Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: ippy on March 03, 2016, 05:16:14 PM
-
I just worth it's worth a mention, I noticed that on both the B H A & the N S S sites have a report that came from the C of E about the continuing decline of their church attendence in England, it has fallen below the one million mark for the first time.
It's easy to find on both sights, via google or other browsers.
ippy
-
I just worth it's worth a mention, I noticed that on both the B H A & the N S S sites have a report that came from the C of E about the continuing decline of their church attendence in England, it has fallen below the one million mark for the first time.
It's easy to find on both sights, via google or other browsers.
ippy
Oh no Ippy and his ultimate argumentum ad populum argument.
.....How many visitors does the BHA and NSS site have?
-
CofE attendance has been on the decline for many years, gone are the days when the church was an authoritative body in the community, the vicar being an awesome figure. People are disillusioned and want something different.
There are small pockets which are thriving, mainly the evangelical wing.
-
Another blank post from ippy. I couldn't care less about the attendance of the Anglican church in the UK. What I do celebrate is the soaring growth of Christianity in Africa and China.
-
CofE attendance is interesting to us in the UK, OMW. Most of us on here are British and have grown up with a Church of England near to us.
I didn't know about China but am a bit dubious about the 'flavour' of the spreading Christianity in African countries - where Islam is also on the rise, as it is worldwide - is it 'kindly', especially to minority groups?
-
Oh no Ippy and his ultimate argumentum ad populum argument.
.....How many visitors does the BHA and NSS site have?
I was only trying to cheer up the non-religious, I wasn't arguing anything I was just pointing out this decline measured by the C of E themselves.
ippy
-
Oh no Ippy and his ultimate argumentum ad populum argument.
No it isn't. He's not constructing an argument on the basis of sheer numbers alone, which is what the AAP is. In fact he isn't constructing an argument of any kind at all, by his own admission ("I wasn't arguing anything"), just reporting on a news item.
"The claims of Christianity are false because so few people believe them" - that would be an AAP. The reverse would also be an AAP. There has to be a because in there somewhere - it's the because that's the fallacious bit.
How many visitors does the BHA and NSS site have?
Vlad, that's what you used to call a tu coque fallacy [sic].
As in a load of old ...
-
CofE attendance has been on the decline for many years, gone are the days when the church was an authoritative body in the community, the vicar being an awesome figure. People are disillusioned and want something different.
There are small pockets which are thriving, mainly the evangelical wing.
Actually what most people want is no church at all.
The CofE is its own worst enemy. It's hard to sympathise.
-
CofE attendance is interesting to us in the UK, OMW. Most of us on here are British and have grown up with a Church of England near to us.
I didn't know about China but am a bit dubious about the 'flavour' of the spreading Christianity in African countries - where Islam is also on the rise, as it is worldwide - is it 'kindly', especially to minority groups?
I know what you mean, especially about the kindly bit.
I think the c of e is considered fairly safe by a lot of people in the uk.
-
Actually what most people want is no church at all.
The CofE is its own worst enemy. It's hard to sympathise.
Amen! The church has always sought to control people's lives, and now we are getting wise to it.
-
Actually what most people want is no church at all.
The CofE is its own worst enemy. It's hard to sympathise.
I haven't seen any posts sympathetic, Rhiannon.
I started being 'fond' of the CofE a few years ago (one could say I'm a well known supporter of lost causes).
What I like about it is that there is something for everybody. There are four Anglican churches within walking distance of my house, two are the average, middle of the road type - though one of those states on its website that it follows 'the Catholic tradition' - with a lady vicar. One is very, very high church. One is happy clappy evangelical.
If enough people don't want a church at all, churches will gradually disappear, except as buildings of interest if they are old enough.
Where will all the women priests go then I wonder? They seem to be everywhere. A good thing, imo, but is there a future for any vicars at all or will they become an extinct species?
-
Amen! The church has always sought to control people's lives, and now we are getting wise to it.
There you are; I thought it might bring some cheer.
Your post Len, it seems about right to me.
ippy
-
I haven't seen any posts sympathetic, Rhiannon.
I started being 'fond' of the CofE a few years ago (one could say I'm a well known supporter of lost causes).
What I like about it is that there is something for everybody. There are four Anglican churches within walking distance of my house, two are the average, middle of the road type - though one of those states on its website that it follows 'the Catholic tradition' - with a lady vicar. One is very, very high church. One is happy clappy evangelical.
If enough people don't want a church at all, churches will gradually disappear, except as buildings of interest if they are old enough.
Where will all the women priests go then I wonder? They seem to be everywhere. A good thing, imo, but is there a future for any vicars at all or will they become an extinct species?
Don't worry Ms Brown, if there's any of them left we'll get em.
ippy
-
Actually what most people want is no church at all.
The CofE is its own worst enemy. It's hard to sympathise.
I know what you mean but it actually makes me feel quite sad. Let others celebrate the fact, but I will mourn its passing.
The congregation of our local CofE church do a lot of good stuff in our village. My wife helps out, but as is so often the case the real momentum comes from people who are quite old. When that generation dies out... I just wonder sometimes at what we might be on the brink of losing without realising it.
-
Actually what most people want is no church at all.
.....
That's quite a sweeping statement, Rhiannon.... and not entirely true.
-
I know what you mean but it actually makes me feel quite sad. Let others celebrate the fact, but I will mourn its passing.
The congregation of our local CofE church do a lot of good stuff in our village. My wife helps out, but as is so often the case the real momentum comes from people who are quite old. When that generation dies out... I just wonder sometimes at what we might be on the brink of losing without realising it.
Insightful post, Samuel.
-
I know what you mean but it actually makes me feel quite sad. Let others celebrate the fact, but I will mourn its passing.
The congregation of our local CofE church do a lot of good stuff in our village. My wife helps out, but as is so often the case the real momentum comes from people who are quite old. When that generation dies out... I just wonder sometimes at what we might be on the brink of losing without realising it.
It's no secret I was once quite involved with the CofE; like you I know how important they are not only in rural areas but in very deprived ones, with some poor sod in a dog collar burying old ladies and dealing with the soup kitchen and rising damp.
The problems that make it its own worst enemy are myriad. Not least the Synods themselves - my disillusionment set in when asked as a Deanery Synod member to vote for my Diocesan Synod. Glossy brochure arrived, packed with Libersls v Evangrlicals with a smattering of Anglo- Catholics. And although my first reaction was to vote for all the lovely liberal people it was actually obvious it wasn't going to stop the in-fighting, the suspicion and bad feeling.
Or how about the arguments over liturgy, pews v chairs, spending £5k on a light fitting. Vicars banning yoga, refusing to baptise babies of unmarried parents, charging for a child's funeral.
And there's no freedom of conscience in it - a priest who wishes to bless gay unions can't - he or she would have no choice but to resign, losing their livelihood in many cases. Priests have to swear obedience to their bishop - this was what made me leave the church long before I lost my faith - it is fundamentally unjust to its very core.
-
Two good books that shed light on the inside of the CofE are Peter Owen Jones' Bed of Nails and Small Boat, Big Sea. Written before he started presenting television programmes, they chronicle his training and first parish position.
He says that the CofE deserves to die even as he serves it. His account of what the Church does to a fellow deacon when they find out he has had depression gives a flavour of why.
-
Two good books that shed light on the inside of the CofE are Peter Owen Jones' Bed of Nails and Small Boat, Big Sea. Written before he started presenting television programmes, they chronicle his training and first parish position.
He says that the CofE deserves to die even as he serves it. His account of what the Church does to a fellow deacon when they find out he has had depression gives a flavour of why.
I'd like to reply to Samuel's excellent post tomorrow, save to add to this one that I've heard identical stories and therefore similar sentiments from other clergy - they really do say that the organisation of which they're a part has to go.
-
On a sunny morning, William's mother came into her son's room and said, "William, it's Sunday. Time to get up! Time to get up and go to church! Get up!"
From under the covers came mumbles, "I don't want to go!"
"What do you mean?" she said. "That's silly! Now get up and get dressed and go to church!"
"No!" he shot back. "I'll give you two reasons. I don't like them and they don't like me!"
"Nonsense," she told him. "I'll give YOU two reasons to go. First, you are 42 years old, and second, you are the PASTOR!"
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/aug/16/sexism-church-of-england-prejudice
I put this on another thread but it applies more here I think
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/aug/16/sexism-church-of-england-prejudice
I can see why they wanted to put things into place to try and please everyone, but reading this link, I can also see how that in itself can cause offence.
I guess it's like a lot of things, it has to many ( extremists isn't the right word) but people who feel strongly about certain issues in places of authority.)
Perhaps one day they will move on and split.
Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing, I have heard it said that one of the reason they are afraid of being more open to homosexuality is the reaction of African churches which are growing, that they might break away.
My friend is ordained in the C of E and I was surprised she didn't support women bishops. It isn't all men that object to it, but women too.
-
Rose
Thanks for giving me a laugh this morning.
-
Cultural Christians only bother about the church when it comes to funerals and weddings, and perhaps the occasional baptising thingy.
They would much rather go to ASDA on a Sunday than waste their time going to a service.
It's only the swivelly-eyed evangenitals that bother arranging little get-togethers with their version of God and/or Jesus these days.
-
Another blank post from ippy. I couldn't care less about the attendance of the Anglican church in the UK. What I do celebrate is the soaring growth of Christianity in Africa and China.
Christianity in Western Europe is a bit like the Bruce Willis character in the Sixth Sense - it's dead but it doesn't realise it.
As for other parts of the world? Yeah, Christianity tends to flourish where levels of education are low.
Remember this mantra: "Education, Education, Education"
Education is the single most devastating response to religion and VD. Where there are good standards of education there are less of these two problems.
So, what about Africa then? Well, we've all seen the brand of Christianity in Africa. Here are some examples of what happens when Christians replace African superstitions with their own ones.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1376692.stm
The court heard how the two nuns handed over thousands of people who had sought refuge in their convent. They even supplied cans of petrol to the Hutu militias, who set fire to a garage sheltering some 500 refugees.
http://ictr-archive09.library.cornell.edu/ENGLISH/cases/Musabyimana/indictment/indictment.html
7. Bishop Samuel MUSABYIMANA specifically instructed Pastor NGILINSHUTI to register refugees by ethnic or racial group, as described above, or was aware that Pastor NGILINSHUTI made such listings and on several occasions was present while refugees were being registered.
8. This list of refugees, identifying them by ethnic or racial group and indicating their location on the church compound, was used to select Tutsi refugees at Shyogwe diocese to be transported to Kabgayi (a nearby massacre site), or to other unknown destinations, in order to be killed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301948.html
A Catholic priest was convicted Wednesday of taking part in Rwanda's 1994 genocide by ordering militiamen to set fire to a church and then bulldoze it while 2,000 people seeking safety were huddled inside.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3561365.stm
Her family were Catholic, she says. Those who killed them worshipped at the same church.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10294529
A Finnish court has sentenced a Rwandan preacher to life in jail for his participation in Rwanda's genocide.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13507474
During the genocide she ordered women and girls to be raped and forced people onto trucks - they were driven away to be killed.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/catholic-church-apologise-failure-rwanda-genocide-vatican
Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka was notorious during the 1994 genocide of 800,000 Tutsis for wearing a gun on his hip and colluding with the Hutu militia that murdered hundreds of people sheltering in his church.
Want some more examples of Christian love?
A government minister in Ghana has called on the country's intelligence forces to round up all gays.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/ghana-official-calls-for-effort-to-round-up-suspected-gays-2318507.html
The move by Mr Aidoo has drawn support from other politicians, including the general secretary of the People's National Convention (PNC) who told Radio Gold on Tuesday: "Homosexuality is abhorrent. Media discourse across the world is being dictated by the vulgar opinions of homosexuals. Ghana and probably Africa cannot sustain the menace of homosexuals.
From Ghana's Christian Council:
We Can't Afford to Destroy Our Future in the Name of Human Rights
The clergy have spoken. Homosexuality, they pontificate, is ungodly. After taking a critical view of the activities of gay and lesbians in the society, the clergy says it "cannot afford to destroy the future of this country in the name of human rights," and described homosexuality as "unnatural and ungodly" act.
The Christian Council of Ghana said the practice of homosexuality should not be entertained in the Ghanaian society.
"It is an abomination in the eyes of God and also contributes to the growing rate of sexually transmitted diseases," the leaders of the Christian community explained.
If you've got the intestinal fortitude you can read the rest of it online
Then we have the African church and their open opposition to the use of condoms which has led to disease and death.
Yup. Christian missionaries spreading their bigotry and hatred has influenced these deeply superstitious people; I doubt anyone has caused more damage to traditional African lifestyles.
===============================================
What about China?
Well we know about the millions who died during the Christian-led Tai Ping Rebellion
Any Christian movement in China will be inscrutably monitored by the government. They'll come down hard on anything they deem to be at odds with their own policies and doctrines. They've already appointed their own Catholic bishop independently of Rome.
If Christianity has any chance of flourishing in China then it will have to prostitute itself by making compromises that appeal to the Chinese and by doing so will become a quite different Christianity to whatever brand of snake oil you're familiar with.
In any event, the Chinese view Christianity as a western movement so it's unlikely to reach the level of acceptance it gained in Europe and America. China is a completely different animal from the west. Read your history and you'll see that Christianity was in China around the same time that it was establishing itself in Rome yet it lost out to the established religion and culture that already existed.
There's every likelihood this will happen again. China will run the show and it will be on their terms and always maintaining their culture at the expense of whatever your idea of Christianity is.
-
What I do celebrate is the soaring growth of Christianity in Africa ...
Evidence please.
Actually the highly respected WIN-Gallup International GLOBAL INDEX OF RELIGIOSITY AND ATHEISM doesn't suggest that at all. They surveyed religiosity in a ranges of countries across the globe, including Africa, and their approach involves repeating the survey so that trends can be seen. So they surveyed a number of African countries (across all parts of the continent) in 2005 and again in 2012.
In all but one country religiosity (which will include Christianity) had either declined - the only exception being Ghana where religiosity remained the same. In one case (South Africa) there was a whacking reduction from 83% to 64% in the proportion of people saying they were religious. As you might expect in every case the proportion of atheists and non religious people had either increased or in one case remained static.
And the Pew Research centre expects the proportion of christians in both North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa to decline through to 2050. In North Africa from 3.7% to 3.1%, and in Sub-saharan Africa a drop from 62% to 58%.
And overall they predict the global proportion of christians to remain static.
So much for the soaring growth of Christianity, whether in Africa or globally.
-
Yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts, can't you.
© Stewart Lee
-
I know what you mean but it actually makes me feel quite sad. Let others celebrate the fact, but I will mourn its passing.
The congregation of our local CofE church do a lot of good stuff in our village. My wife helps out, but as is so often the case the real momentum comes from people who are quite old. When that generation dies out... I just wonder sometimes at what we might be on the brink of losing without realising it.
Lovely post.
I suspect that I sit somewhat uneasily somewhere in the middle. Religion tends to become a pain in the arse when it gets organised, and the idea of an established state church in the Britain of 2016 seems to me a self-evident absurdity. I suspect that falling attendance and dwindling influence amongst other social changes will make the status quo untenable sooner rather later and lead to disestablishment in the not too distant future. I won't lament that.
Organisation and establishment however are entirely separate matters from whatever good the C of E may do - and that surely is beyond dispute to some extent. I would imagine - hope, in fact - that the same situation pertains to the C of E as it does with Catholicism: that's to say, a lay membership at odds with (by that I mean, significantly more liberal, tolerant, open-minded, progressive, whatever word you care to use) than the leadership. On the other hand, it could be entirely the opposite - I don't know; maybe somebody does.
I do know that there are aspects of the C of E which to me are inevitably bound up with nebulous notions of Englishness. These are the things that John Betjeman called "all the inessentials of faith" - he meant the ecclesiastical buildings and their architecture, the stained glass, the wheezy organs and often equally wheezy organists and so forth. I know full well and don't need to be told that this feeds into a hazy, highly romanticised view of Englishness and the C of E; this is the world of John Major's much-mocked elderly spinsters cycling through the mist to Evensong and what have you. It's more the cosy C of E of The Vicar of Dibley than of Rev.. These ideas didn't come out of nowhere however and do persist in the English psyche. How much of that would remain if the C of E went the way of most of its current active membership, and for how long, are fraught questions. Churches and cathedrals are expensive to keep relatively spick and span; their loss would be a catastrophic national impoverishment regardless of whether they're used for their intended purpose or are part of the heritage industry.
What the next twenty to thirty years holds (which I may well live to see), when the current churchgoers have gone to their reward, remains to be seen.
-
Lovely post.
I suspect that I sit somewhat uneasily somewhere in the middle. Religion tends to become a pain in the arse when it gets organised, and the idea of an established state church in the Britain of 2016 seems to me a self-evident absurdity. I suspect that falling attendance and dwindling influence amongst other social changes will make the status quo untenable sooner rather later and lead to disestablishment in the not too distant future. I won't lament that.
Organisation and establishment however are entirely separate matters from whatever good the C of E may do - and that surely is beyond dispute to some extent. I would imagine - hope, in fact - that the same situation pertains to the C of E as it does with Catholicism: that's to say, a lay membership at odds with (by that I mean, significantly more liberal, tolerant, open-minded, progressive, whatever word you care to use) than the leadership. On the other hand, it could be entirely the opposite - I don't know; maybe somebody does.
I do know that there are aspects of the C of E which to me are inevitably bound up with nebulous notions of Englishness. These are the things that John Betjeman called "all the inessentials of faith" - he meant the ecclesiastical buildings and their architecture, the stained glass, the wheezy organs and often equally wheezy organists and so forth. I know full well and don't need to be told that this feeds into a hazy, highly romanticised view of Englishness and the C of E; this is the world of John Major's much-mocked elderly spinsters cycling through the mist to Evensong and what have you. These ideas didn't come out of nowhere however and do persist in the English psyche. How much of that would remain if the C of E went the way of most of its current active membership, and for how long, are fraught questions. Churches and cathedrals are expensive to keep relatively spick and span; their loss would be a catastrophic national impoverishment regardless of whether they're used for their intended purpose or are part of the heritage industry.
I think there is a significant difference between village on the one hand and town/city on the other.
I can certainly see how a village church has always been at the heart of the village, for everyone, not just worshippers, and its decline or loss is, to an extent, akin to the loss of the village shop, post office, school or pub.
But I don't think the same thing holds in towns and cities with lots of churches and also a much wider range of community amenities. I don't think a single church has anything like the same importance or visibility in those communities. So in my part of my small city there are a whole range of churches or all sorts of denominations, and they do lots of stuff - but the vast majority of that stuff is aimed squarely at their own sub-population of worshippers. If you aren't a worshipper their impact on your life is close to zero.
And it is interesting that you bring up those traditional elements that many of us non believers hold rather dear - so the feel of the wooden pews and the light through the stained glass windows. The traditional organ playing and choral singing etc. But many of those are being sidelined not by the non believers but by the churches themselves who want to modernise - so out go the pews, replaced by modern comfortable chairs. Not going to invest in an organ, nope music is now from some excruciating 'folk' group - traditional choral singing - well no interest, no-one to lead it, old fashioned, out with that.
I suspect most of the churches around my way are much more likely to be filled with traditional church choral music when they are hired out to the local secular choral societies or schools for their choirs rather than as part of their normal worship.
Sure there is a difference in the prestige cathedrals who tend to retain a recognition of the importance of traditional music, but I think this is gone or near to gone in many more local churches.
-
The English church is a part of who we are; this is part of the tragedy of it. But I always felt it immoral to raise and spend the kind of money we had to on a building, not least because it wasn't used by that many people, or on a regular basis. It really is unchristian (and as I say I felt that deeply when I was one); quite what the solution is though I have no idea.
-
The English church is a part of who we are; this is part of the tragedy of it. But I always felt it immoral to raise and spend the kind of money we had to on a building, not least because it wasn't used by that many people, or on a regular basis. It really is unchristian (and as I say I felt that deeply when I was one); quite what the solution is though I have no idea.
That's my sentiment exactly. It's easy enough to see the problem; what the solution is I haven't a bleeding clue.
-
Rhiannon, I have ordered ''Small Boat, Big Sea'' by Peter Owen Jones. The other one you mentioned is not out in paperback yet, I'll wait for that if I like the first one. I see he has written quite a few books.
I didn't recognise his name but when I looked him up, I recognised Peter Owen Jones from the television series where he walked in the steps of St Francis of Assisi, carrying no money. I didn't see all of it but do remember the one where he stayed with the Ethiopian Orthodox and found that quite moving and interesting.
What surprises me are posts on this thread decrying the control and influence the CofE has on the general public. I acknowledge that was the case in years gone by, the church certainly was an authoritative body which has been well documented in history and fiction, but surely that is not so in recent years. I cannot remember any great CofE influence in my lifetime and I'm 66.
-
The English church is a part of who we are; this is part of the tragedy of it. But I always felt it immoral to raise and spend the kind of money we had to on a building, not least because it wasn't used by that many people, or on a regular basis. It really is unchristian (and as I say I felt that deeply when I was one); quite what the solution is though I have no idea.
It is simply untenable for the CofE to retain the number of churches it currently has, given the cost of maintaining them.
As an example, from my home a brisk 30 minute walk would take to any of 9 Church of England churches. And while no doubt all would claim to be serving their local community the numbers attending will be pretty low and dwindling. Maintaining 9 churches is simply unsustainable.
Now of those 9, one is a cathedral, another is seriously old - there are then a block of Victorian vintage, some being rather more impressive than others, and a clutch which are extremely nondescript mid 20thC, with virtually no architectural or heritage interest. Sure there would be some who would kick up a fuss, but selling those for brown field redevelopment would be no great loss to the community at all.
-
And here we have four medieval churches each a five minute drive from the other, with a larger very important church another mile past that. Can't be demolished, and an area like this doesn't need loads of community centres, museums and the like. Really the only use would be to convert them into dwellings - maybe church conversions will one day be as ubiquitous as barn conversions are.
-
Rhiannon, I have ordered ''Small Boat, Big Sea'' by Peter Owen Jones. The other one you mentioned is not out in paperback yet, I'll wait for that if I like the first one. I see he has written quite a few books.
I didn't recognise his name but when I looked him up, I recognised Peter Owen Jones from the television series where he walked in the steps of St Francis of Assisi, carrying no money. I didn't see all of it but do remember the one where he stayed with the Ethiopian Orthodox and found that quite moving and interesting.
That I think was Extreme Pilgrim, which I enjoyed very much (and which spawned an absolutely fascinating book quite unlike the TV series). The follow up, Around the World in 80 Faiths, was a grave disappointment only insofar as it was too ambitious and had too much material for the constraints of that particular series, and ended up being rather whistlestop and superficial.
What surprises me are posts on this thread decrying the control and influence the CofE has on the general public. I acknowledge that was the case in years gone by, the church certainly was an authoritative body which has been well documented in history and fiction, but surely that is not so in recent years. I cannot remember any great CofE influence in my lifetime and I'm 66.
I think that's more to do with dwindling power in an increasingly non-Christian population. It took until 1994 to get women priests; and the urge to meddle in the choices of people in their private lives - opposition to equal civil marriage; continued opposition to assisted suicide - is still very much alive.
-
And here we have four medieval churches each a five minute drive from the other, with a larger very important church another mile past that. Can't be demolished, and an area like this doesn't need loads of community centres, museums and the like. Really the only use would be to convert them into dwellings - maybe church conversions will one day be as ubiquitous as barn conversions are.
Perhaps so.
But my point was that not all CofE churches are interesting from a heritage perspective. So CofE, in many areas, could reduce it's number of churches and it's cost of maintaining them by selling off those that have no heritage value. I think those are quite likely to be in areas of our towns and cities that are mainly residential and built from the 1920s onward, so the land would be prime real estate for redevelopment as housing, which is of course what we desperately need. So the CofE would reduce its maintenance costs while also generating significant additional capital which would help to maintain the really interesting churches.
And I really don't buy this notion that we must throw money at the CofE hand over fist to ensure they can retain the churches and maintain them. We don't do that in other areas, do we. So if a family owns a stately home and can no longer afford upkeep we don't simply subsidise them. We may expect them to sell, perhaps to the National Trust etc and then they become the custodians of the heritage. What doesn't seem right is to allow an organisation to be a very poor custodian of our heritage, in other words simply not to maintain the property.
-
I think that's more to do with dwindling power in an increasingly non-Christian population. It took until 1994 to get women priests; and the urge to meddle in the choices of people in their private lives - opposition to equal civil marriage; continued opposition to assisted suicide - is still very much alive.
I think the CofE fails to recognise how little authority it has in the general population. Somehow they seem to see themselves still as speaking for everyone, because of the anachronism of establishment. But they don't, really their authority base is about 1 million people, those they themselves see as their members, and that's just about 2% of the population. For the vast majority, the 98%, this isn't 'their' organisation at all, it doesn't stand for them, represent them and in most cases its disappearance as an organisation would actually cause barely a ripple in their lives.
-
Christianity in Western Europe is a bit like the Bruce Willis character in the Sixth Sense - it's dead but it doesn't realise it.
As for other parts of the world? Yeah, Christianity tends to flourish where levels of education are low.
Remember this mantra: "Education, Education, Education"
Education is the single most devastating response to religion and VD. Where there are good standards of education there are less of these two problems.
So, what about Africa then? Well, we've all seen the brand of Christianity in Africa. Here are some examples of what happens when Christians replace African superstitions with their own ones.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1376692.stm
http://ictr-archive09.library.cornell.edu/ENGLISH/cases/Musabyimana/indictment/indictment.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301948.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3561365.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10294529
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13507474
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/catholic-church-apologise-failure-rwanda-genocide-vatican
Want some more examples of Christian love?
A government minister in Ghana has called on the country's intelligence forces to round up all gays.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/ghana-official-calls-for-effort-to-round-up-suspected-gays-2318507.html
From Ghana's Christian Council:
If you've got the intestinal fortitude you can read the rest of it online
Then we have the African church and their open opposition to the use of condoms which has led to disease and death.
Yup. Christian missionaries spreading their bigotry and hatred has influenced these deeply superstitious people; I doubt anyone has caused more damage to traditional African lifestyles.
===============================================
What about China?
Well we know about the millions who died during the Christian-led Tai Ping Rebellion
Any Christian movement in China will be inscrutably monitored by the government. They'll come down hard on anything they deem to be at odds with their own policies and doctrines. They've already appointed their own Catholic bishop independently of Rome.
If Christianity has any chance of flourishing in China then it will have to prostitute itself by making compromises that appeal to the Chinese and by doing so will become a quite different Christianity to whatever brand of snake oil you're familiar with.
In any event, the Chinese view Christianity as a western movement so it's unlikely to reach the level of acceptance it gained in Europe and America. China is a completely different animal from the west. Read your history and you'll see that Christianity was in China around the same time that it was establishing itself in Rome yet it lost out to the established religion and culture that already existed.
There's every likelihood this will happen again. China will run the show and it will be on their terms and always maintaining their culture at the expense of whatever your idea of Christianity is.
This is 2004 but.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3561365.stm
Apparently a lot converted to Islam
Not sure that's going to help
-
I think the CofE fails to recognise how little authority it has in the general population. Somehow they seem to see themselves still as speaking for everyone, because of the anachronism of establishment. But they don't, really their authority base is about 1 million people, those they themselves see as their members, and that's just about 2% of the population. For the vast majority, the 98%, this isn't 'their' organisation at all, it doesn't stand for them, represent them and in most cases its disappearance as an organisation would actually cause barely a ripple in their lives.
Yes, exactly. Establishment seems to lend itself to the view in the minds of many of the hierarchy that it's still 1955 (if that).
-
And here we have four medieval churches each a five minute drive from the other, with a larger very important church another mile past that. Can't be demolished, and an area like this doesn't need loads of community centres, museums and the like. Really the only use would be to convert them into dwellings - maybe church conversions will one day be as ubiquitous as barn conversions are.
Just thinking about Terrington St Clement, quite close by, which has a ginormous church, called the 'cathedral of the fens' sometimes. I suppose it was built in affluent times, with money from the wool trade. 168 feet long, and it has a tower sitting next to it, which I think was supposed to go on top, but they bottled out.
I'm sure it will survive both as a functioning church and a historic monument, but the smaller churches nearby are closing already, and of course, chapels get converted into houses, carpet warehouses, and so on.
-
I think the CofE fails to recognise how little authority it has in the general population. Somehow they seem to see themselves still as speaking for everyone, because of the anachronism of establishment. But they don't, really their authority base is about 1 million people, those they themselves see as their members, and that's just about 2% of the population. For the vast majority, the 98%, this isn't 'their' organisation at all, it doesn't stand for them, represent them and in most cases its disappearance as an organisation would actually cause barely a ripple in their lives.
No, it isn't quite that. Rather than think they speak for everyone, they think they know what is best for everyone. As far as the CofE is concerned, part of its job is to give God's guidance to people; the fact it is established means it is used to doing so through the legislature of the country. It really doesn't matter to them whether or not the majority agree; God's laws apply to all. It's for our own good.
-
Just thinking about Terrington St Clement, quite close by, which has a ginormous church, called the 'cathedral of the fens' sometimes. I suppose it was built in affluent times, with money from the wool trade. 168 feet long, and it has a tower sitting next to it, which I think was supposed to go on top, but they bottled out.
I'm sure it will survive both as a functioning church and a historic monument, but the smaller churches nearby are closing already, and of course, chapels get converted into houses, carpet warehouses, and so on.
My village church is stupidly big; what the hell it will lend itself to on closure I have no idea. But the two nearby town churches will be fine, not least because they are also concert venues. And the chapels have decamped to a warehouse share on the industrial estate.
-
My village church is stupidly big; what the hell it will lend itself to on closure I have no idea. But the two nearby town churches will be fine, not least because they are also concert venues. And the chapels have decamped to a warehouse share on the industrial estate.
But if the CofE flogged off their most uninteresting churches in areas where there is clear oversupply then they'd be able to raise significant capital that would keep other churches going, including where it is the only one in a centre of population, even if that is rather too large for the congregation, but may be of historical and heritage importance.
-
I have to mention here those magnificent Norfolk villages, Wiggenhall St Mary the Virgin, and Wiggenhall St Mary Magdelene, which some people think are relics from before the Reformation. I mean, their very Catholic names were not changed, because nobody knew where the hell they are. The churches are classed as 'redundant', but are quite pretty. I don't know what will happen to them.
There are many Wiggenhalls round here, and of course, I am the illegitimate scion of a Wiggenhall coupled with a local bar-maid, who was called Upsy-Getsy, for some reason.
-
There is also the disproportionate news coverage, such as what the AofC decides to tell his flock at Easter is somehow thought relevant enough to feature on the likes of the mainstream national news on the BBC.
What he thinks may well be of interest to his paying customers, so to speak, who he can presumably reach via his organisation, but why on earth it is assumed relevant for the rest of us to be routinely told what the AofC or CofE thinks on anything beats me; it just encourages their delusions of grandeur.
-
But if the CofE flogged off their most uninteresting churches in areas where there is clear oversupply then they'd be able to raise significant capital that would keep other churches going, including where it is the only one in a centre of population, even if that is rather too large for the congregation, but may be of historical and heritage importance.
Not disagreeing for a minute. Practical with unlisted churches in urban areas. Not so easy in the sticks where most are too important to demolish and few alternative uses are obvious.
-
Not disagreeing for a minute. Practical with unlisted churches in urban areas. Not so easy in the sticks where most are too important to demolish and few alternative uses are obvious.
Which is, I guess, why we have the National Trust etc. I suspect quite a few will end up with different custodians. Bit like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity_Church,_Privett
I know this one quite well as my brother lives close by and it is regularly used for concerts and a whole range of other events.
-
Which is, I guess, why we have the National Trust etc. I suspect quite a few will end up with different custodians. Bit like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity_Church,_Privett
I know this one quite well as my brother lives close by and it is regularly used for concerts and a whole range of other events.
Small village churches don't lend themselves to that kind of thing. No parking, poor facilities - many don't have mains drainage - one near me has a compost loo. And there are two churches already both renowned for their music performances eight miles apart.
It's really going to be a case of locking the doors and hoping they don't fall down, as fortune current redundant churches. Unless they get converted for private use.
-
There are churches for sale, ideal for conversion to dwellings if a property developer wants to buy. Many are on the market for a very long time, falling into disrepair. It seems that people are reluctant to live in a place that was once consecrated, superstition I suppose.
And here we have four medieval churches each a five minute drive from the other, with a larger very important church another mile past that. Can't be demolished, and an area like this doesn't need loads of community centres, museums and the like. Really the only use would be to convert them into dwellings - maybe church conversions will one day be as ubiquitous as barn conversions are.
-
Small village churches don't lend themselves to that kind of thing. No parking, poor facilities - many don't have mains drainage - one near me has a compost loo. And there are two churches already both renowned for their music performances eight miles apart.
It's really going to be a case of locking the doors and hoping they don't fall down, as fortune current redundant churches. Unless they get converted for private use.
Or get taken over by the Churches Conservation Trust or other similar organisations. Sure that's what happened to the Privett church and it gets used regularly for events but I think there are plenty of other churches where the goal is simply preservation of our heritage.
-
Old news is that Khatru is wrong again.
"Cracks in the atheist edifice"
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
State atheism failing. Persecution of Christianity is how it all began. Thank God the atheist government doesn't learn from history.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-soaring-christian-population-threatens-to-undermine-the-communist-partys-state-sponsored-atheism-2015-5
-
Old news is that Khatru is wrong again.
"Cracks in the atheist edifice"
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
State atheism failing. Persecution of Christianity is how it all began. Thank God the atheist government doesn't learn from history.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-soaring-christian-population-threatens-to-undermine-the-communist-partys-state-sponsored-atheism-2015-5
There has only ever been one officially state atheist country and that was Albania for a few years under Enver Hoxha. Otherwise countries such as the UK, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian nations are characterised by very high levels of what Phil Zuckerman calls organic atheism. This isn't imposed by anyone but, as the name implies, grows/develops naturally. You must surely be aware of the growth of this in North America.
-
Old news is that Khatru is wrong again.
"Cracks in the atheist edifice"
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
State atheism failing. Persecution of Christianity is how it all began. Thank God the atheist government doesn't learn from history.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-soaring-christian-population-threatens-to-undermine-the-communist-partys-state-sponsored-atheism-2015-5
Unfortunately all of the things you like to do woody are in decline you tell me your not chopping down so many trees these days and your Ju Ju in the sky beliefs are on their way out too, never mind you've still got all of those more numerous day by day non-believers like us to keep you company, so it's not all bad.
ippy
-
Old news is that Khatru is wrong again.
"Cracks in the atheist edifice"
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
State atheism failing. Persecution of Christianity is how it all began. Thank God the atheist government doesn't learn from history.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-soaring-christian-population-threatens-to-undermine-the-communist-partys-state-sponsored-atheism-2015-5
The increased visibility of christianity in China doesn't necessarily reflect an actual rise in the numbers of Christians (although it may do to an extent). Rather this is likely to be mainly down to an increased state tolerance towards Christianity and therefore allowing Christians to worship more openly.
This often happens when a country becomes less authoritarian.
You could ask another question - how many atheists are there in Saudi Arabia - currently it would be very difficult to know as to declare oneself as being atheist risks being prosecuted and punished severely. However, no doubt there are plenty of atheists in Saudi, but most are too scared to admit it. So imagine what would happen if Saudi became more tolerant, allowing atheists to declare their atheism with out risk of reprisal (in the manner that China has started to do for Christianity). What you would see would be an apparent sudden increase in atheism in Saudi - actually this would largely be due to longstanding atheists feeling safe to declare themselves as such. And of course this is largely the position in China for Christians.
If you really want to know about trends, you need to look at countries where there is a broad freedom to declare as a worshiper of any religion, or of none including atheism and has been over a significant period of time. Under those circumstance, and worldwide, we see a trend away from religiosity toward being non religious or atheist.
-
Unfortunately all of the things you like to do woody are in decline you tell me your not chopping down so many trees these days and your Ju Ju in the sky beliefs are on their way out too
Ippy's lost it!
-
You could ask another question - how many atheists are there in Saudi Arabia - currently it would be very difficult to know as to declare oneself as being atheist risks being prosecuted and punished severely. However, no doubt there are plenty of atheists in Saudi, but most are too scared to admit it. So imagine what would happen if Saudi became more tolerant, allowing atheists to declare their atheism with out risk of reprisal (in the manner that China has started to do for Christianity). What you would see would be an apparent sudden increase in atheism in Saudi - actually this would largely be due to longstanding atheists feeling safe to declare themselves as such. And of course this is largely the position in China for Christians.
Atheism "explodes" in Saudi Arabia: http://goo.gl/Ezg6Ea
-
Ippy's lost it!
Hi there Vlad, good days, bad days, what's the trouble this time?
ippy
-
Hi there Vlad, good days, bad days, what's the trouble this time?
ippy
I'm afraid it's ''Ju Ju Sky beliefs Ippy'', sounds a bit cough-cough nose touch nose touch old fashioned patronisingly imperialist to me.
-
I see you've added to your store of words you don't understand and misuse, Vlad.
-
I'm afraid it's ''Ju Ju Sky beliefs Ippy'', sounds a bit cough-cough nose touch nose touch old fashioned patronisingly imperialist to me.
Sky Pixie?
ippy
-
Old news is that Khatru is wrong again.
"Cracks in the atheist edifice"
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks
State atheism failing. Persecution of Christianity is how it all began. Thank God the atheist government doesn't learn from history.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-soaring-christian-population-threatens-to-undermine-the-communist-partys-state-sponsored-atheism-2015-5
Yeah, I was lying about Christianity's part in the Rwandan genocide and their treatment of gays.
All the links I posted where made up.
-
I was only trying to cheer up the non-religious, I wasn't arguing anything I was just pointing out this decline measured by the C of E themselves.
ippy
IIRC, ippy, it was the church who brought the decline to public attention several decades ago. Perhaps more importantly, as we've pointed out before, a smaller more knowledgeable Church will probably have a greater influence than a bunch of people who had little understanding and simply followed on from their parents or grandparents.
-
IIRC, ippy, it was the church who brought the decline to public attention several decades ago. Perhaps more importantly, as we've pointed out before, a smaller more knowledgeable Church will probably have a greater influence than a bunch of people who had little understanding and simply followed on from their parents or grandparents.
The church will certainly be smaller as all the trends point that way but I'm interested to know why you think it will be more knowledgeable - knowledgeable of what, exactly? - and why it will "probably" have more influence.
-
IIRC, ippy, it was the church who brought the decline to public attention several decades ago. Perhaps more importantly, as we've pointed out before, a smaller more knowledgeable Church will probably have a greater influence than a bunch of people who had little understanding and simply followed on from their parents or grandparents.
Agreed. The future church will be those who have been challenged by Christ and by a fairly harsh environment in which alienation is rife.
-
The church will certainly be smaller as all the trends point that way but I'm interested to know why you think it will be more knowledgeable - knowledgeable of what, exactly? - and why it will "probably" have more influence.
OK, as scholarship improves and as we obtain a larger and larger number of older and older documents that the Biblical documents can be compared with (the Dead Sea Scrolls are only one example), so we get a greater understanding of the Bible - and often of the way in which its contents have been abused by the rich and powerful in order to control the masses. We also discover ways in which ancient Jewish thought differed from the way the Jewish leaders of Jesus' times were teaching - for instance the idea that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is no more historical treatment of the early days of earth than the Lord of the Rings.
As for how it will have more influence than the Church today, one only has to look at how change has occurred down the centuries. Small groups of determined and vocal people have impacted dramatically on society throughout history, both recent and not so recent.
Regarding the numbers, whilst the last 90-odd years have seen a proportionate decline in church attendance, there are a couple of complications about this. That decline is based on the figures that existed pre-1st World War. What we don't know is what the figures were a further 90 years before that - when church attendance was compulsory, and even chapel (ie non-conformist) attendance was largely regarded as non-attendance by the authorities.
More importantly, is the figure of believers (as opposed to attendees). We are often told that mid-20th century censuses gave a figure of about 75% of the population who claimed allegiance to the term 'Christian', and that that figure has dropped year on year ever since.
As far as I'm aware, the British Social Attitudes Survey started in 1983 so whilst that gives a pretty good indication of what has happened in that 30+ years since, there is no such data to tell us whether the starting point was a high/low in the first place. We do have some indication that, in South Wales at least, the numbers of believers at the turn of the 20th century was comparatively small (was that common across the rest of the UK?)
We have no way of deciding whether there had been a static proportion of the population as believers (as opposed to attendees) for several centuries followed by a steadly decline through the 20th century as some would like to suggest, or whether the numbers have fluctuated over a period of 2 to 4 generations over those same centuries.
I think that it is probably far too early to claim that Christianity, or religion as a whole, is on its way out permanently. We could yet be told by future scientific research that having a religious belief is a natural human instinct and that those who feel that they can do without one are somehow 'damaged'. Who knows.
-
OK, as scholarship improves and as we obtain a larger and larger number of older and older documents that the Biblical documents can be compared with (the Dead Sea Scrolls are only one example), so we get a greater understanding of the Bible - and often of the way in which its contents have been abused by the rich and powerful in order to control the masses. We also discover ways in which ancient Jewish thought differed from the way the Jewish leaders of Jesus' times were teaching - for instance the idea that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is no more historical treatment of the early days of earth than the Lord of the Rings.
As for how it will have more influence than the Church today, one only has to look at how change has occurred down the centuries. Small groups of determined and vocal people have impacted dramatically on society throughout history, both recent and not so recent.
Regarding the numbers, whilst the last 90-odd years have seen a proportionate decline in church attendance, there are a couple of complications about this. That decline is based on the figures that existed pre-1st World War. What we don't know is what the figures were a further 90 years before that - when church attendance was compulsory, and even chapel (ie non-conformist) attendance was largely regarded as non-attendance by the authorities.
More importantly, is the figure of believers (as opposed to attendees). We are often told that mid-20th century censuses gave a figure of about 75% of the population who claimed allegiance to the term 'Christian', and that that figure has dropped year on year ever since.
As far as I'm aware, the British Social Attitudes Survey started in 1983 so whilst that gives a pretty good indication of what has happened in that 30+ years since, there is no such data to tell us whether the starting point was a high/low in the first place. We do have some indication that, in South Wales at least, the numbers of believers at the turn of the 20th century was comparatively small (was that common across the rest of the UK?)
We have no way of deciding whether there had been a static proportion of the population as believers (as opposed to attendees) for several centuries followed by a steadly decline through the 20th century as some would like to suggest, or whether the numbers have fluctuated over a period of 2 to 4 generations over those same centuries.
I think that it is probably far too early to claim that Christianity, or religion as a whole, is on its way out permanently. We could yet be told by future scientific research that having a religious belief is a natural human instinct and that those who feel that they can do without one are somehow 'damaged'. Who knows.
Sorry, Hope, your analysis is flawed here. For many centuries in Britain religion has been force fed to the masses and ordinary people had little chance of believing anything else other than what the guy In the black robes, standing high above the congregation, was bellowing at them week after week!
For a great deal of that time, most in that congregation couldn't read and if they could, there were hardly any books that weren't spouting the Christian message.
Now there are plenty of ways Joe Bloggs can read about an alternative view. Forums such as this help explode the myths and lies that have been rammed down the churchgoers throats for hundreds of years.
Now, even people like you are able to see that Genesis is fiction and one day even the TWs Sasses and ABs will come to realise the truth!
To think that as you grow smaller you'll have more influence is as big a myth as Jonah and the whale!
-
Now, even people like you are able to see that Genesis is fiction and one day even the TWs Sasses and ABs will come to realise the truth!
Another memorable quote!
-
Sorry, Hope, your analysis is flawed here. For many centuries in Britain religion has been force fed to the masses and ordinary people had little chance of believing anything else other than what the guy In the black robes, standing high above the congregation, was bellowing at them week after week!
Precisely, jj, which is largely what my analysis was pointing out. Note that much the same can be said about politics over the centuries. However, over the centuries there have been millions of people who have, in one way or other, chosen not to follow what the authorities were 'bellowing at them week after week'. For instance, people like Richard Beake (see Khatru's thread of that name); the Pilgrim Fathers who chose to leave England rather than live under what they saw as the 'tyranny' of the Church of England; Mennonites, Anabaptists, Plymouth Brethren and many other non-conformist groups who either set up house here in Great Britain and stood up to ridicule and persecution from the authorities. That was just within the religious realm. In the political realm there have been the Lollards, the Luddites, the Chartists, etc.
For a great deal of that time, most in that congregation couldn't read and if they could, there were hardly any books that weren't spouting the Christian message.
Unfortunately, no-one has ever been able to show that the Christian message is, in itself, wrong.
Now there are plenty of ways Joe Bloggs can read about an alternative view. Forums such as this help explode the myths and lies that have been rammed down the churchgoers throats for hundreds of years.
Yet it was often the church-goers who initiated the exploding of the so-called 'myths and lies' by studying the Bible, pointing out that what was being taught as Biblical truth was wrong - not that the Bible was wrong.
Now, even people like you are able to see that Genesis is fiction and one day even the TWs Sasses and ABs will come to realise the truth!
Oddly enough, I've never said that a single bit of Genesis is fiction; what I have stated is that scholars and an increasing number of believers are beginning to appreciate that different parts of that book are written in different literary genres - in much the same way that we already knew that that was the case in regard of the Bible as a whole. There are some chronological, historical sections; there are some theological treatise sections; there are some law-setting sections; etc. Furthermore, we are also beginning to realise that Jews held these understandings of their Scriptures as well.
To think that as you grow smaller you'll have more influence is as big a myth as Jonah and the whale!
Actually, I think that we are already having far more influence than we were say 30 years ago. There are far greater numbers of Christian (and other religious) groups working in areas such as homelessness, prison justice, trade justice, people trafficking, the environment, etc. than when I was young.
-
I think, Hope, that your analysis in #63 is missing a couple of key points.
The first is that while even today in some areas religious influence is still significant, to the point that some cultures can still be described as theocratic to the extent that they regard apostasy and blasphemy as crimes, and where religion and politics are inextricably mixed, whereas in other areas such as here in the UK organised religion no longer has this type of influence, to the extent that we would regard the notion that blasphemy or apostasy were crimes as being primitive and perverse.
The other is of course the impact of education and wider social change. In those parts of the world where education is now well established, so that people are in general less credulous and more sceptical, living conditions are no longer major risks to health and happiness, society is more tolerant, there are secular influences at play and in general people have greater choice and more opportunities - such as here in the UK - the involvement in organised religion is now largely a matter of personal choice and it seems increasing numbers are voting with their feet. Even in the USA, with its almost child-like attachment to religion, there are signs that some there are now more prepared to say they are atheist are agnostic, although they aren't yet at the point where an American politician would be able to say they were a non-theist without it being political suicide.
If I had a crystal ball I'd predict that religion won't ever die out completely and will persist longer where education and social conditions are relatively poorest but, as these hopefully improve over the coming centuries, then I'd expect that religion will decline in influence and relevance, just as it has done here in the UK.
-
I just worth it's worth a mention, I noticed that on both the B H A & the N S S sites have a report that came from the C of E about the continuing decline of their church attendence in England, it has fallen below the one million mark for the first time.
It's easy to find on both sights, via google or other browsers.
ippy
You have no idea of the signs of the times...
2 Thessalonians 2King James Version (KJV)
2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;( falling away> yes?)
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You Ippy, Will you now believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or will you continue to have no love for the truth? :(
All things happen at the times God has planned. Falling away is a sign that the wicked one is about to be revealed.
It is sad that most will never have the warning signs you see or the proof in the words of the Apostles and Christ.
But there will be fewer warnings. At least consider the truth and read the bible fully. See how it lines up with present events and see how in those times they knew the events coming to pass today.
-
Unfortunately, no-one has ever been able to show that the Christian message is, in itself, wrong.
There's a name for that sort of sloppy thinking, you know ;)
-
There's a name for that sort of sloppy thinking, you know ;)
Shaker-ism, iirc ;) Are you saying that you have been able to find material to show that the Christian message, in itself, is wrong?
-
Shaker-ism, iirc ;) Are you saying that you have been able to find material to show that the Christian message, in itself, is wrong?
Nope - Shaker is simply pointing out what is glaringly obvious to all and sundry here: your obsessive attachment to the negative proof fallacy.
-
Shaker-ism, iirc ;) Are you saying that you have been able to find material to show that the Christian message, in itself, is wrong?
No - you recall incorrectly (surprise surprise ...). It's called the negative proof fallacy - it's that error in reasoning that you can hardly put fingers to keyboard without committing.
A rational methodology seeks positive evidence for a particular assertion, not merely the absence of evidence against it. In the absence of such evidence the default position is scepticism, not credulity.
-
The first is that while even today in some areas religious influence is still significant, to the point that some cultures can still be described as theocratic to the extent that they regard apostasy and blasphemy as crimes, and where religion and politics are inextricably mixed, whereas in other areas such as here in the UK organised religion no longer has this type of influence, to the extent that we would regard the notion that blasphemy or apostasy were crimes as being primitive and perverse.
Interestingly, the early churh would have been in full agreement with your analysis. It would seem to have changed, albeit slowly at first, once the religion was assimilated into society as a state religion.
... the involvement in organised religion is now largely a matter of personal choice and it seems increasing numbers are voting with their feet.
Ironically enough, this is getting back to the original way of things.
If I had a crystal ball I'd predict that religion won't ever die out completely and will persist longer where education and social conditions are relatively poorest but, as these hopefully improve over the coming centuries, then I'd expect that religion will decline in influence and relevance, just as it has done here in the UK.
I think the problem with this is that even here in the UK, it is often the highly educated who have a faith. I see a far smaller correlation between education and non-religiosity than you and others here would like there to be.
-
Nope - Shaker is simply pointing out what is glaringly obvious to all and sundry here: your obsessive attachment to the negative proof fallacy.
Given how many times this has been pointed out to him, I wonder what mental process is at work that allows him to continue to make the same error time after time after time?
-
Given how many times this has been pointed out to him, I wonder what mental process is at work that allows him to continue to make the same error time after time after time?
Isn't is a sign of madness, when you do the same thing over and over, and expect a different outcome?
-
Hope, I've noticed you have s tendency to preface some of your unsubstantiated assertions with 'ironically', as though that gives them authority. It doesn't; please stop as it's incredibly irritating.
-
You have no idea of the signs of the times...
You Ippy, Will you now believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or will you continue to have no love for the truth? :(
All things happen at the times God has planned. Falling away is a sign that the wicked one is about to be revealed.
It is sad that most will never have the warning signs you see or the proof in the words of the Apostles and Christ.
But there will be fewer warnings. At least consider the truth and read the bible fully. See how it lines up with present events and see how in those times they knew the events coming to pass today.
Hi there Sass, I wondered what's the first thing that crosses your mind when you're walking down a high street anywhere and you see one of those old guys walking up and down wearing one of those "A" boards with the overhead one up as well, covered in slogans like, " the end of the world is neigh", and handing out dog eared leaflets about agamemnon.
Do you go out wearing an "A" board from time to time Sass?
ippy
-
No - you recall incorrectly (surprise surprise ...). It's called the negative proof fallacy - it's that error in reasoning that you can hardly put fingers to keyboard without committing.
A rational methodology seeks positive evidence for a particular assertion, not merely the absence of evidence against it. In the absence of such evidence the default position is scepticism, not credulity.
The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality. I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).
-
The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality. I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).
Perhaps you should be providing the evidence of another means.
-
The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality.
So what else can we use then?
Not that you'll answer the question, of course.
I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).
Still at it ::)
-
Perhaps you should be providing the evidence of another means.
We have asked, Len ... believe you me, we've asked ..
-
So what else can we use then?
We often use non-rational explanations for everyday situations, so requiring only rational explanations for any particular debate seems to fly in the face of normal behaviour.
Not that you'll answer the question, of course.
So, in that sense, I'm no different to anyone else here. We all work to the extent of what we understand reality to be.
-
We often use non-rational explanations for everyday situations
Do we? Such as?
So, in that sense, I'm no different to anyone else here. We all work to the extent of what we understand reality to be.
But my understanding of reality conforms to a precise (and wallopingly successful) methodology. When you claim that there is a realm or there are realms of reality outwith that, and are asked to supply your own methodology for evaluating such claims, you fail to do so each and every time. Why is that?
-
The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality. I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).
There you go again: you won't get an argument from anyone half-way sensible in favour of philosophical naturalism for the obvious reason that not everything is yet known, so science restricts itself to the limitations of theory and associated methodologies, and goes no further.
You, however, are seeing this approach as being restrictive: but the burden of proof here is yours and you've had ample opportunity to demonstrate the non-natural and outline methods used to do so - but all you actually do is wave your hands in the air, claim there is some other aspect to reality that can't be apprehended by reason, offer nothing to support your argument and then you run away leaving only assorted fallacies in your wake.
-
We often use non-rational explanations for everyday situations, so requiring only rational explanations for any particular debate seems to fly in the face of normal behaviour.
Since non-rational explanations are by definition fallacious then you certainly offer these but others try to avoid such errors. So, just out of interest, what are these 'non-rational explanations' you speak of?
So, in that sense, I'm no different to anyone else here. We all work to the extent of what we understand reality to be.
Which says nothing about what reality actually is as far as this can be known (that is, by having knowledge) - but you are different since your 'understanding' is so clearly fallacious, which has been pointed out to you frequently, so that it would be more accurate to say you have misunderstandings.
-
The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality. I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).
If you're right, Hope, tell us how you arbitrate reality when faced with other claims. For instance, if you are told by someone that they had just met Elvis that morning, do you accept it to be true because they have said so ... or do you have some method of verifying the claim ... or do you do what we do with claims of resurrection etc, dismiss them until the fact can be demonstrated in some way?
You could, of course, go to Memphis and dig up Elvis's body ... but I bet you don't.
-
This is relevant, not just to Elvis appearing, but to New Age stuff. I have quite a few friends who are into astrology, Tarot, the I Ching, and so on. I'm not interested in it myself, but if I wanted to investigate it, how would I do it non-rationally?
I mean, one could make guesses, or sort of enjoy oneself getting drunk, throwing Tarot cards around, or whatever, but none of that would really tell me if Tarot offers genuine insights or not.
Of course, one could also set up experiments which match predictions with outcomes - this seems fairly rational. How else?
-
IPPY!!!
This just in, the town east of me is getting a new Catholic, looks like a cathedral, church. Why, why the crazy atheist inside you screams.
Because attendance is growing in one of my favourite Rocky Mountain towns.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canmore-church-looking-to-expand-1.3478580
-
Hi there Sass, I wondered what's the first thing that crosses your mind when you're walking down a high street anywhere and you see one of those old guys walking up and down wearing one of those "A" boards with the overhead one up as well, covered in slogans like, " the end of the world is neigh", and handing out dog eared leaflets about agamemnon.
Do you go out wearing an "A" board from time to time Sass?
ippy
I think you mean ' end of the world is nigh' rather than neigh ;)
-
Perhaps he was feeling a little hoarse.
-
I think you mean ' end of the world is nigh' rather than neigh ;)
Spelling Rose I have never been able to get any of it right since as far back as I can remember, I keep saying be impressed with how much I get right in spite of this inability of mine, rather than be surprised when I get it wrong.
Sometimes, more often than I would like, in fact I can't even get the letter order in a word I want to use and spell checker can't pick up my attempts either, it's that bad and it hasn't got any better, no matter how much I write.
I often go to google when I can't get near to the word I want to know how to spell, google says to me "do you mean", I then check the definition to make sure it's the one I'm looking for.
It's that bad so missing "nigh", is small beer in my world.
All of my surrounding family are academically inclined and very successful academically and not in a minor league way either, in those areas, there has to be one that isn't guess who.
ippy
-
IPPY!!!
This just in, the town east of me is getting a new Catholic, looks like a cathedral, church. Why, why the crazy atheist inside you screams.
Because attendance is growing in one of my favourite Rocky Mountain towns.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canmore-church-looking-to-expand-1.3478580
I wouldn't doubt your word Woody for one minute but it still no matter how successful your church is, it still wont alter the overall downward trend; you see the standards of education keep on improving, communications, and the availability of information is now so exponential and people are no longer as gullible as in the past generations, so unfortunately for your way of thinking, religion is severely on its way back to the past, where it belongs.
Religion wont die out completely but like the UK it'll all gradually diminish with the occasional death throw from time to time like your, child abuse covering, catholic based local church.
ippy
Don't get your hopes up too much Woody
-
Spelling Rose I have never been able to get any of it right since as far back as I can remember, I keep saying be impressed with how much I get right in spite of this inability of mine, rather than be surprised when I get it wrong.
Sometimes, more often than I would like, in fact I can't even get the letter order in a word I want to use and spell checker can't pick up my attempts either, it's that bad and it hasn't got any better, no matter how much I write.
I often go to google when I can't get near to the word I want to know how to spell, google says to me "do you mean", I then check the definition to make sure it's the one I'm looking for.
It's that bad so missing "nigh", is small beer in my world.
All of my surrounding family are academically inclined and very successful academically and not in a minor league way either, in those areas, there has to be one that isn't guess who.
ippy
The spell checker and auto complete are the bane of my life :-[
:) :)
-
The spell checker and auto complete are the bane of my life :-[
:) :)
Me two!
-
Mwa aussie! Never bother with them meself, to much bovver.
-
My favourite thread title ever on Mumsnet was I Might Be A Mum But I Still Have Brians.
-
Lucky old Brian is all I can say.
-
My favourite thread title ever on Mumsnet was I Might Be A Mum But I Still Have Brians.
The "dipping your willy in a plastic cup" thread takes some beating.
-
The "dipping your willy in a plastic cup" thread takes some beating.
Yes, 'do you have a penis beaker?' That one even made it here.
-
Yes, 'do you have a penis beaker?' That one even made it here.
8)
Perhaps it's time to reserect that thread.
Sorry.
-
I didn't know mums had willies! You live and learn.
-
I remember a poem my father used to recite to my young sister which ran :-
Little Willie Winkie runs through the town,
Upstairs and downstairs in his nightgown.
Looking in the window and shouting through the lock.
"Are the children all in bed? It's past 8 0'clock!"
-
I remember a poem my father used to recite to my young sister which ran :-
Little Willie Winkie runs through the town,
Upstairs and downstairs in his nightgown.
Looking in the window and shouting through the lock.
"Are the children all in bed? It's past 8 0'clock!"
Without googling it, I cn't remember the poet's name.
I have, however, seen his grave.
-
The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality. I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).
Hope,
I came out of hiding on this board and started a thread to discuss this very issue.
Still waiting for an answer.
-
Hope,
I came out of hiding on this board and started a thread to discuss this very issue.
Still waiting for an answer.
I can wait for an answer to a question - for instance "what is the global relevance of the drachma" for ever without necessarily getting one. That doesn't necessarily mean that no-one wants to offer an answer; it could simply be that that questioner is asking the wrong question, or that they have asked a question on the assumption that there is only a single answer, whilst there may be several.
As I have pointed out before, there are those here who would have us believe that rational methodology and scientific naturalism are the sole means of arbitrating reality - yet have signally failed to provide any evidence to this effect - because the parameters necessarily limit their thinking to the above.
-
As I have pointed out before, there are those here who would have us believe that rational methodology and scientific naturalism are the sole means of arbitrating reality - yet have signally failed to provide any evidence to this effect - because the parameters necessarily limit their thinking to the above.
You're the one making the assertion and thus the one who bears the burden of proof. Those who are aware of the success of scientific rationality are the ones who can provide a methodology for their worldview - we have more than amply justified (because so often reinforced) confidence in it (there's the evidence you mentioned) and have not been furnished with any good reason to go elsewhere. That to me is what it boils down to - the lack of a valid justification to think that your claims have any basis and the lack of any good reason to think that there's an alternative methodology.
You're the one claiming that there are other realms of reality and other methods of evaluating them over and above the rational/scientific ones we already know work so well, and that's why you're being asked the questions about these allegations and asked to supply evidence for them.
You know, the questions which you're still dodging even now. You've been asked them so many times by so many people over such a long period of time that by now it's a perfectly reasonable position to conclude that the reason you continually avoid stumping up a single item of evidence for these assertions is that it simply doesn't exist. True scepticism demands that I allow for the possibility of these different realms and alternative methodologies, but rationality doesn't allow for me to accept them merely on the say-so of somebody who alleges them but continually ducks coughing up with the evidence for them. All sorts of things may be merely possible; the point in wanting accurate and reliable knowledge of the world is to have a means of sifting the possibilities and determining what's true and what isn't, or what's not demonstrably so at the very least. My methodology in that regard is done and dusted; where's yours?
-
8)
Perhaps it's time to reserect that thread.
Sorry.
Is that anything to do with the chap that got engaged to a contortionist, she broke it off?
ippy
-
I can wait for an answer to a question - for instance "what is the global relevance of the drachma" for ever without necessarily getting one. That doesn't necessarily mean that no-one wants to offer an answer; it could simply be that that questioner is asking the wrong question, or that they have asked a question on the assumption that there is only a single answer, whilst there may be several.
As I have pointed out before, there are those here who would have us believe that rational methodology and scientific naturalism are the sole means of arbitrating reality - yet have signally failed to provide any evidence to this effect - because the parameters necessarily limit their thinking to the above.
Be careful not to misrepresent me here.
- You have made an assertion that there are other ways of arbitrating reality.
I have not claimed that there are definitely no other ways. It is simply that I am not aware of them.
I am asking you to explain what they are.
It really is very simple
-
I remember a poem my father used to recite to my young sister which ran :-
Little Willie Winkie runs through the town,
Upstairs and downstairs in his nightgown.
Looking in the window and shouting through the lock.
"Are the children all in bed? It's past 8 0'clock!"
It's ''Wee Willie Winkie'', Len, and is a 19thC Scottish nursery rhyme by William Miller.
-
It's ''Wee Willie Winkie'', Len, and is a 19thC Scottish nursery rhyme by William Miller.
Ah, thank you. Obviously my Dad's was the English version of the Scottish 'wee'. I like the alliteration 'Wee Willie Winkie' more. :)
-
Hi there Sass, I wondered what's the first thing that crosses your mind when you're walking down a high street anywhere and you see one of those old guys walking up and down wearing one of those "A" boards with the overhead one up as well, covered in slogans like, " the end of the world is neigh", and handing out dog eared leaflets about agamemnon.
Do you go out wearing an "A" board from time to time Sass?
ippy
I have no idea why people wear sign boards stating the end of the world is near/nigh. Maybe the person wearing the board you say stating. "The end of the world is neigh" Was horsing around and had neigh idea he had spelled it wrong.. ;D
It the dog eared leaflets anything like the sows ear purse?
Anyhow no believer here would throw pearls before the swine.
-
I didn't know mums had willies! You live and learn.
Of course they do... their husbands are on the other end of them... ;D
-
O I C (forgotten about that).
-
I have no idea why people wear sign boards stating the end of the world is near/nigh. Maybe the person wearing the board you say stating. "The end of the world is neigh" Was horsing around and had neigh idea he had spelled it wrong.. ;D
It the dog eared leaflets anything like the sows ear purse?
Anyhow no believer here would throw pearls before the swine.
Of course Susan, I bung in a howler from time to time on purpose, I can assure you that won't be the last one, I just wish it was.
My wife thinks it's a mild form of dexlicer, it can't bit.
Before Google if I only knew the first letter of a word for certain, had to get the dictionary, a piece of card and say the word began with d, start with the beginning of d, card and keep going through until I came to the word I'm looking for good job I'm a fast reader.
I can't explain it, when I was a youngster I can't remember learning to read for me it's as though I have always been able to read and in fact in my early days with school friends I was the one that could pan the steam engines as they sped their way past and found it easy to read the names and numbers before any of the others were able to do so, couldn't spell very well then and it hasn't got any better.
I've learned to live with it because I'm now nearly 74 and there is no way it's going to get any better now.
ippy
-
Nowadays you would be diagnosed as dyslexic, probably. Dyslexics are 'word blind'; they see, and write, some letters back to front, such as p, b, d. Dyslexia is a condition only affecting people with an above average IQ. They learn how to adjust their odd word formation and generally do very well. Richard Branson is one. To avoid making a list of well known dyslexics, there is a link below which does just that. In days gone dyslexics were often written off as 'thick', which is shameful.
The word is used liberally now, maybe too much so because dyslexia is a specific condition. Not an illness.
http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm
-
Of course they do... their husbands are on the other end of them... ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Very astute. Sassy!
-
Nowadays you would be diagnosed as dyslexic, probably. Dyslexics are 'word blind'; they see, and write, some letters back to front, such as p, b, d. Dyslexia is a condition only affecting people with an above average IQ. They learn how to adjust their odd word formation and generally do very well. Richard Branson is one. To avoid making a list of well known dyslexics, there is a link below which does just that. In days gone dyslexics were often written off as 'thick', which is shameful.
The word is used liberally now, maybe too much so because dyslexia is a specific condition. Not an illness.
http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm
I like the highly intelligent bit, could you send that coment to my wife only for some reason I don't think she would believe me if I were to tell her, anyway I'm so intelligent that I know it may well not be in my best interests to tell her myself.
ippy
-
Ippy
DolphinUK advertise SuperNova not only as an excellent means of accessibility for the blind and partially-sighted, but also for dyslexia-type problems. Now, I've no idea how this works, but it might be worth investigating; not with an idea to obtain it, as you obviously manage your spelling problem very efficiently, butt as a guide to how you might be able to make things easier for yourself?
-
Rhiannon, I now have the book, "Small Boat Big Sea'' by Peter Owen Jones and am about to start it. I've read the preface and am already hooked. Thanks for recommendation.
-
Ah, thank you. Obviously my Dad's was the English version of the Scottish 'wee'. I like the alliteration 'Wee Willie Winkie' more. :)
The English version of wee willy Winkie ?
The Diminutive William Winkston Smythe Esq?
-
French version: Petit Guillaume clin d'œil-e
-
Rhiannon, I now have the book, "Small Boat Big Sea'' by Peter Owen Jones and am about to start it. I've read the preface and am already hooked. Thanks for recommendation.
If you like POJ as much as I do, I would recommend Letters from an Extreme Pilgrim. The TV series was superb its own right but you don't need to have seen it to enjoy the book, as the two things are so vastly, so entirely different.
Anybody who can write an open letter to God, his mum, a girl he saw for a few seconds once many years ago and Osama Bin Laden (still alive at the time) is all right by me.
-
Thanks, I will probably read that if I like Small Boat Big Sea, which I think I will.
-
Ippy
DolphinUK advertise SuperNova not only as an excellent means of accessibility for the blind and partially-sighted, but also for dyslexia-type problems. Now, I've no idea how this works, but it might be worth investigating; not with an idea to obtain it, as you obviously manage your spelling problem very efficiently, butt as a guide to how you might be able to make things easier for yourself?
Thanks for the info Susan, I will take a look into that, you may well be right but there's nothing easy about spelling for me, I have limited sucess with parrot fashion but even that's not bullet proof for me, I have learned to live with writing the odd howler from time to time.
There is one thing I have gained from this inabilty of mine and that's where I read whatever people write and take in whatever it is they are saying however they say it as long as I can understand them, other than legal documents, I couldn't give a moneys about the rest.
Regards ippy
PS all of this post written out on my tablet without spell checker.
-
On the BBC website currently - the findings of the most recent Scottish Social Attitudes survey show that the decline continues where over half of those living here in Scotland now say they have no religion: the Church of Scotland looks to be in big trouble.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35953639
-
On the BBC website currently - the findings of the most recent Scottish Social Attitudes survey show that the decline continues where over half of those living here in Scotland now say they have no religion: the Church of Scotland looks to be in big trouble.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35953639
Inevitable and basically because the elderly, who are more religious than younger generations, are dying. It's called generational replacement and will result in a decline in religiosity for decades.
The only factor that might change this is immigration, which is the reason why RCC levels have remained relatively static.
-
I also think this has a good deal of truth in it.
"As fewer Scots are acknowledging even a default religious identity, it is affiliation with the national church that is the hardest hit."
When I was growing up Anglicanism was the default church to which people belonged. A lot of people got their babies 'done' in CofE churches because it was expected of them, and it was good to have a party, and they sort of believed in baby Jesus at Christmas, and in heaven ... and most weddings happened in CofE churches because there wasn't anywhere else except for registry offices, which tended not to look so good in the photos. So if people felt vaguely Christian then the majority felt vaguely CofE.
That's changing as secular alternatives to baptism and wedding venues are becoming the norm. People no longer feel any affiliation to Anglicanism and many feel alienated by its values now which are do out of step with the rest of our society. This will be holding as true north of the border as it is down here.
-
There are some similarities between the CoS and the CoE, but one isn't established, and exists in what has generally been a more patchwork, and often divided religious background. I don't think the CoS has ever been the default church in the same was the CoE might have been.
-
So if parents wanted to get their babies 'christened' or have a church wedding the CofS wasn't the default one to ask for non-Catholics as it is down here?
I don't think the CofE being established matters two hoots to to the English. It was the default church because it is present in every parish and by church law has to offer baptisms to all who ask, unlike both Catholic Churches and the other Protestant denominations. In practice is also offered weddings to anyone other than the divorced, and even then the rules can be tweaked. It was (and probably still is) the easiest place to do church hatches and matches regardless of whether you actually went to church, or even believed, and back in the day people liked to do that because it was the best opportunity for big frocks and nice photos and a party with Uncle Bill making a fool of himself. There are other options now so the church isn't needed even for that.
-
Not really, with the history of schisms in the CoS, there were plenty areas such as the Western Isles where it was a minority church. Additionally the Anglican Church in Scotland, the piskies, had a strong appeal to those who wanted to be a bit more progressive. Since in the West of Scotland, there has been such sectarianism, the idea of a default church doesn't work well.
-
So why did the chap in the article think there was a default to the 'national church'? That's where I got the quote from.
-
So why did the chap in the article think there was a default to the 'national church'? That's where I got the quote from.
I thought the same, and perhaps he is assuming that the C of S is somehow synonymous with the C of E.
-
Well I know they aren't. So I'm assuming he doesn't.
He's a researcher for ScotCen. Presumably he knows about Scotland?
-
I think it relates back to the establishment question. The CoS having once been established is the closest to being a national church, whatever that might actually be. I think the phrase is used because it has a notion of that.
-
Possibly.
Growing up where I did people didn't much care for denominations, churchgoing and nobody ever talked about the CofE being 'established' except maybe in lessons on Tudor history. The CofE was just the place you went to for christenings and (first) weddings.
-
Possibly.
Growing up where I did people didn't much care for denominations, churchgoing and nobody ever talked about the CofE being 'established' except maybe in lessons on Tudor history. The CofE was just the place you went to for christenings and (first) weddings.
Right! Where did you grow up?
-
Possibly.
Growing up where I did people didn't much care for denominations, churchgoing and nobody ever talked about the CofE being 'established' except maybe in lessons on Tudor history. The CofE was just the place you went to for christenings and (first) weddings.
Lucky, lucky you. I really, really wish I have never heard of god and Jesus when I was a kid.
-
Had that been the case floo, you'd have heard about some other religion. Apart from Soviet countries, everywhere has religion in their culture. In the Soviet Union you would have been taught that religion is the opium of the people and Karl Marx's Das Kapital would have been your handbook! There's no escaping religion altogether but we in the UK have the choice what to believe and if we believe.
-
Had that been the case floo, you'd have heard about some other religion. Apart from Soviet countries, everywhere has religion in their culture. In the Soviet Union you would have been taught that religion is the opium of the people and Karl Marx's Das Kapital would have been your handbook! There's no escaping religion altogether but we in the UK have the choice what to believe and if we believe.
It could have been a Scandinavian country were religion is very low.
-
Brownie
It seems to me that your ideas about "Soviet countries" is incorrect. On the contrary they seem to be deeply Christian with all the hypocrisy that involves; intrinsically homophobic, etc.
-
Had that been the case floo, you'd have heard about some other religion. Apart from Soviet countries, everywhere has religion in their culture. In the Soviet Union you would have been taught that religion is the opium of the people and Karl Marx's Das Kapital would have been your handbook! There's no escaping religion altogether but we in the UK have the choice what to believe and if we believe.
What I mean is I would have been grateful if religion hadn't been thrust down my throat as a kid, and my parents had either been secular, or very moderate live and let live Christians.
-
What I mean is I would have been grateful if religion hadn't been thrust down my throat as a kid, and my parents had either been secular, or very moderate live and let live Christians.
I don't understand why you haven't factored your parents out of the major ontological question.
-
Brownie
It seems to me that your ideas about "Soviet countries" is incorrect. On the contrary they seem to be deeply Christian with all the hypocrisy that involves; intrinsically homophobic, etc.
There aren't Soviet countries any more John, when the Soviets ruled atheism was the philosophy that was promoted (the church remained quite strong in Poland, the people hung onto it as a light at the end of the tunnel but Poland is not Russia). I've no idea what the attitude to homosexuals was in those days, you are probably right about the homophobia, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Now of course the Russian Orthodox church flourishes as do various other churches and sects - and a lot of homophobia and racism. Can't win.
Floo, it is quite understandable that you wish your family hadn't been so steeped in church, quite a narrow, hardline church too from what you say. I was really surprised the other day when you said your parents didn't have friends from church, only acquaintances! One thing I've come across with people heavily involved in a church is that they have a lot of friends and friendships are fostered. Interesting but that's by the by. Anyway, I'm sure I wouldn't have liked that either so understand how you feel. It couldn't have been all bad though, floo. You must have had good times and you were well brought up, according to their lights.
-
There aren't Soviet countries any more John, when the Soviets ruled atheism was the philosophy that was promoted (the church remained quite strong in Poland, the people hung onto it as a light at the end of the tunnel but Poland is not Russia). I've no idea what the attitude to homosexuals was in those days, you are probably right about the homophobia, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Lenin was in some ways a man very much ahead of his time and mores - when the Bolsheviks took power Lenin had openly gay members in his cabinet, for example.
Lenin died young and was in power for only seven years; Stalin pretty much reversed all that.
Which just goes to show the difference in a country when you have a very highly intelligent, acute thinking individual succeeded by a psychopathic former bank robber, I guess.
-
Quite. There were many Jewish forward thinking, prominent intellectuals in pre-revolution Russia - and then anti-semitism reared its ugly head. Horrible.
BeR: It could have been a Scandinavian country were religion is very low.
Well, there is ''low church''.....
-
Lucky, lucky you. I really, really wish I have never heard of god and Jesus when I was a kid.
We learned about religion in school. A day act of Christian worship really was just that, complete with prayers and hymns. Church might not have featured but Christianity certainly did.
-
Right! Where did you grow up?
Erm, let's think. I've mentioned the CofE.
England, possibly?
-
Bulgaria?
-
We learned about religion in school. A day act of Christian worship really was just that, complete with prayers and hymns. Church might not have featured but Christianity certainly did.
Interestingly, whilst I went to a CofE secondary school with a sizeable chapel, we only had an assembly twice a week. The school couldn't all fit in the chapel at once and for some reason it was felt inappropriate to have such an event in the school hall which would have held us all.
-
Brownie
It seems to me that your ideas about "Soviet countries" is incorrect. On the contrary they seem to be deeply Christian with all the hypocrisy that involves; intrinsically homophobic, etc.
It is interesting that Socialist and Maoist governments came to the same understanding of homosexual relationships as the Church without recourse to the Bible, and by using science as their benchmark.
-
It is interesting that Socialist and Maoist governments came to the same understanding of homosexual relationships as the Church without recourse to the Bible, and by using science as their benchmark.
Where is your evidence that Socialist and Maoist governments used science as their benchmark for this Hope.
And also there are plenty of socialist governments that have championed equality on the basis of sexuality.
-
It is interesting that Socialist and Maoist governments came to the same understanding of homosexual relationships as the Church without recourse to the Bible, and by using science as their benchmark.
You've already claimed this on the Ole Miss thread.
Are you going to dodge questions about what these supposedly scientific arguments are here, or over there?
-
You've already claimed this on the Ole Miss thread.
Are you going to dodge questions about what these supposedly scientific arguments are here, or over there?
Hope is the Artful Dodger. ;D
-
Where is your evidence that Socialist and Maoist governments used science as their benchmark for this Hope.
And also there are plenty of socialist governments that have championed equality on the basis of sexuality.
Indeed - in this country alone in less than forty years Labour governments decriminalised homosexuality, equalised the age of consent and introduced civil partnerships.
-
You've already claimed this on the Ole Miss thread.
Are you going to dodge questions about what these supposedly scientific arguments are here, or over there?
I made no reference to political parties and their stance on homosexual relationships on the 'Ole Miss' thread Shakes:
: Shaker on April 07, 2016, 05:47:49 PM
Non-religious homophobia really is a puzzle, since the non-religious (unlike the religious) don't even have the pseudo-excuse of so-called sacred scripture to hide behind.
They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well.
As you may have noticed, I have not been on the boards that much the last few days. This is partly because I have started a new part-time (3 days a week @ 8 hours a day) job which - after nigh-on 9 years of unemployment and a year of ill-health - and I have had other things to attend to when I get home, all of which has left me fairly tired by the end of the day.
Regarding the science - stats suggest that the percentage of gay couples getting divorced is about the same as heterosexual couples.
About 1% of the total number of currently-married or registered same-sex couples get divorced each year, in comparison to about 2% of the total number of married straight couples. Note that the percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%, but only 1% or 2% of them get divorced in any particular year. ...
Third, the divorce rate is lower for same-sex couples than straight couples. It would be wonderful to proclaim that this shows that gay folks are more committed to their marriages than straight folks — and given the recent rash of near instantaneous divorces (think Kardashian) this wouldn’t seem that crazy. However, I suspect that this can be attributed to the types of couples getting married in these early years of same-sex marriage, and not a testament to the stability of lesbian and gay relationships. There’s no statistical data out yet on this particular dynamic, but in my experience as a lawyer working with same-sex couples, the partners getting married tend to be those who have already been together for some time. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. For that reason, we should not be surprised that they are not rushing to get divorced so quickly. Of course, there are a fair number of such couples whose relationships don’t last, but on the whole it’s a rather select group. Think about it — the couples with shakier relationships are not likely to travel across state lines to get married — and there certainly aren’t any “shotgun” marriages in the gay community!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/divorce-marriage-rates-fo_b_1085024.html
We are often told that gay marriages are more stable than heterosexual ones - but as the writer of this report points out, that is currently based on the fact that most gay couples getting married have been co-habiting for many years already.
Gay and lesbians who view the legalization of same sex marriage as the answer to all their relationship problems would do well to take a serious look at the shocking statistics on gay and lesbian infidelity.
Infidelity in one form or another, now affects close to 80% of all marriages or committed relationships today, regardless of sexual orientation.
Gay and lesbian couples are not immune – in fact, based on the statics and research below, same sex couples may be more susceptible to infidelity than heterosexual couples. ...
Precisely accurate infidelity statistics are hard to come by, since not all infidelity studies, polls, and surveys are measuring the same things. ...
Statistics on infidelity among same sex couples are even more difficult to come by, because most infidelity studies do not include lesbians and gays.
However, there at least four studies from which to cite.
Study #1
The book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, by authors Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, and Kolata, cites a study of homosexual male couples conducted by gay researchers.
The couples who participated had been together between 1 and 37 years.
Findings were as follows:
100% (all) of the couples experienced infidelity in their relationship within the first 5 years. (a proportion that is not reflected in heterosexual couples - ed)
Couples who remained together past the 10-year mark were able to do so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship
More than 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems center on issues related to outside relationships
NOTE: Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of gay/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years.
http://www.examiner.com/article/same-sex-marriage-alert-shocking-statistics-on-gay-and-lesbian-infidelity (I haven't referred to the other 3 studies mentioned, only the last of which suggests that things are improving).
The article also points out that
Same Sex Couples Should Educate Themselves about Infidelity
Despite the recent decrease in infidelity among gay and lesbian couples, it obvious from the statistics above that same sex couples, especially gay males, are particularly susceptible to infidelity.
Given the strong likelihood that most gay and lesbian couples, are likely to have to deal with the issue of infidelity at some point in their relationship, whether they are in same sex marriages or not, they would do well to educate themselves about infidelity.
I'm also aware that this last item dates from 2012, whereas the first was updated in 2014, but I believe that the figures are still worrying for those who support gay relationships. That is not to say that the heterosexual picture is rosy - it isn't - but that doesn't mean that the gay option is necessarily correct.
A consistent finding is that gay men differ from both lesbian and heterosexual couples in their attitudes and behavior about sexual exclusiveness. Data from the large American Couples study conducted by Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz are illustrative. Only 36 percent of gay men said it was important to them to have a sexually monogamous relationship, compared with 71 percent of lesbians, 75 percent of heterosexual husbands, and 84 percent, of wives. In actual behavior, only a minority of lesbians (28 percent), husbands (26 percent), and wives (21 percent) had engaged in sex outside their primary relationship, compared with 82 percent of gay men. Sexual fidelity is positively related to relationship satisfaction for lesbian and heterosexual couples, but not for gay male couples. One reason is that some gay male couples have agreements permitting sex outside their primary relationship.
http://bit.ly/1Ynq1pa
None of the articles I've referred to are all bad news - but I believe that the issues I've highlighted are of concern - as they would be/are within the heterosexual community.
-
I made no reference to political parties and their stance on homosexual relationships on the 'Ole Miss' thread Shakes
I never said that you had. I said that you had talked of scientific and objective arguments against homosexuality. In fact you even quoted as much: "They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well."
Regarding the science - stats suggest that the percentage of gay couples getting divorced is about the same as heterosexual couples.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/divorce-marriage-rates-fo_b_1085024.html
So what?
We are often told that gay marriages are more stable than heterosexual ones
Told by whom and how often? I've never heard that.
I'm also aware that this last item dates from 2012, whereas the first was updated in 2014, but I believe that the figures are still worrying for those who support gay relationships.
"Worrying" in what way?
That is not to say that the heterosexual picture is rosy - it isn't - but that doesn't mean that the gay option is necessarily correct.
http://bit.ly/1Ynq1pa
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not an option. An option is something that people can choose instead of what they inherently and intrinsically are, which is what sexuality generally is.
None of the articles I've referred to are all bad news - but I believe that the issues I've highlighted are of concern - as they would be/are within the heterosexual community.
"Concern" to whom and with regard to what, exactly and specifically?
-
I never said that you had. I said that you had talked of scientific and objective arguments against homosexuality. In fact you even quoted as much: "They don't need to, Shaker - they use scientific and other objective arguments, which many religious people use as well."
Yet, in the context of the post you quoted - in which I had referenced political systems - your argument is somewhat of a strawman, Sheakes.
So what?Told by whom and how often? I've never heard that.
"Worrying" in what way?
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not an option.
"Concern" to whom and with regard to what, exactly and specifically?
Good to see that you have read all my pieces individually rather than looking upo the references. If you had, you wouldn't have asked the questions you have.
-
The Artless Dodger strikes again ::)
-
Yet, in the context of the post you quoted - in which I had referenced political systems - your argument is somewhat of a strawman, Sheakes.Good to see that you have read all my pieces individually rather than looking upo the references. If you had, you wouldn't have asked the questions you have.
I am - as vainly as ever - asking you to substantiate your assertions. Goodness only knows why, since you never do and give every appearance of being constitutionally incapable of ever doing so.
-
Erm, let's think. I've mentioned the CofE.
England, possibly?
So you grew up in the CofE did you in England? What ALL of England you could speak for the whole CofE in the WHOLE OF ENGLAND.
Possibly.
Growing up where I did people didn't much care for denominations, churchgoing and nobody ever talked about the CofE being
'established' except maybe in lessons on Tudor history. The CofE was just the place you went to for christenings
and (first) weddings.
We learned about religion in school. A day act of Christian worship really was just that,
complete with prayers and hymns. Church might not have featured but Christianity certainly did.
So your churches were empty except for weddings and christenings... Tell me where did they do the funerals?
Local tip maybe?
You were taught religion in school but you never knew anything about the history of the CofE?
You never thought about what you were actually saying and being flippant with such a history does you no service.
So you grew up in the CofE did you in England?
If you cannot be civil or even remember what you said, then don't try and be flippant because it only served to make your ignorance more noticable and even less useful the things you were proffering.
I don't except for one minute you actually knew what you were talking about. Your replies seem to support that.
-
Interestingly, whilst I went to a CofE secondary school with a sizeable chapel, we only had an assembly twice a week. The school couldn't all fit in the chapel at once and for some reason it was felt inappropriate to have such an event in the school hall which would have held us all.
The only act of Christian worship in CofE schools and any not Roman Catholic was morning prayer assembly the Lord's Prayer and a hymm. I do remember one teacher who in our first year of Juniors taught us a prayer we said every day before we went home.
I remember it to this day and still say it sometimes.
It was never any forced teachings or anything like that. Sunday School and Church is where we hear the things Christ did.
But I was taught the OT first, the stories of Moses etc. I never had anyone force me to go anywhere or teach me anything I did not choose for myself.
-
The only act of Christian worship in CofE schools and any not Roman Catholic was morning prayer assembly the Lord's Prayer and a hymm. I do remember one teacher who in our first year of Juniors taught us a prayer we said every day before we went home.
I remember it to this day and still say it sometimes.
It was never any forced teachings or anything like that. Sunday School and Church is where we hear the things Christ did.
But I was taught the OT first, the stories of Moses etc. I never had anyone force me to go anywhere or teach me anything I did not choose for myself.
Sounds like you were the ideal candidate for being indoctrinated Sass, it obviously worked.
ippy
-
Ippy, Bible study was really interesting back in the day. The Old Testament stories - as Sass mentioned, Moses, and Elijah going up to Heaven in a chariot of fire, Lot's poor wife being turned into a pillar of salt - were so exciting and very pictorial. Jesus was nice, kind, very charismatic and unafraid to stick up for what he believed. No harm done there. Indoctrination happens in the home! Not at school. We left school mid afternoon and went home. If parents weren't interested we forgot about it, watched kids' TV and ate.
-
Ippy, Bible study was really interesting back in the day. The Old Testament stories - as Sass mentioned, Moses, and Elijah going up to Heaven in a chariot of fire, Lot's poor wife being turned into a pillar of salt - were so exciting and very pictorial. Jesus was nice, kind, very charismatic and unafraid to stick up for what he believed. No harm done there. Indoctrination happens in the home! Not at school. We left school mid afternoon and went home. If parents weren't interested we forgot about it, watched kids' TV and ate.
What bothers me is that all the teaching that you and Sassy have described lacks what I consider to be an essential.
That, included in the teaching, be some portion that explains to children under the age of eleven or so that what is being taught is conjecture not fact; that this is a matter of faith not fact.
I know that there was never any mention whatsoever of this fact when I was at school and to question what was being taught usually resulted in some sort of extra work as punishment - I was required, on one occasion when I questioned something from the Bible, age 9 or 10, to write out 100 times "I am not qualified to question the revealed Word of God and in doing so I have committed blasphemy".
I was then given the same thing to write out 200 times because I wrote "Word of God" without the capitals.
Needless to say my father saw absolutely no problem with this.
This is my prime problem with Sassy's form of Christianity, that she cannot and will not accept that it is a matter of faith and not fact.
-
Ippy, Bible study was really interesting back in the day. The Old Testament stories - as Sass mentioned, Moses, and Elijah going up to Heaven in a chariot of fire, Lot's poor wife being turned into a pillar of salt - were so exciting and very pictorial. Jesus was nice, kind, very charismatic and unafraid to stick up for what he believed. No harm done there. Indoctrination happens in the home! Not at school. We left school mid afternoon and went home. If parents weren't interested we forgot about it, watched kids' TV and ate.
Even as a child I found the OT Biblical fairy tales pretty boring, give me Harry Potter any day. :D As for Jesus, I wouldn't have described him as nice and kind. Charismatic, possibly, having a high opinion of himself, saying some sensible things, but others with which I would take issue. He let himself down by frightening the pigs over the cliff, trashing the Temple, which was vandalism, cursing the fig tree, which was very silly, and telling people to leave their responsibilities and follow him.
-
You even thought that as a child floo? I can understand thinking that way when older because we analyse things more but children tend to be more imaginative and become engaged in stories. We used to actually play some of the Bible stories at school and draw fantastic pictures!
Imagine if we had been taught about Hinduism, what a wealth of pictures that would have conjoured up, a never ending tapestry.
I know someone called ''Durga'' (not a Hindu lady), and was out somewhere last year where she was asked the meaning of her name. She told us all about it, acting it out as she spoke (she does work in theatre), and we were completely spellbound. I looked up her name and found this:
http://hinduism.about.com/od/hindugoddesses/a/durga.htm
-
You even thought that as a child floo? I can understand thinking that way when older because we analyse things more but children tend to be more imaginative and become engaged in stories. We used to actually play some of the Bible stories at school and draw fantastic pictures!
Imagine if we had been taught about Hinduism, what a wealth of pictures that would have conjoured up, a never ending tapestry.
I know someone called ''Durga'' (not a Hindu lady), and was out somewhere last year where she was asked the meaning of her name. She told us all about it, acting it out as she spoke (she does work in theatre), and we were completely spellbound. I looked up her name and found this:
http://hinduism.about.com/od/hindugoddesses/a/durga.htm
I thought the OT was extremely boring indeed, from a very young age. I have always liked reading, but the Bible is not one of my favourite books, although I do read it just to ensure I am not missing anything. However, with each read it just makes me more agnostic, rather than less.
-
You even thought that as a child floo? I can understand thinking that way when older because we analyse things more but children tend to be more imaginative and become engaged in stories. We used to actually play some of the Bible stories at school and draw fantastic pictures!
Imagine if we had been taught about Hinduism, what a wealth of pictures that would have conjoured up, a never ending tapestry.
I know someone called ''Durga'' (not a Hindu lady), and was out somewhere last year where she was asked the meaning of her name. She told us all about it, acting it out as she spoke (she does work in theatre), and we were completely spellbound. I looked up her name and found this:
http://hinduism.about.com/od/hindugoddesses/a/durga.htm
Most children like blue elephants, wonderfull stuff ?
ippy
-
Most children like blue elephants, wonderfull stuff ?
ippy
I can't say elephants appealed to me as a child.
-
I like elephants too, blue or pink, it figures :D.
-
My favourite soft toys as a very small child were a red and white gingham ragdoll, called wigglewaggle, and a golly.
-
I can't say elephants appealed to me as a child.
Proves my point Floo, Your parents obviously weren't hindus. :) ;)
ippy
-
Ippy, Bible study was really interesting back in the day. The Old Testament stories - as Sass mentioned, Moses, and Elijah going up to Heaven in a chariot of fire, Lot's poor wife being turned into a pillar of salt - were so exciting and very pictorial. Jesus was nice, kind, very charismatic and unafraid to stick up for what he believed. No harm done there. Indoctrination happens in the home! Not at school. We left school mid afternoon and went home. If parents weren't interested we forgot about it, watched kids' TV and ate.
An essential part of indoctrination is little and often, so both home and school would be adding to the overall scheme; I thought Hansel and Gretle were better stories and as both are equally as likely to be true.
ippy
-
So you grew up in the CofE did you in England? What ALL of England you could speak for the whole CofE in the WHOLE OF ENGLAND.
Why not? You seem to think that you speak for all Protestant Christians and all Protestant Christianity.
-
Sounds like you were the ideal candidate for being indoctrinated Sass, it obviously worked.
ippy
I was never indoctrinated... I knew that God was real.
You never experienced that or did you shut it out?
-
I was never indoctrinated... I knew that God was real.
You never experienced that or did you shut it out?
Your experience doesn't make the existence of god a fact.
-
I was never indoctrinated... I knew that God was real.
You never experienced that or did you shut it out?
Sass how do you or anyone else shut out something that's not there?
Hang on Sass I've got a load of elves riding unicorns knocking at the front door gotta go now.
ippy
-
An interesting set of findings in the latest (2015) NatCen's British Social Attitudes survey.
http://bit.ly/2b3R6i0
It will be interesting to see 2016's figures when we get them next year.
-
An interesting set of findings in the latest (2015) NatCen's British Social Attitudes survey.
http://bit.ly/2b3R6i0
It will be interesting to see 2016's figures when we get them next year.
Most things flap about a bit before they depart, it looks like more of the same to me.
It'll be interesting to see the figures next year; if the numbers of religious believers are on the increase then I wonder which one of us two, Hope, will be the most surprised?
ippy
-
It'll be interesting to see the figures next year; if the numbers of religious believers are on the increase then I wonder which one of us two, Hope, will be the most surprised?
I suspect it'll be you, ippy. After all, when one takes out the element of compulsion - which we've seen a lot of in the West over the centuries, numbers always seem to increase or - at the very least - stay stable (look at the history of the Chinese Church since Mao took control of that country.
Christians were 4 million before 1949. ... According to official figures, Christians are 26 million, which excludes children and unregistered churches.[figure from 2003].* On the other hand, some international Christian organizations estimate there are tens of millions more.^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China
* Lambert, Tony. Counting Christians in China: A Cautionary Report. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2003, vol. 27, no 1, p. 6-10.
^Wielander, Gerda. Christian Values in Communist China (Routledge Contemporary China Series) 2013 p.3
Similar stories can be found in many of the nations that have been atheistic in nature during the 20th Century.
-
I suspect it'll be you, ippy. After all, when one takes out the element of compulsion - which we've seen a lot of in the West over the centuries, numbers always seem to increase or - at the very least - stay stable (look at the history of the Chinese Church since Mao took control of that country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China
* Lambert, Tony. Counting Christians in China: A Cautionary Report. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2003, vol. 27, no 1, p. 6-10.
^Wielander, Gerda. Christian Values in Communist China (Routledge Contemporary China Series) 2013 p.3
Similar stories can be found in many of the nations that have been atheistic in nature during the 20th Century.
How surprising, your response Hope.
Let's wait and see, the web is a great eye opener of knowledge which doesn't really help your case, just for one and the total lack of viable evidence for any of the magical, mythical, superstition based parts of beliefs, like yours, whichever one it is, doesn't exactly help your cause either.
ippy
-
How surprising, your response Hope.
Let's wait and see, the web is a great eye opener of knowledge which doesn't really help your case, just for one and the total lack of viable evidence for any of the magical, mythical, superstition based parts of beliefs, like yours, whichever one it is, doesn't exactly help your cause either.
ippy
Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel, and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done anymore than question here. You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true. Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.
So, rather than trying, rather childishly (and unsuccessfully), to score points - I'd suggest you take your own advice and 'wait and see'.
-
Hope,
Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel, and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done anymore than question here. You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true. Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.
As so often, you manage to pack a lot of mistakes into relatively few words here.
First, people here (and elsewhere) have done a lot more than that "question" numerous explanations for the "validity of religion" if by validation you mean the arguments the religious attempt to show that their claims are true. What we've done is to falsify those arguments, which is a very different matter.
Second, yet again your "that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true" is your favourite negative proof fallacy. Stopped clocks are right twice a day - by complete co-incidence the claims of your or any other religion might be true. What it does mean though is that the arguments you attempt to demonstrate that they are true are wrong. Flat wrong.
Third, it's not that science "can't" disprove them, but rather that they offer nothing with which the methods of science can engage. For the purposes of science, these claims are not even wrong. That though isn't a weakness of science. The weakness here is - if not for the methods of science - you have no method of any kind to distinguish your truth claims from just guessing about stuff.
Fourth, science without religion makes perfectly good sense. Why wouldn't it?
Do you see now what I mean by your cramming a lot of mistakes into relatively few words?
So, rather than trying, rather childishly (and unsuccessfully), to score points...
The only (successful) "point scoring" here is falsifying the arguments the religious attempt to show that their claims are true. And that's important to disqualify the rights and privileges they often arrogate to their faith claims.
...I'd suggest you take your own advice and 'wait and see'.
For what?
-
Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel,
Just as it is for the spread of busines, shopping, commerce, social interactions, gambling, pornography, current news stories etc etc etc - what is your point here?
... and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done anymore than question here.
I think you mean 'rebut', since what we've seen in this small slice of the internet is invalid arguments for religion that involve an impressive range of fallacies.
You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true. Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.
Right on cue you're off in the direction of the negative proof fallacy, again. Then you misunderstand or misrepresent science, which doesn't deal in religious superstitions dating from antiquity: but you must know this by now, since its been pointed out to you regularly.
-
Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel, and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done any more than question here. You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true. Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.
So, rather than trying, rather childishly (and unsuccessfully), to score points - I'd suggest you take your own advice and 'wait and see'.
I have to hand it to you Hope, you just can't give up on the N P F ?
-
I have to hand it to you Hope, you just can't give up on the N P F ?
A bit like you and the bull-shitting, ippy.
-
A bit like you and the bull-shitting, ippy.
But when you use the NPF you destroy your own argument.
So why do you do it?
-
But when you use the NPF you destroy your own argument.
So why do you do it?
What argument? :-\ ::)
-
What argument? :-\ ::)
When he attempts an argument he often employs fallacies which just mean his argument is invalid.
This is odd as it has been pointed out to him when he does this, but he never seems to learn
-
A bit like you and the bull-shitting, ippy.
I'm not with you there Hope, please explain?
ippy
-
ipster,
I'm not with you there Hope, please explain?
He's an odd one all right. Time and time again he makes the same logical mistakes, just ignores the rebuttals, and then makes them again apparently oblivious to the fact of the rebuttals cutting the ground from under him. It's genuinely hard to know whether he just doesn't understand the negative proof fallacy in particular, or whether he does understand it but doesn't care that it's a false argument.
As a tactic just insulting the person who points out his mistake seems an odd approach too, but there it is nonetheless.
-
Last night I heard the latest episode of Beyond Belief on R4. The subject was The Cultural Revolution and its impact on religion. It turns out that, between the start of the Cultural Revolution (1966) and the death of Mao ten years later, all religion was completely suppressed. So when people claim huge growth in religion in China and Christianity in particular, you have to remember that this is only a response to the relaxation of the rules since 1976 and only represents a return to the levels of religious observance before 1966.
Religions in China are still heavily controlled by the State and, in fact, in recent years, oppression seems to be getting worse although all of the guests on the programme were optimistic for the long term that China will allow reasonable freedom of religion.
-
jeremy,
Last night I heard the latest episode of Beyond Belief on R4. The subject was The Cultural Revolution and its impact on religion. It turns out that, between the start of the Cultural Revolution (1966) and the death of Mao ten years later, all religion was completely suppressed. So when people claim huge growth in religion in China and Christianity in particular, you have to remember that this is only a response to the relaxation of the rules since 1976 and only represents a return to the levels of religious observance before 1966.
Religions in China are still heavily controlled by the State and, in fact, in recent years, oppression seems to be getting worse although all of the guests on the programme were optimistic for the long term that China will allow reasonable freedom of religion.
Thanks for the heads up - I'll have a listen. I've noticed too that those who claim rapid growth for their particular faith are very keen on percentages - "There's been a 1,000% growth in Christianity in China in one year alone!" type of thing. If though there was one Christian in China on 01 January and ten of them by 31 December that would be 1,000% growth too. Percentages alone don't in other words tell you very much.
-
jeremy,
Thanks for the heads up - I'll have a listen. I've noticed too that those who claim rapid growth for their particular faith are very keen on percentages - "There's been a 1,000% growth in Christianity in China in one year alone!" type of thing. If though there was one Christian in China on 01 January and ten of them by 31 December that would be 1,000% growth too. Percentages alone don't in other words tell you very much.
Yes, in fact the programme claims there are now 26 million Christians in China. 40 years ago there would have appeared to be 0 and that makes it appear that Christianity has had astonishing growth rates but it's still only 2% of the population and maybe 50 years ago it was 4% of the population.
-
Last night I heard the latest episode of Beyond Belief on R4. The subject was The Cultural Revolution and its impact on religion. It turns out that, between the start of the Cultural Revolution (1966) and the death of Mao ten years later, all religion was completely suppressed. So when people claim huge growth in religion in China and Christianity in particular, you have to remember that this is only a response to the relaxation of the rules since 1976 and only represents a return to the levels of religious observance before 1966.
Religions in China are still heavily controlled by the State and, in fact, in recent years, oppression seems to be getting worse although all of the guests on the programme were optimistic for the long term that China will allow reasonable freedom of religion.
jeremy, tlking with friends who have either left China since Mao took over, or have worked there since 1948, the clamp-down of religion - all religions - started several years before the Cultural Revolution - more like 1959. What is also worth noting is that all the figures that the programme gave and are easily available - are for membership of the 'official' church. It is likely that, if the independently reported figures for unofficial churches are to be even remotely relied on, that 26 million can be multiplied by 3 or 4 times in that sector alone. The same happened in the USSR, and even in the UK back in the first part of the 2nd millennium. First, the growth of Protestantism in the 14th and 15th centuries which the state and the Catholic church sought to ignore, and then in the 16th and 17th centuries, the growth of non-conformism - something that, again, the state and this time the CofE sought to minimise/ignore.
Regarding the famous accusations of NFP, I've been discussing this and one or two other threads here with some logicians I know - some religious, some not. Almost all agree that, yes there is an degree of NFP-ism in several of my posts, but then there is a similar degree of it in many of the other posts because there appears - to them - to be an unevidenced assumption that logic can only deal with 'the natural'.
Interestingly, most of them (wheter religious or not) point out that this particular thread of debate is nigh on impossible to come to a conclusion on - simply because of the very different starting point that the two sides of the debate are starting from; something that I have been pointing out for several months now. It's an interesting academic exercise, but with minimal practical value.
-
Regarding the famous accusations of NFP, I've been discussing this and one or two other threads here with some logicians I know - some religious, some not. Almost all agree that, yes there is an degree of NFP-ism in several of my posts, but then there is a similar degree of it in many of the other posts because there appears - to them - to be an unevidenced assumption that logic can only deal with 'the natural'.
Then please ask them to clearly explain in what ways formal logic can involve the non-natural and let us know what they say.
-
Can I ask you get one of these logicians to write up a very quick critique which outlines the question of arguing that thus is simply a matter of starting position, and then deals with the idea that any starting position they see on this thread is equally value with others?
Otherwise it is just you Hope making another assertion.
-
Hope,
Regarding the famous accusations of NFP, I've been discussing this and one or two other threads here with some logicians I know - some religious, some not.
Have you now?
Really?
Really really?
Almost all agree that, yes there is an degree of NFP-ism in several of my posts...
Only "almost" all?
And no, there's not just "a degree" - you really on it very heavily. Every time you post, "but you can't disprove X" as if not disproving X had anything whatever to say to whether X is true, you fall straight into it. Again and again.
...but then there is a similar degree of it in many of the other posts because there appears - to them - to be an unevidenced assumption that logic can only deal with 'the natural'.
First, even if that was true a tu quoque does not deflect from your reliance on the NPF. That's more fallacious thinking.
Second, it's not true in any case. If you want to establish that there is such a thing as the non-natural, then you have to make an argument to that effect that's cogent. Simply using logically bad arguments to do the lifting doesn't help you one jot - you need to find some logically sound arguments to establish your premise or, if not, to find some other method to distinguish your claims from just guessing about stuff.
Interestingly, most of them (wheter religious or not) point out that this particular thread of debate is nigh on impossible to come to a conclusion on - simply because of the very different starting point that the two sides of the debate are starting from; something that I have been pointing out for several months now. It's an interesting academic exercise, but with minimal practical value.
No, it's quite possible to reach a conclusion. Simple in fact. A logically bad argument is a logically bad argument is a logically bad argument.
And logically bad arguments are always wrong.
What that means is that, every time you attempt one, your position collapses beneath you. That's why it's much more than an academic exercise with "minimal practical value" - the practical value is that it removes your claims from serious consideration because the arguments you attempt to establish them are demonstrably false.
QED.
Job done.
Finito.
Junk the broken arguments and try some that aren't broken and then perhaps you'd have something worth considering. For now though, your reliance on broken reasoning continues to lock you out of any serious discussion about your faith claims.
I don't know who these supposed logicians are, but I'd ask for my money back if I were you.
PS Just fyi - an appeal to authority is a logically bad move too by the way.
-
Oh and while they are doing that Hope, could you them to lay out the 'elements' of the NPF that they think you are showing, and what 'elements' you are not showing?
And while we are on this fact gathering exercise, is there any chance of you getting some of the medics you know that you said had evidence of non naturalistic healing to outline their methodology? Gordon asked you for that a number of times a couple of months ago when you made that claim. But so far nothing. Why is that, Hope?
-
Mmm to pick up bluehillside's PS, an appeal to authority is only a a move if it is a fallacious one. Note at this stage there is no evidence that this is a fallacious one as it is merely unevidenced assertion.
It is not much different than the statement that books read show the McCann's reaction to be casebook.
-
Oh and Hope given you have a number of logicians reading this thread, it would be great if you could get a couple to join. Just drop the mods a note about their joining with their email and it will make sure they don't get rejected. I would be interested in these logicians' perspective.
Even if you can only get one religious logician and one non religious one from the number you have been talking to and who have been reading the thread that would be excellent.
-
NS,
Mmm to pick up bluehillside's PS, an appeal to authority is only a a move if it is a fallacious one. Note at this stage there is no evidence that this is a fallacious one as it is merely unevidenced assertion.
It is not much different than the statement that books read show the McCann's reaction to be casebook.
Sort of. The point I was making was that just an assertion that these supposed logicians happen to agree does not mean mean that Hope must be right. He/they might be right of course, but only if their reasoning shows them to be. My sense was that Hope thought we'd read, "logicians" and think, "Oh well, if logicians say it then it must be right then" and go away.
Either he hasn't spoken to "logicians" at all (let alone to several of them - how would one even go about finding such people?), or he has and they're not very good ones, or he has and they are good ones but he's declined to tell us why they think as they do.
My money's on option one but, cock-eyed optimist that I am, let's see whether Hope can surprise us with some actual reasoning.
-
NS,
Oh and Hope given you have a number of logicians reading this thread, it would be great if you could get a couple to join. Just drop the mods a note about their joining with their email and it will make sure they don't get rejected. I would be interested in these logicians' perspective.
Cue Hope suddenly looking at his watch, glancing across the room, "Oh is that the time Old Boy? I really must talk to old Binkey Carruthers on the other side to the room, chin chin for now then", disappearing pronto, door swinging behind him etc...
-
NS,
Sort of. The point I was making was that just an assertion that these supposed logicians happen to agree does not mean mean that Hope must be right. He/they might be right of course, but only if their reasoning shows them to be. My sense was that Hope thought we'd read, "logicians" and think, "Oh well, if logicians say it then it must be right then" and go away.
Either he hasn't spoken to "logicians" at all (let alone to several of them - how would one even go about finding such people?), or he has and they're not very good ones, or he has and they are good ones but he's declined to tell us why they think as they do.
My money's on option one but, cock-eyed optimist that I am, let's see whether Hope can surprise us with some actual reasoning.
But it isn't any different from the 'read it in a book about psychology' claim that you were defending earlier. That Hope may possibly made it up isn't a challenge that could be dealt with under appeal to authority. We do not really have enough information to classify this as appeal to authority.
-
NS,
But it isn't any different from the 'read it in a book about psychology' claim that you were defending earlier.
They're different things. Assuming that it was in a text book (not just any old book), then there's a fair chance it would have been there as the result of research, testing, explanatory power, peer review etc. Doesn't mean that it was necessarily correct of course, but it's a reasonable, experience-based assumption that it was more likely to be true that someone's (contradictory) intuition on the matter.
Hope on the other hand relied on some (supposed) chats with some (supposed) logicians. Assuming for now that that did happen, the evidential bar from a few chats down the Limping Whippet would be a lot lower than that for an academic text book.
That Hope may possibly made it up isn't a challenge that could be dealt with under appeal to authority. We do not really have enough information to classify this as appeal to authority.
Surely we do when that's all he gave us isn't it? "I spoke to some logicians, they agreed with me, therefore I'm right and you're wrong, please go away therefore, now about this God of mine ... etc" was the beginning and end of it.
The logicians were the authority and - well - that was it.
-
No, a text book simply asserted as having been read, is the same as Hope's claim of simply asserting that he has talked to a number of logicians about a piece of logic. Neither have enough detail to be appeals to authority as there is no named authority. They are both simply assertions at this stage. The book is asserted to exist and say something, the same way Hope asserts the existence and statements of the logicians.
-
ipster,
He's an odd one all right. Time and time again he makes the same logical mistakes, just ignores the rebuttals, and then makes them again apparently oblivious to the fact of the rebuttals cutting the ground from under him. It's genuinely hard to know whether he just doesn't understand the negative proof fallacy in particular, or whether he does understand it but doesn't care that it's a false argument.
As a tactic just insulting the person who points out his mistake seems an odd approach too, but there it is nonetheless.
What I would like to hear from you Hope would be perhaps your answer to the question Gordon has asked of you and other posters that present incredible ideas; it seems to me when asked of you and others, that hold these incredible ideas, you're all unable to even explain the methods used that you seem to think enable you to present these incredible ideas, as given facts.
I find it very hard to understand you Hope, what part of the negative proof fallacy are you finding so difficult to understand, I don't think you're as bad as 'Trig' from "Fools and Horses"?
ippy
-
Then please ask them to clearly explain in what ways formal logic can involve the non-natural and let us know what they say.
Dry as parchment Gordon, love it, a good one.
ippy
-
NS,
No, a text book simply asserted as having been read, is the same as Hope's claim of simply asserting that he has talked to a number of logicians about a piece of logic. Neither have enough detail to be appeals to authority as there is no named authority. They are both simply assertions at this stage. The book is asserted to exist and say something, the same way Hope asserts the existence and statements of the logicians.
There are two strands here that you're entangling. The first is whether Harrowby did read a text book/Hope did speak to some "logicians". Park that for now.
Assuming that both did as they say they did, I merely argue that a text book is likely to be a more reliable guide to orthodox thinking than is some conversations.
The second issue then is whether they did as they say they did. You're right about that - absent citations we have no basis on which to establish the truth of either claim. Hope has form for vagueness (to put it kindly) about his sources whereas Harrowby does not, but that's all we know. This issue though doesn't detract from the basic point about the evidential bar being set higher for publication in a text books than it is for casual conversations.
-
PS Just fyi - an appeal to authority is a logically bad move too by the way.
That's highly two faced of you, Blue, considering you have just tried that with me!!!
-
That means you immediately give more credit to someone saying I read it in a book, than I talked to a number of experts with neither of them giving evidence, that makes no sense.
-
Dry as parchment Gordon, love it, a good one.
ippy
A good one until he or you are asked for your working out...........
To which Gorrdon usually replies that he sees his role as inquisitor rather than question answered.
This post will be moderated in ten....nine....eight....seven
-
That's highly two faced of you, Blue, considering you have just tried that with me!!!
Oh no sounds like he's taking the piss again.
-
What's NFP?
-
What's NFP?
NPF - Negative Proof Fallacy
-
NPF - Negative Proof Fallacy
Explains why Google didn't come up with it as I put in NFP.
-
A good one until he or you are asked for your working out...........
To which Gorrdon usually replies that he sees his role as inquisitor rather than question answered.
This post will be moderated in ten....nine....eight....seven
I was simply asking for further information regarding Hope's statement.
btw - thank you for the extra 'r': I shall treasure it always.
-
NS,
That means you immediately give more credit to someone saying I read it in a book, than I talked to a number of experts with neither of them giving evidence, that makes no sense.
Not sure why we're pursuing this, but that's not it. I'm not giving "more credit to someone saying I read it in a book, than I talked to a number of experts with neither of them giving evidence" (my emphasis) at all. The "saying" bit I give equal credence pending further information. What I am doing though – on the assumption that each did as he says he did – is suggesting that asking someone's opinion on something down the Rat & Handbag one night is less likely to provide a robust answer than referring to a text book whose author(s) would have had to research, test, have peer reviewed, amended as necessary etc their conclusions.
Whether Harrowby or Hope actually did as they say they did is a different matter.
-
JK,
Explains why Google didn't come up with it as I put in NFP.
See also "Russell's teapot" for a famous example of it. Vlad would utterly miss the point and call it "pisstaking" or some such, but the logic is robust - that you can't disprove the conjecture of a teapot orbiting earth just beyond the reach of the instruments that could detect it says nothing whatever to whether the teapot is there.
For some reason Hope loves the NPF despite having it explained to him many, many times but there it is nonetheless.
-
JK,
See also "Russell's teapot" for a famous example of it. Vlad would utterly miss the point and call it "pisstaking" or some such, but the logic is robust - that you can't disprove the conjecture of a teapot orbiting earth just beyond the reach of the instruments that could detect it says nothing whatever to whether the teapot is there.
For some reason Hope loves the NPF despite having it explained to him many, many times but there it is nonetheless.
Simply because his whole "God" world depends on it, and he needs that more than he needs to think logically. :)
-
A good one until he or you are asked for your working out...........
To which Gorrdon usually replies that he sees his role as inquisitor rather than question answered.
This post will be moderated in ten....nine....eight....seven
Hi there Vlad, no working out needed, it's just a plain case of the missing evidence,
if it existed, might have supported your god idea, since there isn't any, well?
ippy
-
Hi there Vlad, no working out needed, it's just a plain case of the missing evidence,
if it existed, might have supported your god idea, since there isn't any, well?
ippy
Sorry, ippy, it isn't that there isn't any evidence - plenty of eminent people, scientists included, have found that there is. Rather, its because there is none that you have accepted. There is a consideable difference between reality and your claim.
-
Sorry, ippy, it isn't that there isn't any evidence - plenty of eminent people, scientists included, have found that there is.
Such as, and by which scientists in relation to their own specialty?
Rather, its because there is none that you have accepted. There is a consideable difference between reality and your claim.
Then demonstrate this by citing some evidence that stands scrutiny.
-
Such as, and by which scientists in relation to their own specialty?
Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon? I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.
However, I'll give you a couple of likely names: Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist). Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)
Then demonstrate this by citing some evidence that stands scrutiny.
Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?
-
Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon? I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.
However, I'll give you a couple of likely names: Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist). Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)
I might be wrong but I thought your original point was about evidence - in other word that if a scientist believes in god it must be because they think there is evidence. But I don't think that is true. Just because a scientist is religious doesn't mean they think there is evidence that god exists - they may be believe in god as just that, a matter of believe, in the absence of evidence. Or alternatively their religious belief may simply be a matter of culture and upbringing.
-
Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon? I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.
However, I'll give you a couple of likely names: Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist). Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)
So, bearing in mind they are all scientists what specific evidence for the non-natural have they presented in relation to their specialist areas of scientific expertise?
Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?
These guys are scientists: right? You've mentioned them because they are scientists: right? So I'm assuming that what they've presented, since you've cited them, would be science-based evidence: right?
However, if what they claim is personal non-scientific opinion that is unrelated to their specialist knowledge then their scientific credentials are irrelevant. This point was made by the late Richard Feynman, a reputable scientist himself (to put it mildly), when he noted 'I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.'.
So, returning to evidence, since you remember that Angloman posted stuff (not that I'm convinced he spoke with any great authority on the nature of evidence for the non-natural) then presumably you'll have some recollection of the content - else why cite Angloman?
So - what is this evidence you keep referring to, but where you seem unable to provide any details?
-
Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon?
It wasn't an argument, it was a request.
I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.
How convenient for you that all this evidence has disappeared.
However, I'll give you a couple of likely names: Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist). Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)
That's half the answer. Now all you need is to give us the actual evidence of God that they espouse.
Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?
Oh please tell us about about these non natural non scientific means that are not simplistic.
Oh, wait, let me guess: you did post about them but the post was culled many years ago. Why not try "the dog ate them" it's about as believable.
-
So, bearing in mind they are all scientists what specific evidence for the non-natural have they presented in relation to their specialist areas of scientific expertise?
For one thing, they have pointed out that science doesn't have all the answers - an understanding that many non-religious scientists also hold (not to mention those who say that it will never do so).
These guys are scientists: right? You've mentioned them because they are scientists: right? So I'm assuming that what they've presented, since you've cited them, would be science-based evidence: right?
See above.
However, if what they claim is personal non-scientific opinion that is unrelated to their specialist knowledge then their scientific credentials are irrelevant. This point was made by the late Richard Feynman, a reputable scientist himself (to put it mildly), when he noted 'I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.'.
Don't forget that Feynman's comment necessarily includes that very people you want to idolise. I'd suggest that anyone who acknowledges that relying purely on scientific answers is equally 'as dumb as the next guy'
So, returning to evidence, since you remember that Angloman posted stuff (not that I'm convinced he spoke with any great authority on the nature of evidence for the non-natural) then presumably you'll have some recollection of the content - else why cite Angloman?
I cited Angloman because on more than one occasion he made posts that neither you or any of your other fellow travellers were able to answer.
So - what is this evidence you keep referring to, but where you seem unable to provide any details?
Its not that I haven't been able to provide any details - I and others have done so several times during the past 8 months or so; rather, in much the same way as I've pointed out to ippy, it is the likes of you and he who have chosen to dismiss the evidence without providing anything conclusive. Merely casting doubt is not a watertight from of argument. Its the problem with relying on logic to underpin one's whole existence. There are many aspects of human life that don't follow it.
-
There's quite a bit on the 'net about those whom Hope has mentioned. I will post one linkm about John Polkinghome, but the others have details if you are interested :
Polkinghorne link (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rev+dr+john+polkinghome&oq=rev+dr+john+polkinghome&aqs=chrome..69i57.17451j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=rev+dr+john+polkinghorne)
Moderator: long url fixed.
-
I cited Angloman because on more than one occasion he made posts that neither you or any of your other fellow travellers were able to answer.
I seem to recall that many of those answers were in fact produced. Unfortunately they have been culled. Can you prove that they weren't answered?
-
There's quite a bit on the 'net about those whom Hope has mentioned. I will post one linkm about John Polkinghome, but the others have details if you are interested :
Polkinghorne link (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rev+dr+john+polkinghome&oq=rev+dr+john+polkinghome&aqs=chrome..69i57.17451j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=rev+dr+john+polkinghorne)
The Wikipedia article says this
[Polkinghome] "does not assert that God's existence can be demonstrated in a logically coercive way (any more than God's non-existence can)
So Polkinghome doesn't have the evidence that Hope claims he has. Oh well.
In fact, reading the stuff about why he believes in God, it seems mostly to boil down to "if there is no God, the Universe makes no sense", which is totally fallacious.
-
I seem to recall that many of those answers were in fact produced. Unfortunately they have been culled. Can you prove that they weren't answered?
You recall correctly. I remember quite clearly how all of Angloman's answers were shot down with completely watertight arguments.
That's two independent witnesses, so it must be true.
-
For one thing, they have pointed out that science doesn't have all the answers - an understanding that many non-religious scientists also hold (not to mention those who say that it will never do so).
Nobody has claimed that science has 'all the answers' - this is a obvious (and favourite) straw man of yours.
Don't forget that Feynman's comment necessarily includes that very people you want to idolise. I'd suggest that anyone who acknowledges that relying purely on scientific answers is equally 'as dumb as the next guy'
I'm not idolising anyone (2nd straw man in this post of yours), plus a restatement of your first straw man.
I cited Angloman because on more than one occasion he made posts that neither you or any of your other fellow travellers were able to answer.
So you cite someone on the basis of their contributions to this Forum where these contributions are no longer extant: which seems an utterly pointless exercise on your part, and an utterly unconvincing one.
Its not that I haven't been able to provide any details - I and others have done so several times during the past 8 months or so; rather, in much the same way as I've pointed out to ippy, it is the likes of you and he who have chosen to dismiss the evidence without providing anything conclusive.
No - the problem here is that you haven't provided any details and have long since painted yourself into a corner by claiming that you have: we haven't dismissed your evidence since you haven't presented any, and since there hasn't been a cull within the last 8 months you should be able to find these posts fairly easily.
Merely casting doubt is not a watertight from of argument. Its the problem with relying on logic to underpin one's whole existence. There are many aspects of human life that don't follow it.
Leaving aside the fallacious aspects of the above what you are doing here is citing as authorities those whose skill-sets as scientists aren't relevant since they aren't making scientific claims, and then you cite Angloman on the basis of your recollection (mine varies from yours by the way) but in the total absence of his posting history.
So on the matter of evidence for the non-natural your fallacious argument from authority cites those who aren't recognised authorities on the nature of said evidence (whatever this may be) and also includes someone, Angloman, whose views are no longer known (unless he reads this thread and drops in to correct this situation).
Your approach smacks of desperation!
-
Nobody has claimed that science has 'all the answers' - this is a obvious (and favourite) straw man of yours.
Will science have the answers? If not why not? If it will why will it?
-
Will science have the answers? If not why not? If it will why will it?
Science will only ever have answers to questions that are amenable to the methods appropriate to scientific investigation.
Even then these answers are provisional, and science isn't static since it obviously progresses building on recent knowledge and related methods: for instance the scientific knowledge and methods that Lord Kelvin used to estimate the age of the Earth and Sun (20 - 40 millions years) in the late 19th century seemed sound to him yet he was wrong nonetheless since science hadn't yet understood nuclear fusion, and wouldn't until decades later - and so it goes.
The problem Hope has involves not only asking questions of science that, as things stand, are out of scope for science but also in asking 'why' questions on the assumption that 'why' is always a valid question in the first place.
-
That can only be a good thing, surely? I ask, "Why?" all the time, not on here but in my head and then spend ages looking things up. I don't always get anywhere but the journey is interesting.
We cannot prove the existence of God in any scientific, rational way. There are those who believe they have proof(s) and will expound but cannot satisfy someone who does not believe in the first place. However faith does not depend on signs and wonders
Now I'm wondering if I should go back to the OP, I've forgotten what it was about and may have strayed off the point here :D (not unknown).
-
That can only be a good thing, surely? I ask, "Why?" all the time, not on here but in my head and then spend ages looking things up. I don't always get anywhere but the journey is interesting.
It depends on the question. Where 'why' can be restated as a 'how' then the question may well be valid: for instance to ask 'why are there rainbows' where what is sought is an explanation of 'how' the phenomena of a rainbow occurs, which is a reasonable question for which there is an answer.
However, in relation to Hope et al, the 'why' element loads the question to imply 'purpose', which is a very different matter and can be a form of the fallacy of begging the question, since the 'why' assumes the desired conclusion of the answer being the purposeful supernatural agent as preferred by the questioner.
There is a difference between asking 'why are we here' as distinct from 'how did homo sapiens evolve': the latter can be provisionally answered whereas the former looks like begging the question since it is phrased to imply that there is a 'purpose' answer to be had, which is circular.
-
Science will only ever have answers to questions that are amenable to the methods appropriate to scientific investigation.
Even then these answers are provisional, and science isn't static since it obviously progresses building on recent knowledge and related methods: for instance the scientific knowledge and methods that Lord Kelvin used to estimate the age of the Earth and Sun (20 - 40 millions years) in the late 19th century seemed sound to him yet he was wrong nonetheless since science hadn't yet understood nuclear fusion, and wouldn't until decades later - and so it goes.
The problem Hope has involves not only asking questions of science that, as things stand, are out of scope for science but also in asking 'why' questions on the assumption that 'why' is always a valid question in the first place.
When would the question why be valid?
When would the question why be invalid?
Michigan Kaku, a physicist with no particular antitheist axe to grind apparently welcomes the question why in all circumstances.
Laurence Krauss questions the question why on why there is anything anyway and he is a physicist who is a self professed and confessed atheist who frequently supports Dawkins antitheist stance.
And yet the question why is the raison detre of his career
-
Hope,
Can't you find a better, less oft-used, argument than that, Gordon? I suspect that they have long gone in the regular cleansing of the system, to save space, but Angloman produced a sizeable list a couple of years ago.
However, I'll give you a couple of likely names: Rev Dr John Weaver (geologist). Then there is Rev Dr John Polkinghorne (theoretical physics); Professor Alistair McGrath (molecular biophysics); Dr Denis Alexander (neuroscience)
You've made this mistake several times before. You list scientists who are also religious, and hope that we somehow assume that their scientific discipline has something to with their belief. Why pick scientists for this purpose rather than, say, dustmen or dentists?
You would have had a point if you'd been able to say, "X scientist has applied some science and come up with the answer "God"" but you can't do that because none of them do that. What they actually have is personal faith, but the only evidence that provides is the evidence that they have faith. Nothing more.
Scrutiny by what; natural scientific means or means that go beyond that relatively simplistic level?
Scrutiny by any method that's epistemologically distinguishable from just guessing about stuff.
-
It depends on the question. Where 'why' can be restated as a 'how' then the question may well be valid: for instance to ask 'why are there rainbows' where what is sought is an explanation of 'how' the phenomena of a rainbow occurs, which is a reasonable question for which there is an answer.
However, in relation to Hope et al, the 'why' element loads the question to imply 'purpose', which is a very different matter and can be a form of the fallacy of begging the question, since the 'why' assumes the desired conclusion of the answer being the purposeful supernatural agent as preferred by the questioner.
There is a difference between asking 'why are we here' as distinct from 'how did homo sapiens evolve': the latter can be provisionally answered whereas the former looks like begging the question since it is phrased to imply that there is a 'purpose' answer to be had, which is circular.
I think that the problem with 'why are we here' type questions is that they are effectively anthropomorphic, assigning an importance to the human condition that isn't reasonable when one considers the totally of the universe, both in time and space.
So humans have evolved to have a level of higher consciousness and reflective ability sufficient for them to wonder 'why are we here', but that is a function of the evolutionary drive that has created an evolutionary advantage for humans, based largely on their intelligence. But that doesn't actually mean that 'why are we here' is a relevant question outside of the narrow anthropomorphism of the human condition.
-
Vlad,
When would the question why be valid?
When someone manages to demonstrate the existence of something to care about and determine the "why?"
When would the question why be invalid?
Now.
Michigan Kaku, a physicist with no particular antitheist axe to grind apparently welcomes the question why in all circumstances.
So?
Laurence Krauss questions the question why on why there is anything anyway and he is a physicist who is a self professed and confessed atheist who frequently supports Dawkins antitheist stance.
What are you trying to say here?
And yet the question why is the raison detre of his career
No it isn't. His raison d'etre (assuming he has one at all) is intellectual curiosity about how the universe works.
-
When would the question why be valid?
When it isn't obviously fallacious, which involves the circumstances of it being asked and the nature of the question.
When would the question why be invalid?
When it is obviously fallacious, which again involves the circumstances of it being asked and the nature of the question.
Michigan Kaku, a physicist with no particular antitheist axe to grind apparently welcomes the question why in all circumstances.
Laurence Krauss questions the question why on why there is anything anyway and he is a physicist who is a self professed and confessed atheist who frequently supports Dawkins antitheist stance.
And yet the question why is the raison detre of his career
Michio (not Michigan) Kaku may well welcome the 'why' question for all I know: have you a specific reference/context for this, but even if so does he always conclude that all such questions are valid?
That Krauss (and ignoring your ad hom about him) might be sceptical regarding some 'why' questions is relevant in what way exactly?
-
Vlad,
When someone manages to demonstrate the existence of something to care about and determine the "why"?
I think the reality is people like Krauss feel the need to address perfectly good questions like why is there anything anyway to justify their physicists and antitheist pay checks earn a bit of extra cash and when it becomes obvious....again...that science may not have the complete answer......then, after all that declare that the question might not be valid and impute stupidity into those who say it might be in a classic courtiers reply.
-
I think that the problem with 'why are we here' type questions is that they are effectively anthropomorphic, assigning an importance to the human condition that isn't reasonable when one considers the totally of the universe, both in time and space.
So humans have evolved to have a level of higher consciousness and reflective ability sufficient for them to wonder 'why are we here', but that is a function of the evolutionary drive that has created an evolutionary advantage for humans, based largely on their intelligence. But that doesn't actually mean that 'why are we here' is a relevant question outside of the narrow anthropomorphism of the human condition.
But the Question is not "why are we here" a question which still IMHO give warrant for an opposing argument from evolution..........but why is there anything anyway?
-
Vlad,
I think the reality is people like Krauss feel the need to address perfectly good questions like why is there anything anyway to justify their physicists and antitheist pay checks earn a bit of extra cash...
That may be your reality, but that's all it is. You're cheating here with the ambiguity in the term "why" here: what Krauss et al ask is "how?", or "by what process?". What they don't do though is ask "why?" in its purposive sense - "for what reason did sentient being X decide that things should be as they are?" etc.
... and when it becomes obvious....again...that science may not have the complete answer....
There are none for whom it's more obvious than scientists. That's why they keep doing science - to find out more.
..then, after all that declare that the question might not be valid...
Again, the question isn't valid until and unless you can demonstrate something to care about and to decide on the "why?". "Why doesn't Mrs Jenkins lifter her dahlias in autumn?" is a perfectly valid question, but only when you can show that there is a Mrs Jenkins in the first place. "By what process does frost kill dahlias?" on the other hand is a valid question whether or not Mrs Jenkins exists.
...and impute stupidity into those who say it might be in a classic courtiers reply.
Well, if the cap fits. I guess "naive" or "unthinking" is kinder when people first attempt a "why?" question with the answer "God", but after having the issue explained to them and repeating it nonetheless I guess "stupid" more accurately fits the bill. Hope for example is fond of the straw man, "science can't explain everything you know" line with no effort of any kind to propose a different method that can.
-
Vlad,
But the Question is not "why are we here" a question which still IMHO give warrant for an opposing argument from evolution..........but why is there anything anyway?
Depends which meaning of "why?" you're attempting.
If you mean, "by what processes does stuff exist?" then fair enough.
If though you're sneaking in a, "for what reason did a divine being pouffe all this into existence?" then you're begging the question on an epic scale.
-
Dear WHY!
The why of it all, "just is" is the exact same as "Godidit".
By all, I mean everything, the whole shooting match, us, plant life, the animal kingdom, the world, the universe and if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into.
Why electricity, why photosynthesis, why has man the gift to imagine, why does every living thing on this planet strive, why poetry, music, art that can make a human laugh, cry, fill him with hope and wonder.
Stephen Hawking at the end of his book "A Brief History of Time" chunters on about the "why" ( is this one of those fallacies :P ) he asks, "why does the Universe go to all the bother of existing", he chunters on about scientists being to busy with the "what" and the "how" and it is the business of philosophers to ask the question "why".
And of course he also states when we can answer the question "why" then we will know the mind of God" but for me that then raises the question, does God have a mind, it's that anthropomorphism Profdavey is chuntering on about, we give God human traits, God has a mind, he is a big guy with a long white beard.
Another "why" Michelangelo's painting "The Creation of Adam" ( there's a picture of it in the book ) Adam is naked but God is wearing a toga, "WHY". :o
Gonnagle.
-
Vlad,
Depends which meaning of "why?" you're attempting.
If you mean, "by what processes does stuff exist?" then fair enough.
If though you're sneaking in a, "for what reason did a divine being pouffe all this into existence?" then you're begging the question on an epic scale.
Dogmatic agnostic and reductionist twaddle.
And yet another example of an antitheist trying to put words in mouths.
I would see someone as you seem to believe you are having conversations you aren't having.
-
I would see someone as you seem to believe you are having conversations you aren't having.
Do you have a translation for those of us whose first language is English?
-
Vlad,
Dogmatic agnostic and reductionist twaddle.
Feeling better after your random word eructation?
Good.
Now then - did you have an argument to offer?
And yet another example of an antitheist trying to put words in mouths.
Again you confuse "antitheist" with "atheist", and no-one put words into anyone's mouth - it was just a question about which meaning of "why" you were attempting. I still don't know which it was.
I would see someone as you seem to believe you are having conversations you aren't having.
With you, clearly not - whose fault is that do you think?
Oh, and as you just vanished from the thread on which you were asked repeatedly what connection you think there to be between desiring a relationship with something and that something existing, perhaps you'd finally like to give it a go here?
-
Dear WHY!
The why of it all, "just is" is the exact same as "Godidit".
By all, I mean everything, the whole shooting match, us, plant life, the animal kingdom, the world, the universe and if the universe is expanding what is it expanding into.
Why electricity, why photosynthesis, why has man the gift to imagine, why does every living thing on this planet strive, why poetry, music, art that can make a human laugh, cry, fill him with hope and wonder.
Stephen Hawking at the end of his book "A Brief History of Time" chunters on about the "why" ( is this one of those fallacies :P ) he asks, "why does the Universe go to all the bother of existing", he chunters on about scientists being to busy with the "what" and the "how" and it is the business of philosophers to ask the question "why".
And of course he also states when we can answer the question "why" then we will know the mind of God" but for me that then raises the question, does God have a mind, it's that anthropomorphism Profdavey is chuntering on about, we give God human traits, God has a mind, he is a big guy with a long white beard.
Another "why" Michelangelo's painting "The Creation of Adam" ( there's a picture of it in the book ) Adam is naked but God is wearing a toga, "WHY". :o
Gonnagle.
Doesn't the toga represent the Glory of having created the universe?
-
Vlad,
Doesn't the toga represent the Glory of having created the universe?
Maybe - it also represents the fact that people create gods in their own image. That's why your pick of the gods is as culturally defined as the gods of the Egyptians and the Sumerians were defined by their cultures.
How's it coming with your reply by the way to why you think desiring a relationship with something has anything to do with that thing being real?
I can put the question in bold and in 24 point typeface again if that helps?
-
But the Question is not "why are we here" a question which still IMHO give warrant for an opposing argument from evolution..........but why is there anything anyway?
But it depends upon whether you are considering 'why' in a mechanistic sense, or in a more reason or metaphysical sense.
So why are we here - well on the former approach - we are here because basic chemistry and energetics developed increasing complexity, which through evolution lead to humans. And that is relevant universally.
On the metaphysics or the reason we are here, well that is only relevant when considered from the perspective of human consciousness, it has no universal credence.
-
Sorry, ippy, it isn't that there isn't any evidence - plenty of eminent people, scientists included, have found that there is. Rather, its because there is none that you have accepted. There is a consideable difference between reality and your claim.
OK Hope, let's have it and while you're about where do we find the extensive media reports about this world shattering evidence that must have been published about this enormous ground shaking event?
ippy
-
Dear Prof,
So why are we here - well on the former approach - we are here because basic chemistry and energetics developed increasing complexity, which through evolution lead to humans. And that is relevant universally.
That is a why question, and I think you are playing with "just is".
Why basic chemistry, why energetics ( whats energetics ??? ) why increasing complexity, why evolution.
Gonnagle.
-
ipster,
OK Hope, let's have it and while you're about where do we find the extensive media reports about this world shattering evidence that must have been published about this enormous ground shaking event?
There is no evidence. What there is though is wishful thinking, personal opinion, faith etc. What Hope does is to re-define the term so as to include these things, though he seems oblivious to the problem it gives him – namely that anyone else’s wishful thinking etc about anything else must thereby be evidence for their beliefs too.
His recent (fairly desperate) throw of the dice is to say, “yes, but look - here are some scientists who believe in God” as if in some way we’re meant to assume that the fact that they happen to practice science in various disciplines means they must have, well, you know, proper evidence for God.
It implies no such thing of course.
His other trick is to try to dismiss actual evidence as simplistic, limited etc as if he has in his pocket some other means of testing claims and conjectures only he doesn’t feel the need to tell us what that method might actually be.
All very odd, but hey-ho.
-
There is evidence, of course, the main evidence being the various Holy Books.
It is the same sort of evidence as when Bert Bloggs, the well known burglar stands up n Court and gives his evidence ...
"I wasn't nowhere near the blleding place, me lord. I swears it!"
-
Gonners,
That is a why question, and I think you are playing with "just is".
Why basic chemistry, why energetics ( whats energetics ) why increasing complexity, why evolution.
Same question as for Vlad – which meaning of “why” are you attempting here?
If you mean something like, “by what processes did these things happen?” there are already answers of various stages of completeness.
If though you mean, “for what reason did a sentient being decide to make things this way?” then you’re falling into Vlad’s begging the question territory.
Just to note too that “don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer when there are no testable answers available.
-
That is a why question, and I think you are playing with "just is".
Why basic chemistry, why energetics ( whats energetics ??? ) why increasing complexity, why evolution.
Gonnagle.
Because they are governed by the fundamental laws of physics.
It is a bit like asking why if you mix up a bottle containing oil and water and then let it settle the oil and water separate out.
It isn't a question of it 'just is' - not at all - it is driven by fundamental physical laws.
Sure the ultimate evolution of humans is a darned sight more complicated than oil and water separating out but every step of the ways if governed by and predictable according to fundamental physical laws.
-
Dear Prof,
fundamental laws of physics.
I could become quite annoying about all of this :P but that is another "why" question, or I could accuse you of the "just is" answer, but I won't, yer a nice guy ;) but why do we have fundamental laws.
Strange thing is, we do have fundamental laws, strange thing is that it all works, the really strange thing is that, as Einstein points out, we can in our very limited capacity understand how it works, or, OR! me and Einstein are just puddles thinking it all fits ( puddles don't think, well do they!! next time I meet a puddle I will ask one :P )
Gonnagle.
-
Vlad,
Maybe - it also represents the fact that people create gods in their own image. That's why your pick of the gods is as culturally defined as the gods of the Egyptians and the Sumerians were defined by their cultures.
How's it coming with your reply by the way to why you think desiring a relationship with something has anything to do with that thing being real?
I can put the question in bold and in 24 point typeface again if that helps?
I think you don't get Art.
-
Gonners,
Same question as for Vlad – which meaning of “why” are you attempting here?
If you mean something like, “by what processes did these things happen?” there are already answers of various stages of completeness.
If though you mean, “for what reason did a sentient being decide to make things this way?” then you’re falling into Vlad’s begging the question territory.
Just to note too that “don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer when there are no testable answers available.
When you commit to suggesting things people aren't, you really commit don't you.
-
Vlad,
I think you don't get Art.
Garfunkel?
-
Vlad,
When you commit to suggesting things people aren't, you really commit don't you.
What do you think I've suggested you are that you aren't exactly?
Your constant evasions make it impossible to know what point you think you're making. Which version of "why" for example were you attempting - the "how" version or the begging the question version?
-
Vlad,
Garfunkel?
In your case Guff uncle! Snork.
-
Vlad,
Garfunkel?
Someone I would definitely have liked to get when I was younger, face and voice of an angel, "Bright Eyes", etc (gone to seed a bit since).
-
Gonners,
I could become quite annoying about all of this :P but that is another "why" question, or I could accuse you of the "just is" answer, but I won't, yer a nice guy ;) but why do we have fundamental laws.
Strange thing is, we do have fundamental laws, strange thing is that it all works, the really strange thing is that, as Einstein points out, we can in our very limited capacity understand how it works, or, OR! me and Einstein are just puddles thinking it all fits ( puddles don't think, well do they!! next time I meet a puddle I will ask one :P )
You're in anthropic principle territory here. It's only "strange" if you think there's some special significance in the fact of our existence, rather than that we just happen to have emerged from an indifferent universe governed by fundamental laws. Had those laws been different and a different sentient creature had emerged as the result would it too be entitled to think how strange it was that the universe was just right for little old him?
-
Dear Blue,
If you mean something like, “by what processes did these things happen?” there are already answers of various stages of completeness.
Seems to me that you are changing the "why" into a "what" and I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to say, I dunno, but this is why I ask the question "why".
Question like, why do we, humans understand how the Universe works ( in our very limited capacity ) Profdavey talks about fundamental laws, without these laws, we would not be here to talk about fundamental laws.
Everytime I look at the science behind how we got to where we are today I do a Prof Cox and think, it is a miracle we are even here, revisiting Prof Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time" even he asks the question, "why" did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion......................if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, ( a big F*** me number ) the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
The amount of stuff that had to happen just for life is staggering, never mind the fact that we have intelligent life, and when you start to think of intelligent life ( not just us ) that for me points to, hell!! outside influence, God, purpose, God is in the equation ( what ever God is ) somewhere.
Gonnagle.
-
Except Goddidit is a useless answer as then the question applies to god and creates an infinite regress, unless 'just is' apples to god in which case the denial of that as an answer would be inconsistent.
-
And, of course, the whole purposive 'why' is built on, as Vlad might say, an enormous argument from incredulity of Meldrewian proportions.
-
Dear Sane,
Are you asking, who made God, a perfectly good question, my answer, I just don't know.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Are you asking, who made God, a perfectly good question, my answer, I just don't know.
Gonnagle.
No, I'm pointing out that you keep on begging the question. Why does something need to be made. Why is any making of that thing by a being (which is implied by the 'who' in your question above?
You have not done the work needed to make why, as a purposive meaning, sensible. You and Vlad have gone off on a magical assertion tour, but not done the hard yards, nor even the easy inches.
-
The 'why' question to which I would very much like to know the answer is: Why do you believe? This is addressed to the believers here, obviously!
I mean, I know that I am totally clear about why I do nnot believe in any supernatural thing, particularly any god, but why do believers believe?
Responses (on message boards) are all, without exception, anecdotes, talks of 'experiences', and always avoid actually looking really clearly at WHY people believe.
-
Dear Susan,
Because it works.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Seems to me that you are changing the "why" into a "what" and I do know that it is perfectly acceptable to say, I dunno, but this is why I ask the question "why".
Actually it’s a “how” rather than a “what”, and I’m not changing it at all – “why” is ambiguous: it can mean “how” and it can also mean, ”for what reason did sentient being X do action Y?”. People who ask the question need to explain which version they mean.
Question like, why do we, humans understand how the Universe works ( in our very limited capacity ) Profdavey talks about fundamental laws, without these laws, we would not be here to talk about fundamental laws.
No we wouldn’t. Maybe something else would though, or maybe nothing would. Whatever. The point though is that the question there is a “how” one – ie, by what processes do we understand how the universe works etc.
Everytime I look at the science behind how we got to where we are today I do a Prof Cox and think, it is a miracle we are even here, revisiting Prof Hawkings book "A Brief History of Time" even he asks the question, "why" did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion......................if the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, ( a big F*** me number ) the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Yup – and who knows – maybe that did happen bajillions of times before the current one happened. It may be highly unlikely that we specifically are here but it’s only miraculous of you assume that we were some kind of wished for outcome all along.
It's also for example a big F*** number against winning the lottery by the way. What's so special about the person who does though?
The amount of stuff that had to happen just for life is staggering, never mind the fact that we have intelligent life, and when you start to think of intelligent life ( not just us ) that for me points to, hell!! outside influence, God, purpose, God is in the equation ( what ever God is ) somewhere.
Well, first all that was necessary was for the conditions to be right for simple single-celled life. Evolution did the rest.
Second, that’s just an argument from personal incredulity: “I can’t imagine how we happened, therefore God”.
Third, again you just assume that “intelligent life” was meant to be all along. Maybe it wasn’t. Or maybe it was but in a different species entirely. Or maybe a much more intelligent species would have emerged if the starting conditions were slightly different.
Who can possibly say? We're still just a lottery winner though.
-
Dear Sane,
No, I'm pointing out that you keep on begging the question. Why does something need to be made. Why is any making of that thing by a being (which is implied by the 'who' in your question above?
Begging!!
Need to be made?
You have not done the work needed to make why, as a purposive meaning, sensible. You and Vlad have gone off on a magical assertion tour, but not done the hard yards, nor even the easy inches.
Once again you have lost me, are you taking Vlad pills, purposive meaning? magical assertion tour? where have I asserted, I don't need to do any hard yards, the questions are all there for the asking.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Are you asking, who made God, a perfectly good question, my answer, I just don't know.
And there's your problem right there. When you ask, "why something and not nothing?" and have the reply, "I don't know" that gives you the opening for, "Aha! Godiddit then!"
When someone says, "why God?" though and you reply, "don't know" presumably that would give that someone the opening for "Aha - God's dad did it then" or indeed for anything else as causal agency.
Just filling in the gap caused by a "don't know" with "God' in other words just repeats the problem at one remove, and adds nothing of explanatory use.
-
Dear Sane,
Begging!!
Need to be made?
Once again you have lost me, are you taking Vlad pills, purposive meaning? magical assertion tour? where have I asserted, I don't need to do any hard yards, the questions are all there for the asking.
Gonnagle.
Your position that 'why' in the purposive sense is a reasonable question by looking for an answer without justifying its reasonableness. You just assume it, and go from there and that is where you are begging the question. You need to justify it, else you are saying that 'What bogly footy tinkers piece stool?' is meaningful simply because I just asked it.
-
Dear Susan,
Because it works.
Gonnagle.
Which means that you support IS because their answer works for them.
-
Dear Blue,
Where to start?
Well, first all that was necessary was for the conditions to be right for simple single-celled life. Evolution did the rest.
Here!! the conditions had to be right, simple single cell life, evolution, these terms slip off your tongue very easily ( no I am not having a go at you, just the argument ) when we have this debate, these tired old arguments are trotted out with no thought, the conditions had to be right, well lucky us, there is nothing simple about a single cell life,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicellular_organism
And that's only Wiki, it not simple at all.
Evolution did the rest! this takes us into the realms of, we just don't know, it was Prof Cox in his Wonders of the Universe who pointed out that we don't know how it all started, scientists at this very moment are debating the Theory of Evolution, new light is being shed on it all the time.
You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Blue,
Where to start?
Here!! the conditions had to be right, simple single cell life, evolution, these terms slip off your tongue very easily ( no I am not having a go at you, just the argument ) when we have this debate, these tired old arguments are trotted out with no thought, the conditions had to be right, well lucky us, there is nothing simple about a single cell life,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicellular_organism
And that's only Wiki, it not simple at all.
Evolution did the rest! this takes us into the realms of, we just don't know, it was Prof Cox in his Wonders of the Universe who pointed out that we don't know how it all started, scientists at this very moment are debating the Theory of Evolution, new light is being shed on it all the time.
You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.
Gonnagle.
no one has been saying this. Rather questioning the meaningfulness of the 'why' question. Stop helping Vlad with his straw supply.
-
Dear Sane,
Which means that you support IS because their answer works for them.
Never took you for a Dawkins devotee, no that is not what I am saying.
Gonnagle.
-
You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.
Gonnagle.
Gonners
Why do you think that, in this context, 'why' is a valid question in the first place?
-
Dear Sane,
no one has been saying this. Rather questioning the meaningfulness of the 'why' question. Stop helping Vlad with his straw supply.
Blue is saying it!! and stop roping me in with Vlad, if you have a bee in yer bunnet over Vlad have a word with him, I stand or fall on my own arguments.
Thanking you in advance,
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Never took you for a Dawkins devotee, no that is not what I am saying.
Gonnagle.
It's the implication in stating 'because it works'. If you think that because individuals can say well it works for me is an argument in support of something, then you support IS"s position when they say it works for them.
Not for a minute do I think you support IS but I am challenging you making statements that back up their approach.
-
Dear Sane,
Blue is saying it!! and stop roping me in with Vlad, if you have a bee in yer bunnet over Vlad have a word with him, I stand or fall on my own arguments.
Thanking you in advance,
Gonnagle.
Where does blue say 'just is'?
-
Dear Gordon,
Why do you think that, in this context, 'why' is a valid question in the first place?
A good question me old china plate :P probably because the science points to a why or maybe because I am a God botherer, it could be that all life strives, life wants to survive, evolution is very quiet on this, yes we know that all life wants to go on but "why".
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Not for a minute do I think you support IS but I am challenging you making statements that back up their approach.
Fair enough.
Dear Susan,
My Christianity works for me.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
A good question me old china plate :P probably because the science points to a why or maybe because I am a God botherer, it could be that all life strives, life wants to survive, evolution is very quiet on this, yes we know that all life wants to go on but "why".
Gonnagle.
If science points to anything it is a 'how': if there is a something, say rattlesnakes, then knowledge about evolution deals with the 'how' (the evolutionary history of that species): but to say 'why are there rattlesnakes' presumes that there is a 'why' answer to be had, and that presumption needs to be justified else it is begging the question (which is a fallacy).
-
Dear Susan,
Because it works.
Gonnagle.
I think maybe I'll withdraw the question. I was thinking more in terms of analysing right back to childhood and a realisation that all beliefs are entirely due to human information given to and surrounding children even before they can speak, let alone afterwards.
-
Dear Sane,
Where does blue say 'just is'?
Here.
No we wouldn’t. Maybe something else would though, or maybe nothing would. Whatever. The point though is that the question there is a “how” one – ie, by what processes do we understand how the universe works etc.
His whole argument revolves around, if the laws of the universe were different then some other sentient creature would have evolved, without any evidence to back it up, and maybe "just is" is wrong, would you settle for "had to be" or maybe "life was inevitable" trouble is science keeps telling us that life needs certain conditions.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
If science points to anything it is a 'how': if there is a something, say rattlesnakes, then knowledge about evolution deals with the 'how' (the evolutionary history of that species): but to say 'why are there rattlesnakes' presumes that there is a 'why' answer to be had, and that presumption needs to be justified else it is begging the question (which is a fallacy).
No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".
Is that fallacious question.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".
Is that fallacious question.
Gonnagle.
I think so, since the 'why' in 'why are we even here' presumes there will be a 'this is why' answer which unless justified is assuming the conclusion (there is a 'why' answer) in the premise, which is begging the question: a fallacy.
-
ipster,
There is no evidence. What there is though is wishful thinking, personal opinion, faith etc. What Hope does is to re-define the term so as to include these things, though he seems oblivious to the problem it gives him – namely that anyone else’s wishful thinking etc about anything else must thereby be evidence for their beliefs too.
His recent (fairly desperate) throw of the dice is to say, “yes, but look - here are some scientists who believe in God” as if in some way we’re meant to assume that the fact that they happen to practice science in various disciplines means they must have, well, you know, proper evidence for God.
It implies no such thing of course.
His other trick is to try to dismiss actual evidence as simplistic, limited etc as if he has in his pocket some other means of testing claims and conjectures only he doesn’t feel the need to tell us what that method might actually be.
All very odd, but hey-ho.
In short Blue, you're saying that you missed the same medeia event that included all of Hope's evidence that I did and in the unlikely event of this elusive evidence were to see the light of day, do you think we'd ever be allowed to hear the last of it?
I wonder why the above hasn't occured to these these god believing scientists?
ippy
-
Gonners,
Here!! the conditions had to be right, simple single cell life, evolution, these terms slip off your tongue very easily ( no I am not having a go at you, just the argument ) when we have this debate, these tired old arguments are trotted out with no thought, the conditions had to be right, well lucky us, there is nothing simple about a single cell life,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicellular_organism
And that's only Wiki, it not simple at all.
Evolution did the rest! this takes us into the realms of, we just don't know, it was Prof Cox in his Wonders of the Universe who pointed out that we don't know how it all started, scientists at this very moment are debating the Theory of Evolution, new light is being shed on it all the time.
You can't simply say, it was evolution what dunnit, and think that I will just accept it, I have no problem with Darwinian evolution but it does not answer the why question.
That's not it though. That part of my reply concerned only the, "what are the chances of a planet just right for us to live in" when in fact all that would be necessary is a planet in which basic life could evolve, after which evolution (a function of natural laws and forces) would do the rest. Had earth been entirely covered in water for example, there wouldn't be bipedal people at all. You're also confusing "how it all started" with evolution by the way - TW's repeated error.
Single cell life may not be that simple (though you could go back to precursor stages and find examples that are increasingly more simple) but it's an awful lot more simple than Homo sapiens. That's all.
-
Dear Sane,
Here.
His whole argument revolves around, if the laws of the universe were different then some other sentient creature would have evolved, without any evidence to back it up, and maybe "just is" is wrong, would you settle for "had to be" or maybe "life was inevitable" trouble is science keeps telling us that life needs certain conditions.
Gonnagle.
That doesn't say just is. It says a lot of maybes and ends up I don't know if why makes sense.
-
Dear Gordon,
No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".
Is that fallacious question.
Gonnagle.
is it a sensible question in your meaning where you import intention?
-
Gonners,
Blue is saying it!! and stop roping me in with Vlad, if you have a bee in yer bunnet over Vlad have a word with him, I stand or fall on my own arguments.
Only as a sidebar response to the "what are the chances of an Earth just right for Homo sapiens?" line - the other rebuttals you didn't reply to.
-
NS,
Where does blue say 'just is'?
blue doesn't. What blue does say though is that, when the answer is "don't know", inserting "God" just adds another layer with the same "don't know" behind it.
Which adds nothing of explanatory value.
-
Gonners,
His whole argument revolves around, if the laws of the universe were different then some other sentient creature would have evolved, without any evidence to back it up, and maybe "just is" is wrong, would you settle for "had to be" or maybe "life was inevitable" trouble is science keeps telling us that life needs certain conditions.
No - "his" whole argument is that you're in thrall to the lottery winner's fallacy. Maybe different species would have emerged with different starting conditions, maybe no life would have emerged. The mistake though is to assume that Camelot was designed especially for you just because you won the lottery.
-
Gonners,
No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".
Is that fallacious question.
Yes - at least until and unless you can demonstrate a sentient something to care and decide on a purposive "why?"
-
ipster,
In short Blue, you're saying that you missed the same medeia event that included all of Hope's evidence that I did and in the unlikely event of this elusive evidence were to see the light of day, do you think we'd ever be allowed to hear the last of it?
I wonder why the above hasn't occured to these these god believing scientists?
I think you'll find that we all missed this great event.
Funny that.
I note too that he's gone all quiet again following various questions about the "logicians" he supposedly consulted.
Who'd have thought it eh?
-
Dear Blue,
That's not it though. That part of my reply concerned only the, "what are the chances of a planet just right for us to live in" when in fact all that would be necessary is a planet in which life could evolve, after which evolution (a function of natural laws and forces) would do the rest. Had earth been entirely covered in water for example, there wouldn't be bipedal people at all. You're also confusing "how it all started" with evolution by the way - TW's repeated error.
Single cell life may not be that simple (though you could go back to precursor stages and find examples that are increasingly more simple) but it's an awful lot more
Yes I know it was only part of your reply, Gordon and Sane keep interrupting my train of thought :P but like Gordon I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
when in fact all that would be necessary is a planet in which life could evolve
No, what you need is a Universe for everything to be so damned perfect that all the ingredients were there in the first place for life to exist, only then can you go on to think about a planet that life can evolve on, and remember it is not me saying this but science, Hawking again,
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
He then chunters on about electric charge of electrons, but he end the paragraph by telling us,
Never the less it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life.
So before you search for your goldilocks zone you first have to find your goldilocks universe.
Had earth been entirely covered in water for example, there wouldn't be bipedal people at all.
There you go again, it's all so easy, try saying it is all covered by H2O,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water
You need a Universe that can make that magical stuff called water, and it is magical, it is super-natural, without it we are all stuffed, without it we would not be here to be stuffed.
If you look at the science and can't see God in the equation then I can only think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
Gonnagle.
-
If you look at the science and can't see God in the equation then I can only think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
Gonnagle.
Quite the reverse.
God (or certainly that as envisaged by current religions) is so clearly 'human' but with extra powers - so self evidently the kind of god that a human would create, created in their own image so to speak, that a god of that type could only 'exist' if humans exist and created it.
If you look through the telescope from the right end then there might be omnipresent and omnipotent powers in the universe. But they wouldn't bother with parochial 'human' characteristics such as love or vengefulness or compassion, or punishment - nope those attributes are irrelevant to the non anthropomorphised world view. Nope that power would be so universal as to be as critically relevant to a barren piece of rock orbiting a remote star millions of years ago as it is to a human on earth today. And therefore the only 'power' that fits that bill is effectively energy itself and the fundamental laws of physics that govern the same.
So science is getting it right, looking through the right end of the telescope, looking for universal physical laws. Religion is looking through the wrong end of the telescope, assuming that everything really begins or ends with humans, and therefore creates a human-type god.
-
God (or certainly that as envisaged by current religions) is so clearly 'human' but with extra powers - so self evidently the kind of god that a human would create, created in their own image so to speak, that a god of that type could only 'exist' if humans exist and created it.
Evidence for this assertion, please, PD. 'Current religions' differ from each other in a number of ways, and so yoiur massive generalisation is somewhat pointless.
-
Evidence for this assertion, please, PD. 'Current religions' differ from each other in a number of ways, and so yoiur massive generalisation is somewhat pointless.
Give me an example of a god associated with any major religion that is not 'super-human' in its attributes, in other word possesses attributes that are clearly 'human' but would not be associated with (for example) a rock orbiting a distant planet, or perhaps a bacterium, yet taken to a higher level than humans possess.
Actually 'current religions' are very, very similar in their descriptions of god if you consider things in a broad universal manner, rather than a narrow, human-centric manner. Which is exactly as you would expect if gods are created by humans, who, where-ever the live or have lived over the past few thousand years, have far more that unites, than divides (again if you consider things in a broad universal manner, rather than a narrow, human-centric manner).
-
Dear Prof,
If you look through the telescope from the right end then there might be omnipresent and omnipotent powers in the universe. But they wouldn't bother with parochial 'human' characteristics such as love or vengefulness or compassion, or punishment
Strange but that makes me wonder, if there is life on other planets, would they be devoid of Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment, or are these traits universal.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Strange but that makes me wonder, if there is life on other planets, would they be devoid of Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment, or are these traits universal.
Gonnagle.
Why not - those attributes are very much ones associated with social animals (and actually a sub-set of social animals, those with a fairly high consciousness), they are seen in plenty of other 'life' on earth, including many that are (if you aren't human centric) just as successful as humans or more so - from all plants, through bacteria to many insects and non social 'higher' species.
Unless you are looking through your telescope (itself a human-centic concept) at the end marked 'human-centric' why would you necessarily consider humans, and their attributes superior, to those of a 1000 year old pine tree.
Bottom line - Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment are very far from universal, even within 'life' on this planet - they mean nothing to a 1000 year old pine tree, let alone a rock orbiting a distant planet. Basic laws of physics are as relevant to the rock as they are to the pine tree and to you and me.
-
Dear Prof,
Strange but that makes me wonder, if there is life on other planets, would they be devoid of Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment, or are these traits universal.
Gonnagle.
And it needs to be added that those attributes are essential in evolutionary terms to social animals with higher consciousness, where learning from the social group is important and where the young of that species are especially vulnerable until they have learned from their social group.
In reality, even on our planet, they are exceptionally narrow attributes, only shared by a tiny, tiny proportion of live on earth.
-
Dear Prof,
Bottom line - Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment are very far from universal, even within 'life' on this planet - they mean nothing to a 1000 year old pine tree, let alone a rock orbiting a distant planet. Basic laws of physics are as relevant to the rock as they are to the pine tree and to you and me.
I think you are being very human about all of this, saying that a pine tree does not experience Love or Compassion, maybe not like a human experiences it but as our knowledge of the natural world grows we are finding that we have only scratched the surface.
I watched a Ted talk about a young lady who studies tree's, not only do they talk to each other but they help one another to survive, to go on, one remarkable claim she stated, dying tree's transmit advice to other tree's and seedlings, mother tree's take care of baby tree's :o :o
Do tree's have feelings, I don't know Prof, I found the video, you tell me :o
https://www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_simard_how_trees_talk_to_each_other?language=en
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
I think you are being very human about all of this, saying that a pine tree does not experience Love or Compassion, maybe not like a human experiences it but as our knowledge of the natural world grows we are finding that we have only scratched the surface.
I watched a Ted talk about a young lady who studies tree's, not only do they talk to each other but they help one another to survive, to go on, one remarkable claim she stated, dying tree's transmit advice to other tree's and seedlings, mother tree's take care of baby tree's :o :o
Do tree's have feelings, I don't know Prof, I found the video, you tell me :o
https://www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_simard_how_trees_talk_to_each_other?language=en
Gonnagle.
Pure anthropomorphism.
Humans asking whether trees have 'feelings' (in a human sense) is as wide of the mark as trees asking whether humans have 'photosynthetic' ability (in a tree sense).
Sure it is fun for humans to create Ents (as Tolkein did), but trees aren't human and humans aren't trees - their attributes that are important in an evolutionary sense are distinct.
-
And it needs to be added that those attributes are essential in evolutionary terms to social animals with higher consciousness, where learning from the social group is important and where the young of that species are especially vulnerable until they have learned from their social group.
In reality, even on our planet, they are exceptionally narrow attributes, only shared by a tiny, tiny proportion of live on earth.
Its all very well to say that these "attributes are essential in evolutionary terms", but just how have they evolved? If there is one area of the theory of evolution that I find difficult to understnd it is how these more esoteric elements evolved, perhaps even 'why' they evolved.
-
Its all very well to say that these "attributes are essential in evolutionary terms", but just how have they evolved?
By saying that you clearly demonstrate that you have no concept of evolution.
Attributes don't 'evolve', they arise through random events and having arisen prove to have an evolutionary advantage (or they don't) and if they do are thus more likely to by passed on to the next generation. They can only be embedded if they can be inherited, i.e. passed on to the next generation. That inheritance may be genetic, but it can also be epigenetic or learned.
-
That inheritance may be genetic, but it can also be epigenetic or learned.
That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.
-
Dear Prof,
Humans asking whether trees have 'feelings' (in a human sense)
I never said that, I asked if tree's could experience love or compassion in a very tree like way, according to the young lady, tree's nurture their young, she also states,
We have to give Mother Nature the tools she needs to use her intelligence to self-heal.
Does nature have an intelligence, anyway goodnight Prof and may your science go with you ( doesn't have the same ring as God ;) )
Gonnagle.
-
That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.
Of course it does. But that's self evident - social animals with higher consciousness evolved from earlier life-forms that clearly didn't exhibit those attribute through an incremental evolutionary process.
The whole point of evolution is about which attributes that haven't always been present from day 1 (but arise later in a random manner) are retained and which aren't. Those which persist are those that confer an evolutionary advantage, those that don't confer evolutionary advantage rapidly disappear.
Frankly I'm not convinced that you actually understand evolution at all.
-
Dear Prof,
I never said that, I asked if tree's could experience love or compassion in a very tree like way, according to the young lady, tree's nurture their young, she also states,
Does nature have an intelligence, anyway goodnight Prof and may your science go with you ( doesn't have the same ring as God ;) )
Gonnagle.
I think that article indicates that trees may 'communicate'.
Well hold the front page, of course they can - virtually all life forms have mechanisms whereby they 'communicate' with others of the same species or of other species. Usually this is via chemical substances they release that can be detected. So if you walk through a wood and smell wild garlic that is an example - that plant is 'communicating' with you, but actually that isn't communicating in human terms. Likely that is a by-product of its intended target (with evolutionary advantage) - so for many plants there is a need for other species for pollen distribution or other mechanisms for reproduction. So there is evolutionary advantage for a plant which needs insects to pollenate to produce chemicals that attract those insects.
-
That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.
Is this your assumption?
-
That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.
There is no precedent to imagine that high level complexity arises spontaneously out of nowhere. In the beginning, there were no planets, no stars, no atoms even, never mind jellyfish, aardvarks or investment bankers. What study has taught us, is that complexity increases locally and gradually and incrementally over time within an overarching tendency to increasing entropy.
-
There is no precedent to imagine that high level complexity arises spontaneously out of nowhere. In the beginning, there were no planets, no stars, no atoms even, never mind jellyfish, aardvarks or investment bankers. What study has taught us, is that complexity increases locally and gradually and incrementally over time within an overarching tendency to increasing entropy.
It also assumes we can determine when 'day 1' was.
-
Gonners,
Yes I know it was only part of your reply, Gordon and Sane keep interrupting my train of thought :P but like Gordon I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
Getting ahead of myself how?
The point remains: either you conclude that the universe was designed for little old you and marvel at the chances of if being just right for that purpose, or you conclude that it's you who fits the universe rather then the other way around and thus that the fine tuning argument is broken.
No, what you need is a Universe for everything to be so damned perfect that all the ingredients were there in the first place for life to exist, only then can you go on to think about a planet that life can evolve on, and remember it is not me saying this but science, Hawking again,
No, all that's necessary is a universe in which life of some type could have emerged. Given that there are reckoned to be around a trillion trillion stars and who knows how many attendant solar systems it's entirely possible that life has emerged - many, many, many times and in many, many, many varieties.
Who know, maybe in some far-flung galaxy there's an evolved species of nine-headed, methane breathing dragon monster wondering just as earnestly as you are at the remarkable co-incidence of a universe being just right for him to be there too.
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
Far be it from me to argue with the great man, but it's only remarkable if you think this particular type of life to be special. It's a philosophical rather than a scientific point.
He then chunters on about electric charge of electrons, but he end the paragraph by telling us,
"Never the less it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life."
I'm not sure how he gets there as, presumably, life need not necessary be "life as we know it" - but, either way, while there may be relatively few ranges there are vast numbers of opportunities over time and over space for that narrow range to have happened.
Even if that wasn't the case though and there had been just one opportunity and it had produced just you, so what? That you exist says nothing to some supposed grand plan that had you all along as the end game.
So before you search for your goldilocks zone you first have to find your goldilocks universe.
Only if you think that you're special to the universe. Presumably though the methane monster would say just the same thing.
There you go again, it's all so easy, try saying it is all covered by H2O,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water
You need a Universe that can make that magical stuff called water, and it is magical, it is super-natural, without it we are all stuffed, without it we would not be here to be stuffed.
If you look at the science and can't see God in the equation then I can only think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
There's nothing "magical" about water - it's just chemicals, albeit with relatively unusual properties. The only wrong end of the telescope viewing here is yours I think - try not looking from the perspective of the lottery winner and considering the picture as if you were Camelot instead: someone is bound to win, but you have no interest whatever in "fine tuning" the numbers so it's G.Onnagle of 23 Sevastopol Villas, Glasgow, United Kingdom, The World, The Galaxy, The Universe.
-
Sass how do you or anyone else shut out something that's not there?
Hang on Sass I've got a load of elves riding unicorns knocking at the front door gotta go now.
ippy
How many people believe in Jesus Christ throughout the world since he came?
How long have the belief in elves ride unicorns been around or they would be able to knock on the door riding a unicorn?
Have you anything else Ippy. Failure of the magnum scale with that reply. What an imagination. ;D
Maybe if spent less time looking for the impossible you would see the probably. :-*
-
As has been said many times just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't necessarily mean it is, especially if it lacks credibility like the things attributed to Jesus.
Lots of people claimed to have seen the Angel of Mons, which was only a story written by a journalist.
-
As has been said many times just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't necessarily mean it is, ...
So what are you using to challenge it then Floo? I could easily run around saying, "As has been said many times just because a lot of people don't believe something is true doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true"
The thing lacking from you and the other atheists here is either
- A refutation of what is claimed
- An affirmation of that which contradicts what is claimed.
-
Sword,
So what are you using to challenge it then Floo? I could easily run around saying, "As has been said many times just because a lot of people don't believe something is true doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true"
The thing lacking from you and the other atheists here is either
- A refutation of what is claimed
- An affirmation of that which contradicts what is claimed.
Nope. All that's actually being said here is that the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy - evidently so. There may be other reasons to think that something is true, but the fact of lots of people cohering around a common opinion is not of itself a sound basis to argue for the truthfulness of that opinion.
-
Nope. All that's actually being said here is that the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy - evidently so. There may be other reasons to think that something is true, but the fact of lots of people cohering around a common opinion is not of itself a sound basis to argue for the truthfulness of that opinion.
Except I haven't seen anyone here attempting to do that, hence the options I presented to Floo.
-
The thing lacking from you and the other atheists here is either
- A refutation of what is claimed
- An affirmation of that which contradicts what is claimed.
Nope: when what is claimed is fallacious then the claim fails on that basis.
-
Nope: when what is claimed is fallacious then the claim fails on that basis.
But what if the worldview being used to claim something is fallacious is the wrong one?
Yesterday, I gave a mathematical puzzle: 1+1=10; true or false?
One person spotted where I was going with this and asked me to state the base: Correct!!
The statement is true if base 2 is being used but false if base 10 (or any other base) is used. It's a way of illustrating the importance of the worldview. Apply the wrong worldview to state the claim and you get the wrong answer.
-
Sword,
Except I haven't seen anyone here attempting to do that, hence the options I presented to Floo.
Then you haven't been looking. Here's Sassy just a few posts ago:
How many people believe in Jesus Christ throughout the world since he came?
How long have the belief in elves ride unicorns been around or they would be able to knock on the door riding a unicorn?
-
Sword,
But what if the worldview being used to claim something is fallacious is the wrong one?
Yesterday, I gave a mathematical puzzle: 1+1=10; true or false?
One person spotted where I was going with this and asked me to state the base: Correct!!
The statement is true if base 2 is being used but false if base 10 (or any other base) is used. It's a way of illustrating the importance of the worldview. Apply the wrong worldview to state the claim and you get the wrong answer.
No it isn't. The "world view" that rationalism is probabilistically a better guide to truths than just guessing isn't affected by that at all - the possible answers are still rationally obtained.
-
But what if the worldview being used to claim something is fallacious is the wrong one?
Yesterday, I gave a mathematical puzzle: 1+1=10; true or false?
One person spotted where I was going with this and asked me to state the base: Correct!!
The statement is true if base 2 is being used but false if base 10 (or any other base) is used. It's a way of illustrating the importance of the worldview. Apply the wrong worldview to state the claim and you get the wrong answer.
You seem confused - you using mathematics is just you using logic. Even if someone thought it mysterious the explanation is still logical just as a magician doing seemingly magical card tricks isn't actually doing 'magic': it looks that way to those not 'in' on the how - but there is a how.
You seem to have created your particular take on 'worldview' as a hook to hang your approach to theism on in much the same way as Alan Burns uses 'souls'.
-
Sword,
Then you haven't been looking. Here's Sassy just a few posts ago:
I think you missed the point of his/her post. Why are things that no-one believes in (or invented that don't exist) being compared with religious belief?
-
I think you missed the point of his/her post. Why are things that no-one believes in (or invented that don't exist) being compared with religious belief?
Because they are just as credible/not credible as the things attributed to the Biblical god.
-
Sword,
I think you missed the point of his/her post. Why are things that no-one believes in (or invented that don't exist) being compared with religious belief?
And now you make the same mistake!
What possible connection do you think there to be between the number of believers in a proposition and it probable truthfulness?
They're being compared because sometimes it's a useful rhetorical device. If, say, someone says "You can't disprove god, therefore god is real" (the negative proof fallacy) then the same argument can be expressed as, "You don't believe in leprechauns, therefore leprechauns are real". Whether a billion people believe in "God" and none believe in leprechauns (or vice versa) makes no difference for the purpose of the argument.
Blimey O'Reilly!