper credentials saying something that might as well be false.

    I love the last line of this “I can not be convinced by a few men with proper credentials” ok so how many men would it take 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000?

    Please share with us the number and I will meet and exceed said number.

    What I find 'ironic' is that it's never occurred to you that where you're born usually dictates what religion you are. Middle east - Islam, far east - Buddhism, the west - Christianity, etc....well what a massive coincidence!

    Could it be that the children of these regions are being indoctrinated? Or do people just wake up one day and say "Ooh I'm feeling the catholic vibe today, I'm off to church!"???

    These poor brainwashed children then grow up and as adults suffer from the affliction, 'belief perseverance'.....the tendency to stick with an initial belief even after receiving contradictory or disconfirming information about that belief.

    Self delusion at its saddest
    Well said Sir.

    No, I quite simply rescind that statement (which didn't say or promise very much to start with) in the sense that I no longer care to discuss religion in this thread or on this forum. I'm quite prepared to leave to get away from it all in fact.
    You do yourself a disservice Sir:

    'There is evidence out there too that proves it is factually correct.'

    That promises a great deal. A veritable revelation in fact. Ok it was followed up with sod all but you can't have everything I suppose. Promising a lot and then not delivering makes you no worse than SP after all.

    Anyway I agree with @Creasy47 it would be a shame to see you go. And seeing as you started the thread you clearly feel religion is a topic worthy of discussion so let's discuss.

    Instead of retreating into the shadows tell us what is you actually believe and, more pertinently, why you arrived at those conclusions? I can't really phrase it in a more open and respectful way.

    Of course I cannot promise to not disagree and then attempt to refute your point of view but isn't that the definition of a discussion?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    @Ludovico
    In short:

    - Catholics are mostly troubled by the notion that I am not a person of faith yet teach in a Catholic school. Unfortunately, a vast majority of Belgian schools is "Catholic" (though in name only in my experience) so statistically speaking, the chances of ending up in one are high. That said, many atheists and/or secularised individuals teach in our Catholic schools. Some of my students nevertheless think I'm being a hypocrite and an intruder that way and they flat-out say so. They're probably right, so I let them. Once. And then I proudly continue.

    Whenever I make admonishments regarding being told by others what to think or how to think, or when I comment on the Bible and whatnot, some can get pretty angry or leave the classroom to complain in the principle's office. I've been asked to keep my critical voice down before, albeit just a little bit because even my superiors aren't the most Catholic of Catholics. The "director" of my school is a married gay man whom I suspect is also entirely atheist. We get along very well, except that he thinks I shouldn't be too outspoken about certain things, even if I'm right.


    - Protestants... Oh wow. I've had my share, let me tell you. Evolution, Big Bang, quantum physics, particle physics, serendipity, entropy, ... it's all nonsense. Everything is a part of the Lord's Creation. There's an intention, a plan, a design behind it all. It's all just about 6000 years old. And none of that astronomy or physics BS is true. Empirical evidence matters not. Only the Bible does. I've had teenagers storm out of my classroom when I was teaching about cellular evolution. Solar nucleosynthesis, including half-lives and the way we calculate Earth's age, all have sparked tremendous resistance. I've had students turn around in class to face away from the blackboard or computer screens when carbon-14 dating was being discussed.

    I've had protestant parents demand to see me after school to lecture me about "Our Lord Jesus Christ" and how I was "polluting" my students' minds with my science which, after all, "is merely one way to look at things", while the Biblical version is at least as valid as an alternative. One protestant girl, two school years ago, burst out in tears during organic chemistry class. I still, to this day, have no idea why. We were discussing the chemical composition of petrol. Perhaps it was my very matter-of-fact review of our best hypotheses regarding the origin of petrol that did it. Either way, a note was slipped in my school mail the next day, anonymously, inviting me to a gathering of "Our Lord's Servants". Frankly, the first idea that popped into my head was, "am I being invited to some Satanic metal band's rock concert?"


    - Muslims are the politest. "Mister, I respect you and I like you as my teacher, but you will burn in hell when you're dead. Just saying." Or, "Mister, you are the best teacher I've ever had. You have had a lot of patience with me and you've helped me to understand chemistry. However, since you refuse to believe in God, you are a lost soul." Truly, I like my Muslims on average more than my Protestant pupils. They remain calm, do as they're told, they learn their lessons and present decent to good answers on a test. They just calmly mention, with a charming smile sometimes, that my life choices will prevent me from reaching heaven. I'm perfectly fine with that, I guess. ;)


    For the record, most of my students are bonafide atheists or, since they're teenagers, "I don't believe in God but there must be something out there" agnostics. ;)
  • Posts: 12,243
    I still haven’t reached a full atheist position. Maybe someday, but at least now I’m still very on the fence about “God” and other spiritual matters.
  • Posts: 14,800
    @DarthDimi Thanks that's really interesting and pretty much my experience (albeit far more limited). @FoxRox On the fence I'd say is still atheist.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Ludovico
    In short:

    - Catholics are mostly troubled by the notion that I am not a person of faith yet teach in a Catholic school. Unfortunately, a vast majority of Belgian schools is "Catholic" (though in name only in my experience) so statistically speaking, the chances of ending up in one are high. That said, many atheists and/or secularised individuals teach in our Catholic schools. Some of my students nevertheless think I'm being a hypocrite and an intruder that way and they flat-out say so. They're probably right, so I let them. Once. And then I proudly continue.

    Whenever I make admonishments regarding being told by others what to think or how to think, or when I comment on the Bible and whatnot, some can get pretty angry or leave the classroom to complain in the principle's office. I've been asked to keep my critical voice down before, albeit just a little bit because even my superiors aren't the most Catholic of Catholics. The "director" of my school is a married gay man whom I suspect is also entirely atheist. We get along very well, except that he thinks I shouldn't be too outspoken about certain things, even if I'm right.


    - Protestants... Oh wow. I've had my share, let me tell you. Evolution, Big Bang, quantum physics, particle physics, serendipity, entropy, ... it's all nonsense. Everything is a part of the Lord's Creation. There's an intention, a plan, a design behind it all. It's all just about 6000 years old. And none of that astronomy or physics BS is true. Empirical evidence matters not. Only the Bible does. I've had teenagers storm out of my classroom when I was teaching about cellular evolution. Solar nucleosynthesis, including half-lives and the way we calculate Earth's age, all have sparked tremendous resistance. I've had students turn around in class to face away from the blackboard or computer screens when carbon-14 dating was being discussed.

    I've had protestant parents demand to see me after school to lecture me about "Our Lord Jesus Christ" and how I was "polluting" my students' minds with my science which, after all, "is merely one way to look at things", while the Biblical version is at least as valid as an alternative. One protestant girl, two school years ago, burst out in tears during organic chemistry class. I still, to this day, have no idea why. We were discussing the chemical composition of petrol. Perhaps it was my very matter-of-fact review of our best hypotheses regarding the origin of petrol that did it. Either way, a note was slipped in my school mail the next day, anonymously, inviting me to a gathering of "Our Lord's Servants". Frankly, the first idea that popped into my head was, "am I being invited to some Satanic metal band's rock concert?"


    - Muslims are the politest. "Mister, I respect you and I like you as my teacher, but you will burn in hell when you're dead. Just saying." Or, "Mister, you are the best teacher I've ever had. You have had a lot of patience with me and you've helped me to understand chemistry. However, since you refuse to believe in God, you are a lost soul." Truly, I like my Muslims on average more than my Protestant pupils. They remain calm, do as they're told, they learn their lessons and present decent to good answers on a test. They just calmly mention, with a charming smile sometimes, that my life choices will prevent me from reaching heaven. I'm perfectly fine with that, I guess. ;)


    For the record, most of my students are bonafide atheists or, since they're teenagers, "I don't believe in God but there must be something out there" agnostics. ;)
    I have to admit to having a little chuckle to myself over that post.

    All those poor believers being indoctrinated by Darth and his newfangled 'science'.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    Who's got time for liberal nonsense like "science"?!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I can see why the parents are pissed off. You send your kid to school to be indoctrinated in the ways of 'faith' and then you get some maverick going off piste and teaching them weird stuff that can be backed up with facts and that doesn't require them to suspend their disbelief at all to make it true. The guy should be suspended from the teaching profession immediately.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    I prefer being burnt at the st--wait, I didn't say that.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    But, why does religious education at a young age have to be considered brain washing? How many of us went through it, and how many of that number actually chose to enter the church as some sort of vocation? Or indeed, go to Church regularly on a Sunday? Less than 2% I would say, and that's probably over stating it.

    Is a priest telling you God exists, and that Jesus died for your sins any more a kind of brain washing than your mum and dad telling you that the Tories are evil and you must never vote for them, or that Jimmy Savile is a great bloke who works at children's hospitals for nothing?

    In the end you grow up and make your own decisions. My best mate supported Derby County when I was 5, and wanted me to do the same. But, for whatever reason, I went with Leicester City.

    My dad, a miner, was a staunch Labour supporter. I've never voted Labour in my life.

    And at school we had assembly and sang hymns, and thanked God before we ate school dinner ( I've tossed that ball in the air for you @TheWizardOfIce ) . And now? I've chosen my path in life and it doesn't involve God or church or Jesus Christ.

    No one brain washed me.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Education can and should provide for a diverse set of ideas and concepts as you grow up. If anything, to compensate for the narrow ideas (or no ideas) offered at home. Religious schools offer one doctrine and tell children that this doctrine is true and, therefore, superior to others.

    A civilised society should care and nurture a kid's brain. It's perhaps the most valuable thing that society can do.

    It's a horrible thing and, yes, IMHO, a form of abuse, to take that great potential and waste it by, essentially, lying to kids. The lies carry more weight as they are delivered by figures of authority within a building/system of authority and given legitimacy via it's state funding. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

    It's remarkable in this day and age that anyone can genuinely defend religious schools.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2018 Posts: 9,117
    NicNac wrote: »
    But, why does religious education at a young age have to be considered brain washing? How many of us went through it, and how many of that number actually chose to enter the church as some sort of vocation? Or indeed, go to Church regularly on a Sunday? Less than 2% I would say, and that's probably over stating it.

    Is a priest telling you God exists, and that Jesus died for your sins any more a kind of brain washing than your mum and dad telling you that the Tories are evil and you must never vote for them, or that Jimmy Savile is a great bloke who works at children's hospitals for nothing?

    In the end you grow up and make your own decisions. My best mate supported Derby County when I was 5, and wanted me to do the same. But, for whatever reason, I went with Leicester City.

    My dad, a miner, was a staunch Labour supporter. I've never voted Labour in my life.

    And at school we had assembly and sang hymns, and thanked God before we ate school dinner ( I've tossed that ball in the air for you @TheWizardOfIce ) . And now? I've chosen my path in life and it doesn't involve God or church or Jesus Christ.

    No one brain washed me.
    You are clearly someone who is intelligent enough to think for himself. But what about all of those kids who aren't and blindly trust in what they are told by their elders?

    As someone said a few pages back if it's not indoctrination by parents and 'faith' based teachers why is it that the majority of Muslims continue to come from Muslim countries, the majority of Christians come from Europe, the Americas and the majority of Hindus come from India? If belief in a particular religion was based on merit rather than social pressure to conform wouldn't we have started to see more of an even geographical spread? Admittedly in Muslim countries non conformity is often a matter of life and death but in Europe you are free to believe whatever you want yet probably 99% of the religious follow their parents faith I would imagine.

    I agree with the examples you give about parents indoctrinating children with their political views too but does anyone ever claim that that is a good thing like they do with religion? If someone tried to start up a school that taught children communism or fascism was the best system of government there would be outcry and justifiably so.

    As an ex teacher my philosophy was never to spoon feed a child something, but to give them the tools and support for them to discover something for themselves. Religion has to be spoon fed though (well shoved down people's gullets like a Strasbourg goose), because no one with any semblance of intelligence would consider it worthy of any consideration if there was a level playing field and it didn't receive special privilege to protect it from the scrutiny everything else in the world is subject to.
    patb wrote: »
    Education can and should provide for a diverse set of ideas and concepts as you grow up. If anything, to compensate for the narrow ideas (or no ideas) offered at home. Religious schools offer one doctrine and tell children that this doctrine is true and, therefore, superior to others.

    A civilised society should care and nurture a kid's brain. It's perhaps the most valuable thing that society can do.

    It's a horrible thing and, yes, IMHO, a form of abuse, to take that great potential and waste it by, essentially, lying to kids. The lies carry more weight as they are delivered by figures of authority within a building/system of authority and given legitimacy via it's state funding. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

    It's remarkable in this day and age that anyone can genuinely defend religious schools.
    Well said Sir.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 2018 Posts: 23,449
    @NicNac

    Let me share an anecdote with you.
    We usually calculate Earth's age by means of the half-life of one specific uranium isotope. The physics behind it is waterproof; if the full set of laws, formulas and theories works for, say, radioactive tracers in your body, it must also work for every other radioactive isotope, correct? And so a few relatively simple calculations bring us to Earth's age: 4.5 billion years.
    Anyone who understands the physics and the math, which aren't very complex by the way, can, with perhaps a little guidance, figure these things out for themselves.
    Of course, many students haven't really thought about these matters until they're confronted with them in school. Those who are of a Young Earth Creationist upbringing but not necessarily unintelligent, are suddenly faced with a dilemma:

    - their parents, reverents, religious books, ... have told them that Earth is at most 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs and so on.

    - the physics, which they understand and logically accept, suddenly reveals a truth entirely different from the one they have clung to for many years.

    Well, @NicNac, I have witnessed some rather frightening episodes. I have had two students, independent of one another, run out of the classroom, totally confused, preferring to not hear any of the physics stuff anymore because they know it's correct, they were "tricked" in fact by me into deducing the required conclusions all by themselves, and yet they also understand that it has just torpedoed practically everything their parents have ever told them about the universe. Some fail to cope with this. It's like you telling everyone that your wife is the most faithful partner one can dream of and suddenly you yourself put two and two together and reach the devastating conclusion she's been whoring herself out her entire life.

    I've seen worse still: students who rapidly start making up excuses why the science is flawed after all, despite the evidence hitting them hard in the face, or why both "interpretations" can still validly co-exist, or why what works for one isotope mustn't necessarily work for the other, and so on and so on. Some are prepared to intellectually delude themselves in favour of holding on to a false truth that was spoonfed them without any evidence of any kind at all.

    Some even refuse to put any sensible answers down on a test. Knowing very well it'll cost them points, possibly more, they are still willing to answer perfectly neutral physics questions with "see Bible, book so-and-so, ...". I usually don't flunk them right away but take them aside and have a little polite chat, trying to convince them that this sort of attitude won't harm them in my courses alone but will inevitably cost them opportunities in life. And some will "conform" (even if they're not always convinced it's the right thing to do) and some will simply not care.

    That, @NicNac, is paternal indoctrination at work. And it's scary. Bright young people, having others think for them, while the one true purpose of my classes, more important than anything else, is to teach them to think for themselves. If you can't, you're either a weak element in this society or a dangerous one.

    I have tried to talk to some parents too but alas, you can usually tell how large their influence is, how stubborn their attitude. Some have lectured me, as I've already said, about science and how little it really matters; or how I deprive my students of their way into heaven and so on. When that happens, I have a difficult time keeping a straight face. But here's the thing: in my country, you're certainly not going to be fired over this. Now if this were America...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Schools indoctrinate, religious or not. That is what they are there for.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @NicNac

    Let me share an anecdote with you.
    We usually calculate Earth's age by means of the half-life of one specific uranium isotope. The physics behind it is waterproof; if the full set of laws, formulas and theories works for, say, radioactive tracers in your body, it must also work for every other radioactive isotope, correct? And so a few relatively simple calculations bring us to Earth's age: 4.5 billion years.
    Anyone who understands the physics and the math, which aren't very complex by the way, can, with perhaps a little guidance, figure these things out for themselves.
    Of course, many students haven't really thought about these matters until they're confronted with them in school. Those who are of a Young Earth Creationist upbringing but not necessarily unintelligent, are suddenly faced with a dilemma:

    - their parents, reverents, religious books, ... have told them that Earth is at most 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs and so on.

    - the physics, which they understand and logically accept, suddenly reveals a truth entirely different from the one they have clung to for many years.

    Well, @NicNac, I have witnessed some rather frightening episodes. I have had two students, independent of one another, run out of the classroom, totally confused, preferring to not hear any of the physics stuff anymore because they know it's correct, they were "tricked" in fact by me into deducing the required conclusions all by themselves, and yet they also understand that it has just torpedoed practically everything their parents have ever told them about the universe. Some fail to cope with this. It's like you telling everyone that your wife is the most faithful partner one can dream of and suddenly you yourself put two and two together and reach the devastating conclusion she's been whoring herself out her entire life.

    I've seen worse still: students who rapidly start making up excuses why the science is flawed after all, despite the evidence hitting them hard in the face, or why both "interpretations" can still validly co-exist, or why what works for one isotope mustn't necessarily work for the other, and so on and so on. Some are prepared to intellectually delude themselves in favour of holding on to a false truth that was spoonfed them without any evidence of any kind at all.

    Some even refuse to put any sensible answers down on a test. Knowing very well it'll cost them points, possibly more, they are still willing to answer perfectly neutral physics questions with "see Bible, book so-and-so, ...". I usually don't flunk them right away but take them aside and have a little polite chat, trying to convince them that this sort of attitude won't harm them in my courses alone but will inevitably cost them opportunities in life. And some will "conform" (even if they're not always convinced it's the right thing to do) and some will simply not care.

    That, @NicNac, is paternal indoctrination at work. And it's scary. Bright young people, having others think for them, while the one true purpose of my classes, more important than anything else, is to teach them to think for themselves. If you can't, you're either a weak element in this society or a dangerous one.

    I have tried to talk to some parents too but alas, you can usually tell how large their influence is, how stubborn their attitude. Some have lectured me, as I've already said, about science and how little it really matters; or how I deprive my students of their way into heaven and so on. When that happens, I have a difficult time keeping a straight face. But here's the thing: in my country, you're certainly not going to be fired over this. Now if this were America...

    Spooky.

    In the UK Jehovahs are pretty much like that I must admit.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Schools indoctrinate, religious or not. That is what they are there for.

    That's a false equivalence. The transmission of religious dogmas as facts, whether they are either debunked or unverified, IS indoctrination, and very harmful, while the transmission of knowledge and the development of critical thinking is the mission of schools and what they are for. And the very opposite of indoctrination.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    You think I know nothing about schools?
  • Posts: 14,800
    You think I know nothing about schools?

    No. I'm saying you're doing a false equivalence.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The indoctrination varies, but it is there. Not sure why you use the word equivalence.
  • Posts: 14,800
    The indoctrination varies, but it is there. Not sure why you use the word equivalence.

    What do you consider indoctrination in school? Outside religious one I mean.

    Intrinsically school is about education: acquiring knowledge and critical thinking. It doesn't mean its mission cannot be perverted. But that this perversion are always not from religions does not exonerate religions from their attempt to subjugate schools to their own agendas.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The indoctrination varies, but it is there. Not sure why you use the word equivalence.

    What do you consider indoctrination in school? Outside religious one I mean.

    Intrinsically school is about education: acquiring knowledge and critical thinking. It doesn't mean its mission cannot be perverted. But that this perversion are always not from religions does not exonerate religions from their attempt to subjugate schools to their own agendas.

    I didn t say it did. We agree on that one.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    The indoctrination varies, but it is there. Not sure why you use the word equivalence.

    The dictionary definition of indoctrination:

    indoctrination
    ɪnˌdɒktrɪˈneɪʃ(ə)
    noun
    the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
    "I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"


    (That's not even my example that's genuinely what you get when you type the word in Google)
    Now could you tell me how explaining to a child the rules of multiplication and addition or what the capital of Bolivia is constitutes indoctrination? They are just facts.
    patb wrote: »

    I was going to go with this myself:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/ealing-abortion-clinic-safe-zone-ireland-referendum

    But that's the beauty of picking the daily religion story - there's just so much choice.
This discussion has been closed.