Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on December 19, 2020, 06:11:07 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Jupiter and Saturn are coming really close together and likely to look like a double star on the 21st. Very nicely visible out here. Clear sky. Not sure about the UK.
Some people are suggesting that this was probably the alignment that was seen as the Star of Bethlehem 2000 years ago. Coming close to Christmas...quite significant.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Coming close to Christmas...quite significant.
Or a coincidence.
-
Significant for believers...!
One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east? It should have been seen in the west. ???
-
Significant for believers...!
One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east? It should have been seen in the west. ???
Hi there Sriri, I wouldn't worry yourself about any alignment of stars or anything else of that nature, they were clutching at straws in those days, and still are in some ways, when they came out with all of that nonsense.
Makes as much sense as announcing you'll probably the best deal you'll ever get at Joe Blogs Supermarket on Thursday, because you always do when Jupiter aligns with Mars on that day, or even better make a run for the super market if your dog farts on a Tuesday and it can only be a Tuesday fart too, same formula.
It's all superstition as I'm sure you're aware, are you still into your science magazines, I like our UK 'New Scientist', terrific stuff in the Q & A letters section where the Brit sense of humour's inclined to present itself from time to time.
The 'N S' is a really good read and it also gives you a refreshing reminder of how many people there are nowadays that prefer to be living in and having a more realistic view of the world.
Don't forget to celebrate Newtons birthday on the 25-12-20 and a happy new year to you and yours Sriram, ippy.
-
:D Newton's birthday is on 4th January! I'll celebrate that and the supposed birthday of Jesus too...and Krishna's supposed birthday ...and anyone else...! Why not?!
I'll check out New Scientist ...thanks
Happy New Year to you too, ippy... :)
-
Significant for believers...!
One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east? It should have been seen in the west. ???
The Persians knew about the Messiah through Daniel, and were able to read the signs of his arrival in the stars. I would guess what they saw was a planet or conjunction of planets in a specific constellation, indicating that He had been born. If it was Jupiter, don't forget that from earth, Jupiter appears to move backwards and forwards along the ecliptic, so it could have moved from East to West and then stopped for a time (over a stable??). Stars are not important for us now since God has now spoken through his son.
I saw a film on the subject years ago and recall something about Jupiter being in Virgo, but that's all I remember.
-
Significant for believers...!
One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east? It should have been seen in the west. ???
A point I made in 'Extreme Pedantry', on Facebook, with regard to the Christmas hymn "Brightest and Best of the Sons of the Morning". The "star of the East" should, as you say, be a "star of the West".
-
:D Newton's birthday is on 4th January!
Well, it would be now. But since the whole of Isaac Newton's life was spent living with the Julian calendar, and he celebrated his birthday on 25 December it seems a bit pedantic to transfer it into the Gregorian calendar.
I went to the same school as Isaac Newton. I wasn't there at the same time as him but I think we may have had some of his teachers
Another Julian/Gregorian story is that Shakespeare and Cervantes died on the same day. They both died on 23 April - but Cervantes had died ten days before Shakespeare.
-
:D Newton's birthday is on 4th January! I'll celebrate that and the supposed birthday of Jesus too...and Krishna's supposed birthday ...and anyone else...! Why not?!
I'll check out New Scientist ...thanks
Happy New Year to you too, ippy... :)
I can't remember the interview the N S Editor gave but in reply to some religious nut or other that had tried to put over some of the usual nonsense religionists are inclined to come out with I do remember, using his own words, he told the religionist if that was what he thought he could fuck off.
Yes you could say he's not that keen on anything to do with superstition or anything that borders around that subject either.
Regards Sriram, ippy.
-
I can't remember the interview the N S Editor gave but in reply to some religious nut or other that had tried to put over some of the usual nonsense religionists are inclined to come out with I do remember, using his own words, he told the religionist if that was what he thought he could fuck off.
Yes you could say he's not that keen on anything to do with superstition or anything that borders around that subject either.
Regards Sriram, ippy.
I get your problem with superstition and blind belief. I agree with that.
However, not all spiritual matters are blind belief or superstition. Most of it is about matters connected to the mind and consciousness that are deeper than normal material science can examine with its microscopes and telescopes. That is the issue.
Just as religious fanatics rejected science in earlier centuries....scientists should not make the same mistake of rejecting subtle, exotic and non-classical aspects of our lives merely because of a fixation with the material world.
Science is fine in its place...so is spirituality.
Cheers ippy.
-
However, not all spiritual matters are blind belief or superstition. Most of it is about matters connected to the mind and consciousness that are deeper than normal material science can examine with its microscopes and telescopes. That is the issue.
The problem is that you've never actually managed to demonstrate that any of your beliefs about this sort of thing are anything more than blind belief or superstition. You clearly have a set of beliefs that you desperately want to be true (which is a feature of blind faith, rather than honest investigation) and all you do is cling to anything from the fringes of scientific speculation and philosophy that you think (sometimes wrongly) supports said beliefs.
The result is a bit of a confused mess of often mutually contradictory speculations (at best).
Just as religious fanatics rejected science in earlier centuries....scientists should not make the same mistake of rejecting subtle, exotic and non-classical aspects of our lives merely because of a fixation with the material world.
Science can only deal with things that have some actual supporting empirical evidence. Ideas must be testable and falsifiable. And you're once again trying to co-opt the word "non-classical". It has a perfectly good meaning already, in the context of science, so it's bordering on the dishonest to try to redefine it.
-
I get your problem with superstition and blind belief. I agree with that.
However, not all spiritual matters are blind belief or superstition. Most of it is about matters connected to the mind and consciousness that are deeper than normal material science can examine with its microscopes and telescopes. That is the issue.
Just as religious fanatics rejected science in earlier centuries....scientists should not make the same mistake of rejecting subtle, exotic and non-classical aspects of our lives merely because of a fixation with the material world.
Science is fine in its place...so is spirituality.
Cheers ippy.
All in your opinion, nothing wrong with anyone having the freedom to think whatever they like to think.
Science as you must know is fed by all sorts of mostly suspicion based ideas with a lot of informed ideas too and eventually when they're presented to the public they're described as either as near as you can get substantiated ideas or some form of bin job admission is usually freely given.
I don't see anything remotely similar to the above in with the magical, mystical and superstition based brigade whoever or wherever they come from, I wonder why that is?
In the end it has to be far less of an embarrassment to anyone that sits with the scientists.
ippy.
-
The very argument of Science vs Spirituality is an archaic one typical of the old science students. Such a division is artificial, born of scientism.
It is like looking out of two windows on opposite sides of the house and wondering why they are different. If we broaden our perspective, they can be understood as parts of the same reality.
-
The very argument of Science vs Spirituality is an archaic one typical of the old science students. Such a division is artificial, born of scientism.
It is like looking out of two windows on opposite sides of the house and wondering why they are different. If we broaden our perspective, they can be understood as parts of the same reality.
Stamping your foot will not make it so. ::)
-
The essential, central defining characteristic of science is falsifiability. For a concept to be scientific, there must be a general agreement that the concept exists and can be appropriately examined. The concept must be capable of being examined in such a way that there is the possibility that it can be shown to be incorrect or that its effects have identifiable limits. The most usual method of doing this is the experiment, in which attributes of the concept are examined in varying circumstances in order to test its validity.
There is no way in which spirituality can be scientifically examined because there is no agreement among those who maintain its existence as to what form it takes or what its purpose is. However, a large number of people are willing to attest that spirituality exists.
Whether or not I believe that spirituality is a reality is not important. Plenty of people do and I respect their right to hold this belief. Sriram, clearly, is one of them and I support his right to express his beliefs.
As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.
-
Hi everyone,
Jupiter and Saturn are coming really close together and likely to look like a double star on the 21st. Very nicely visible out here. Clear sky. Not sure about the UK.
Some people are suggesting that this was probably the alignment that was seen as the Star of Bethlehem 2000 years ago. Coming close to Christmas...quite significant.
Cheers.
Sriram
Hi Sriram, yes, Jupiter and Saturn will meet in a “great conjunction,” the closest they could be seen in the sky together for nearly 800 years. It sounds as though you can view this phenomenon with the naked eye from your part of the world, if this is so you are very lucky. Here in the UK we need a telescope or binoculars to be able to do so. Apparently, here we need to look for this wonderful sight at around 4.30pm just after sunset tomorrow evening. I'll have my binoculars ready!
Regards the star of Bethlehem, what some are saying may not be right because although we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th it is thought by some theologians that in fact he was probably born towards the end of September.
-
...
As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.
This seems wrong... over the course of a night, stars and planets do appear to move from east to west precisely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction. Observations at the same time each night over a long period will generally show movement of the planets from west to east, due to differing orbits, though some "retrograde" movement in the opposite direction will also be seen at times.
This is a blog post on the great conjunction as the "Star of Bethlehem" by someone who has looked into it in detail:
https://openspacescience.blog/2020/12/10/is-this-the-star-that-the-magi-saw/
-
The very argument of Science vs Spirituality is an archaic one typical of the old science students. Such a division is artificial, born of scientism.
It is like looking out of two windows on opposite sides of the house and wondering why they are different. If we broaden our perspective, they can be understood as parts of the same reality.
Going for the woo side on these things is a purely a preference whereas taking the scientific approach is the use of reason.
Rather obvious I would think Sriram, nothing complicated about it.
Regards, ippy.
-
As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.
All of the stars move East to West across the sky every night. Even the planets move East to West across the sky at night. The only way the ancients could tell they are planets is because they changed position relative to the other stars over the course of many nights. A real star or planet that people could literally follow and that could stop over a specific house* is physically impossible.
*Yes, a house, not a stable.
-
The essential, central defining characteristic of science is falsifiability. For a concept to be scientific, there must be a general agreement that the concept exists and can be appropriately examined. The concept must be capable of being examined in such a way that there is the possibility that it can be shown to be incorrect or that its effects have identifiable limits. The most usual method of doing this is the experiment, in which attributes of the concept are examined in varying circumstances in order to test its validity.
There is no way in which spirituality can be scientifically examined because there is no agreement among those who maintain its existence as to what form it takes or what its purpose is. However, a large number of people are willing to attest that spirituality exists.
Whether or not I believe that spirituality is a reality is not important. Plenty of people do and I respect their right to hold this belief. Sriram, clearly, is one of them and I support his right to express his beliefs.
As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.
The point I am making is that....spiritual phenomena are exotic and non classical. They are in a different domain and probably follow different set of laws. They cannot be examined using the standard instruments and methodologies. So, the idea of these phenomena not being measurable or falsifiable or whatever....is irrelevant.
Spiritual ideas are philosophical and speculative.... but as long as they fit in with the experiences of a majority of the people and do not contradict scientific discoveries....they can be taken as valid hypotheses.
About the Star...my point was not about a star moving from east to west in the normal course. It was about a Star in the East ...that was pointing to something in the West. How could that be possible...even as merely a legend?!
-
Hi Sriram, yes, Jupiter and Saturn will meet in a “great conjunction,” the closest they could be seen in the sky together for nearly 800 years. It sounds as though you can view this phenomenon with the naked eye from your part of the world, if this is so you are very lucky. Here in the UK we need a telescope or binoculars to be able to do so. Apparently, here we need to look for this wonderful sight at around 4.30pm just after sunset tomorrow evening. I'll have my binoculars ready!
Regards the star of Bethlehem, what some are saying may not be right because although we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th it is thought by some theologians that in fact he was probably born towards the end of September.
Yes...we could see it through our naked eyes just after sunset...right from our balcony. It was good. One of my friends even took a photograph through a telescope...which showed the Saturn rings clearly.
-
The point I am making is that....spiritual phenomena are exotic and non classical. They are in a different domain and probably follow different set of laws. They cannot be examined using the standard instruments and methodologies. So, the idea of these phenomena not being measurable or falsifiable or whatever....is irrelevant.
Dishonest use of 'non-classical' again. It has a meaning Sriram, it is dishonest to pretend to applies to your claims here. If something is not testable and falsifiable then it simply cannot be part of accepted science. It will always remain conjecture at best. In this case, it isn't even scientific conjecture because you have not connected it to any science.
Science is a methodology that relies on testability and falsifiability - you can't remove those and still have science.
Spiritual ideas are philosophical and speculative.... but as long as they fit in with the experiences of a majority of the people and do not contradict scientific discoveries....they can be taken as valid hypotheses.
Nonsense. A hypothesis must make (or at least aim to make) testable predictions, that is its purpose. You cannot rationally conclude that something is true because it cannot be shown to be false. That is a logical fallacy (meaning that it's illogical to do so). Neither can you rationally go from a set of vague experiences to some sort of interpretation of them and what is behind them without any evidence.
Yet again, it seems that you have no grasp at all of either logic or science.
-
Dishonest use of 'non-classical' again. It has a meaning Sriram, it is dishonest to pretend to applies to your claims here. If something is not testable and falsifiable then it simply cannot be part of accepted science. It will always remain conjecture at best. In this case, it isn't even scientific conjecture because you have not connected it to any science.
Science is a methodology that relies on testability and falsifiability - you can't remove those and still have science.
Nonsense. A hypothesis must make (or at least aim to make) testable predictions, that is its purpose. You cannot rationally conclude that something is true because it cannot be shown to be false. That is a logical fallacy (meaning that it's illogical to do so). Neither can you rationally go from a set of vague experiences to some sort of interpretation of them and what is behind them without any evidence.
Yet again, it seems that you have no grasp at all of either logic or science.
Actually Sriram's not that bad when it comes to science, it just seems he can't make that logical jump/step away from the magical, mystical and superstition based silly stuff. (Woo if you like).
Of course I don't know nor can I know why exactly but it seems to me there's is a split there between the magical stuff that does exist inside his head and 'wot is real like', my guess is he's like so many that're unable to make that jump away from early childhood indoctrination, something that all of the religions are so skilled at.
Actually Sriram's not that bad a bloke N T S, but he is inclined to get a bit ratty with anyone he thinks, responding to his posts, might be a little bit better looking than he is.
ippy
-
Or maybe its just that most old science people are fixated with scientism and are unable to perceive what lies beyond the material.
You still haven't given us the privilege of seeing your charming mug shot...that's not fair. ;) I agree I am not good looking, but my photo is nevertheless available at my blog site. :D
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/
-
Or maybe its just that most old science people are fixated with scientism and are unable to perceive what lies beyond the material.
And what exactly is old science, and also what exactly is new science.
I suspect what you are actually mean is:
old science = science
new science = not science
-
Or maybe its just that most old science people are fixated with scientism and are unable to perceive what lies beyond the material.
It's got nothing to do with "old science people" or scientism. Science is a methodology, you can't rip up the central part of the method just because it doesn't support your favourite superstitions. If you throw out the basis of the method (testability and falsifiability), then you no longer have science.
It seems to be a favourite theme of yours to pretend (and it is a pretence, even if it's largely for your own 'benefit') that science is moving in 'your' direction and that people who disagree are "old school". It may make you feel better to believe that but it really isn't the case.
-
Or maybe its just that most old science people are fixated with scientism and are unable to perceive what lies beyond the material.
You still haven't given us the privilege of seeing your charming mug shot...that's not fair. ;) I agree I am not good looking, but my photo is nevertheless available at my blog site. :D
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/
I wish you'd forget all of that old discredited, unsupported woo nonsense Sriram and come around to the tried and tested agelessly well proven methodology of science.
I was sent to Sunday school as a youngster and managed to avoid the indoctrinational side of it, most likely by luck alone and I suppose as with everything else in terms of psychology all of it's results and assessments are based on percentages.
I remember at age about twelve years thinking to myself this religion stuff is a load of old bollocks, it's nothing much more than having a belief in father christmas but there, it still surprises me how many gullible people these various beliefs manage to draw in hook line and sinker, such a shame and pointless waste of time.
Be honest Sriram it wouldn't make the slightest difference to you or your life if you managed to dump the woo stuff.
Regards, ippy.
By the way it wouldn't be fair of me to post a mugshot.
-
"I remember at age about twelve years thinking to myself this religion stuff is a load of old bollocks,"
There you go. 12 years again! It keeps coming up again and again...11 to 14 years when someone became an unbeliever or irreverent or skeptical.
Adolescence.....that is the stage when this sort of shift happens. In some people it goes away subsequently and a more balance view prevails. In some people (due to cultural pressures) the adolescent attitude continues to remain.
In a more balanced cultural environment, it could lead to maturity and balance instead of remaining in habitual skepticism and cynicism.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
-
Sriram,
Or maybe its just that most old science people are fixated with scientism and are unable to perceive what lies beyond the material.
Your problem isn’t “old science people”, nor scientism – it’s that you have no means to show that there’s such a thing as “beyond the material” at all. You can claim it. You can assert it. You can speculate about it all you like. What you can’t do though absent a method of any sort to investigate it is to distinguish it from just guessing.
-
"I remember at age about twelve years thinking to myself this religion stuff is a load of old bollocks,"
There you go. 12 years again! It keeps coming up again and again...11 to 14 years when someone became an unbeliever or irreverent or skeptical.
Adolescence.....that is the stage when this sort of shift happens. In some people it goes away subsequently and a more balance view prevails. In some people (due to cultural pressures) the adolescent attitude continues to remain.
In a more balanced cultural environment, it could lead to maturity and balance instead of remaining in habitual skepticism and cynicism.
It really is rather amusing that you endlessly substitute pomposity for reasoning. I could equally well say that in a more balanced cultural environment it could lead to maturity and balance instead of remaining in habitual sloppy thinking and superstition. I could say that it is clinging to the comfort blankets of religion and so called 'spiritual phenomena' that is the adolescent attitude.
Of course, it would carry just as little weight as your claims, which is why it is better to rely on rationality and objective evidence.
-
"I remember at age about twelve years thinking to myself this religion stuff is a load of old bollocks,"
There you go. 12 years again! It keeps coming up again and again...11 to 14 years when someone became an unbeliever or irreverent or skeptical.
Adolescence.....that is the stage when this sort of shift happens. In some people it goes away subsequently and a more balance view prevails. In some people (due to cultural pressures) the adolescent attitude continues to remain.
In a more balanced cultural environment, it could lead to maturity and balance instead of remaining in habitual skepticism and cynicism.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
Well in my case it was the opposite.
Having been brought up in a household which wasn't really religious (although wider family were) in my late teens I really wanted to believe, even thought I did. This was in part because I knew a number of people at university who were religious and I guess wanted to be part of the crowd, as it were. When I was nearly 23 I came to realise that I didn't believe in god and if I am honest with myself, never did. Nothing in more than 30 years since then has changed that position.
But in a broader sense I think it is correct that in the teenage years (or thereabouts) people often rebel against their upbringing, but also it is not uncommon for people to hold back into their upbringing later. I've made this point in relation to both Vlad and Gabriella but been accused of being condescending. Perhaps you should make your point to them too.
-
NTtS,
It really is rather amusing that you endlessly substitute pomposity for reasoning. I could equally well say that in a more balanced cultural environment it could lead to maturity and balance instead of remaining in habitual sloppy thinking and superstition. I could say that it is clinging to the comfort blankets of religion and so called 'spiritual phenomena' that is the adolescent attitude.
Of course, it would carry just as little weight as your claims, which is why it is better to rely on rationality and objective evidence.
Sriram is the Wylie E. Coyote of this mb. You’ll remember I’m sure the Roadrunner cartoons where Wylie would charge off the cliff, and only when he stopped running and looked down would he realise he had no support and plummet to the ground far below. So certain is Sriram that he’s right though that he’ll never stop running and look down, presumably for fear of the consequence if he did. Problem is though, just like Wylie he’s entirely unsupported only in his case he’s unsupported by reason or evidence.
Of course he could instead just set out the method he would propose to investigate and verify his various claims and assertions, but his only MO just now seems to be to criticise science for something it doesn’t claim to be in any case, and to rely on the ad hominem to dismiss those who don’t just agree with him. Odd.
-
Adolescence.....that is the stage when this sort of shift happens. In some people it goes away subsequently and a more balance view prevails. In some people (due to cultural pressures) the adolescent attitude continues to remain.
That is biased in the extreme - so effectively you are saying that if people fold back into religion then they are taking a balanced view - if not this is due to cultural pressures.
-
"I remember at age about twelve years thinking to myself this religion stuff is a load of old bollocks,"
There you go. 12 years again! It keeps coming up again and again...11 to 14 years when someone became an unbeliever or irreverent or skeptical.
Adolescence.....that is the stage when this sort of shift happens. In some people it goes away subsequently and a more balance view prevails. In some people (due to cultural pressures) the adolescent attitude continues to remain.
In a more balanced cultural environment, it could lead to maturity and balance instead of remaining in habitual skepticism and cynicism.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
I can only agree with the following five posts since this last one of yours Sriram, I can't better any one of them.
The only thing I'll add is is it's more likely that the strength of indoctrination into these silly superstitional beliefs likely first shows at adolescence, quiet a few manage to escape these gradually ever failing beliefs completely, thank goodness.
Regards, ippy.
-
Compliments of the season to everyone, hope you all enjoy festivities however limited. I've finished work now until next Tuesday & then only going in for a couple of hours. It will be nice to relax. Let's not worry about next year and enjoy the moment.
Love to all.
-
Merry Christmas Robbie...and everyone. :)
-
"I remember at age about twelve years thinking to myself this religion stuff is a load of old bollocks,"
There you go. 12 years again! It keeps coming up again and again...11 to 14 years when someone became an unbeliever or irreverent or skeptical.
Adolescence.....that is the stage when this sort of shift happens. In some people it goes away subsequently and a more balance view prevails. In some people (due to cultural pressures) the adolescent attitude continues to remain.
In a more balanced cultural environment, it could lead to maturity and balance instead of remaining in habitual skepticism and cynicism.
11 or 12 is about the age most people start thinking for themselves. For some, it will lead to a rejection of the religion they were brought up in, or a belief in a different form of that religion; some, brought up as non-believers, will be attracted to a religion. I was about 12 when I was briefly converted to evangelicalism by Billy Graham, having been brought up as a mildly liberal Methodist. That didn't last, and neither did the atheism I adopted a few years later. I ended up back with liberal Christianity, but thought about, not just accepted because it was my parents' belief. It's normal for reasonably intelligent kids to try on a few beliefs and non-beliefs, political as well as religious, before they find one that fits. The great majority of religious conversions happen in the teens.
Pleased to note, in Sriram's post quoted above, that Microsoft underlines "skepticism" in red, as a mis-spelling!
-
11 or 12 is about the age most people start thinking for themselves. For some, it will lead to a rejection of the religion they were brought up in, or a belief in a different form of that religion; some, brought up as non-believers, will be attracted to a religion. I was about 12 when I was briefly converted to evangelicalism by Billy Graham, having been brought up as a mildly liberal Methodist. That didn't last, and neither did the atheism I adopted a few years later. I ended up back with liberal Christianity, but thought about, not just accepted because it was my parents' belief. It's normal for reasonably intelligent kids to try on a few beliefs and non-beliefs, political as well as religious, before they find one that fits. The great majority of religious conversions happen in the teens.
A couple of points.
First there is a kind of 'dancing on the head of a pin' about describing 'conversion' from one form of christianity to another form of christianity. And there is certainly no equivalence with genuinely shifting from a religious/theist position to an atheist one (or vice versa). The former is a bit like claiming that you used to be a death metal fan and now you are a speed metal fan - the latter being someone who used to hate music but now loves it.
Secondly - again you appear to suggest some kind of equivalence in terms of likelihood between 'conversion' from a religious upbringing to being non-religious as an adult and the reverse - from a non-religious upbringing to being religious as an adult.
The former is very common - some 50% of people brought up in a religious household in the UK become non religious as adults. The latter is exceptionally rare, with just 3% of people brought up in a non religious household becoming religious as adults.
What this suggests is that being religious is a learned behaviour - you will only be religious as an adult if you were brought up to be religious. By contrast being non religious isn't learned behaviour - sure virtually everyone brought up non religious (if you think that is learning to be non religious, not sure it is) will be non religious as adults. But there are swathes of people brought up as religious who choose to be non religious as adults - there is no non-religious learned behaviour in childhood.
-
A couple of points.
First there is a kind of 'dancing on the head of a pin' about describing 'conversion' from one form of christianity to another form of christianity. And there is certainly no equivalence with genuinely shifting from a religious/theist position to an atheist one (or vice versa). The former is a bit like claiming that you used to be a death metal fan and now you are a speed metal fan - the latter being someone who used to hate music but now loves it.
Secondly - again you appear to suggest some kind of equivalence in terms of likelihood between 'conversion' from a religious upbringing to being non-religious as an adult and the reverse - from a non-religious upbringing to being religious as an adult.
The former is very common - some 50% of people brought up in a religious household in the UK become non religious as adults. The latter is exceptionally rare, with just 3% of people brought up in a non religious household becoming religious as adults.
What this suggests is that being religious is a learned behaviour - you will only be religious as an adult if you were brought up to be religious. By contrast being non religious isn't learned behaviour - sure virtually everyone brought up non religious (if you think that is learning to be non religious, not sure it is) will be non religious as adults. But there are swathes of people brought up as religious who choose to be non religious as adults - there is no non-religious learned behaviour in childhood.
Like it Proff, can't see anywhere I would even slightly disagree with this post of yours.
I'll only add that the C of E even admits to the fact it's the early pre seven year old children are its most successful recruiting grounds, small wonder they hang on to their infant schools like grim death, funnily enough the majority of C of E run schools just happen to be infant schools, I wonder why?
Hope your Christmas's a good un Proff, ippy.
-
A couple of points.
First there is a kind of 'dancing on the head of a pin' about describing 'conversion' from one form of christianity to another form of christianity. And there is certainly no equivalence with genuinely shifting from a religious/theist position to an atheist one (or vice versa). The former is a bit like claiming that you used to be a death metal fan and now you are a speed metal fan - the latter being someone who used to hate music but now loves it.
Secondly - again you appear to suggest some kind of equivalence in terms of likelihood between 'conversion' from a religious upbringing to being non-religious as an adult and the reverse - from a non-religious upbringing to being religious as an adult.
The former is very common - some 50% of people brought up in a religious household in the UK become non religious as adults. The latter is exceptionally rare, with just 3% of people brought up in a non religious household becoming religious as adults.
What this suggests is that being religious is a learned behaviour - you will only be religious as an adult if you were brought up to be religious. By contrast being non religious isn't learned behaviour - sure virtually everyone brought up non religious (if you think that is learning to be non religious, not sure it is) will be non religious as adults. But there are swathes of people brought up as religious who choose to be non religious as adults - there is no non-religious learned behaviour in childhood.
We move from the child stage (believing, imitating, obeying) to the adolescent stage (irreverent, skeptical). That is why we move from a believing state to a nonbelieving state.....and rarely the other way around. After that we are meant to move to a mature stage when we are neither habitual believers nor habitual nonbelievers.
But depending on ones upbringing and cultural environment, some people continue to remain in the child stage all their lives and some others continue to remain in the adolescent stage all their lives.
Both believing and nonbelieving become habits and mindsets that become difficult to change after a period of time. Each of these groups believes very firmly that they hold the 'correct' position on reality....whereas reality could be neither or could be an integrated version of both.
-
Sriram,
We move from the child stage (believing, imitating, obeying) to the adolescent stage (irreverent, skeptical). That is why we move from a believing state to a nonbelieving state.....and rarely the other way around. After that we are meant to move to a mature stage when we are neither habitual believers nor habitual nonbelievers.
But depending on ones upbringing and cultural environment, some people continue to remain in the child stage all their lives and some others continue to remain in the adolescent stage all their lives.
Both believing and nonbelieving become habits and mindsets that become difficult to change after a period of time. Each of these groups believes very firmly that they hold the 'correct' position on reality....whereas reality could be neither or could be an integrated version of both.
Like children believe in the Tooth Fairy, storks delivering babies etc, then as adolescents they realise that there are more rational explanations, then only the special few like you decide that reality could be an “integrated version” of these alternate ideas?
Here’s another explanation for you: “the child stage (believing, imitating, obeying)” is as far as you've got, and your adolescent stage (rationalism) has yet to arrive. What do you think?
-
We move from the child stage (believing, imitating, obeying) to the adolescent stage (irreverent, skeptical). That is why we move from a believing state to a nonbelieving state.....and rarely the other way around. After that we are meant to move to a mature stage when we are neither habitual believers nor habitual nonbelievers.
But depending on ones upbringing and cultural environment, some people continue to remain in the child stage all their lives and some others continue to remain in the adolescent stage all their lives.
Both believing and nonbelieving become habits and mindsets that become difficult to change after a period of time. Each of these groups believes very firmly that they hold the 'correct' position on reality....whereas reality could be neither or could be an integrated version of both.
Looks like you're not that keen on actual evidence where Proff D refers to here in the UK the 50% of children brought up within religious households become non-religious as adults, as opposed to when the children brought up in non-religious households only 3% take up religion as adults.
The Proff presented evidence for his outlook, whereas you seem to have some sort of preference for assertions Sriram?
Back to the, paying money, for a caged bird to pick a card telling your fortune seems to me to be your preferred form of logic, or anything else of a similar nature.
ippy.
-
A couple of points.
First there is a kind of 'dancing on the head of a pin' about describing 'conversion' from one form of christianity to another form of christianity. And there is certainly no equivalence with genuinely shifting from a religious/theist position to an atheist one (or vice versa). The former is a bit like claiming that you used to be a death metal fan and now you are a speed metal fan - the latter being someone who used to hate music but now loves it.
Secondly - again you appear to suggest some kind of equivalence in terms of likelihood between 'conversion' from a religious upbringing to being non-religious as an adult and the reverse - from a non-religious upbringing to being religious as an adult.
The former is very common - some 50% of people brought up in a religious household in the UK become non religious as adults. The latter is exceptionally rare, with just 3% of people brought up in a non religious household becoming religious as adults.
What this suggests is that being religious is a learned behaviour - you will only be religious as an adult if you were brought up to be religious. By contrast being non religious isn't learned behaviour - sure virtually everyone brought up non religious (if you think that is learning to be non religious, not sure it is) will be non religious as adults. But there are swathes of people brought up as religious who choose to be non religious as adults - there is no non-religious learned behaviour in childhood.
What a load of ballcocks. My post was pretty uncontroversial, but you found things to disagree about just for the sake of being disagreeable. Religion learned behaviour, indeed! If it was it'd've died out long ago. Humans obviously have a religious capacity and need. That says nothing at all about whether any religion is true in the straightforward sense, but any of them can be true subjectively. We can practise our chosen religion without worrying about its objective truth.
-
What a load of ballcocks. My post was pretty uncontroversial, but you found things to disagree about just for the sake of being disagreeable. Religion learned behaviour, indeed! If it was it'd've died out long ago. Humans obviously have a religious capacity and need. That says nothing at all about whether any religion is true in the straightforward sense, but any of them can be true subjectively. We can practise our chosen religion without worrying about its objective truth.
And a Merry Christmas to you too Steve.
I never said your post was controversial; I merely pointed out that the notion that suggesting that some people are brought up religious and then become non-religious while others are brought up non-religious and then religious as being somehow equivalent and therefore happening as often as each other is simply not true.
And yes being specifically religious (i.e a christian, or jewish, or hindu etc) is clearly learned behaviour. Can you provide any evidence that anyone has independently become a christian (or any other specific religious) without learning about it from other people - nope you can't because it has never happened. No-one has ever found a tribe that had never previously had contact with christians and discovered they were also christian, which would be possible is being christian wasn't learned behaviour, or was transmitted from god rather than via people. Never happens.
And religions understand this very well. As far as I'm aware all mainstream religions have well defined ceremonies and customs to induct children into that religion, involving teaching them to be religious. Why - because they are, quite rightly, aware that if children do not learn to be religious at an early age they are very, very unlikely to become so as adults. Give the the child at 7, and all that. And perhaps there have been religions that didn't instruct their children into that religion - guess what they'd have died out. All the successful ones make sure that children are instructed into that religion. Learned behaviour.
But being non religious isn't learned behaviour as there are countless non religious people who were not taught to be non religious as children - rather they were taught to be religious in religious households, but 50% of those children turn their backs on religion as adults.