Quite a few home educating parents in this country are Christians who have chosen to educate their own children for religious reasons. They are probably a minority. In the USA though, this may well be the main strand of home education. The big homeschooling groups such as the HSLDA are firmly Christian in character. Parents who home educate because they are Christians often tend to look to the Bible for advice on how they should raise their children. I have no problem at all with this; it is pretty much what I did myself. There is a bit of a difficulty though, one I touched upon when responding to a comment yesterday from a guy in the States.
To begin with, I think it fair to say that many Christian parents, particularly in the USA, believe that physical punishment of children is a good form of discipline. The Bible backs them up in this. Proverbs 13:24 tells us ' He that spareth his rod hateth his son. There are many similar passages. Christian parents are also often opposed to sex education lessons in schools which teach that homosexuality and sex before marriage are OK. Again, there are a number of places in the Bible where such practices are condemned. As it happens, I also disapprove of homosexuality and premarital sex and so I can go along with these passages of scripture quite easily. Now for the difficulty.
There are two ways of looking at the Bible. One can view it as a collection of sayings, myths, historical anecdotes and genuine prophecy which must be sifted through carefully in order to find out what the Lord was really driving at. Or one can regard it as inerrant, the inspired word of God which must be taken pretty literally. Both options are fraught with pitfalls if we are going to use the Bible as our guide for day to day life, whether about home education or anything else.
I am obliged to my daughter here for some of what follows. She is a God-fearing young woman with strong views backed by a formidable command of scripture. Let us imagine first that we believe the Bible to be a collection of writings produced by fallible men. In this case, we cannot be sure that even a requirement to love our neighbour is the authentic word of God. We could hardly use writings from the bronze Age to justify either our condemnation of homosexuality, the practice of corporal punishment or our decision to home educate. Times change and much of what is contained in the Bible must be outdated by now.
Suppose though that we assume that the Bible is actually the inerrant word of God. This is better, because if it is all true then an injunction to punish our children physically must be an instruction from the Lord. Sounds reasonable, we can spank our children because the Bible tells us so. But hang on a minute, what's this? Deuteronomy 21:18 says that, 'If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother...' It goes on to tell us that we must take the boy to the city elders and that he will then be stoned to death. I am sure that even the most dedicated Christian home educator would not want to apply the death penalty to cheeky and uncooperative kids! Yet there it is, just as clear and specific as the injunctions to take a rod to our children. We fare no better when we use the Bible as an infallible guide to sexual morality. Many Christian home educators do not want their children exposed to the notion that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. The Bible forbids the practice strongly in both old and new testaments. 'A man shall not lie with other men as though they were women, it is an abomination'. Again, this is very clear. Wait though, I have just seen Deuteronomy 22:23. 'Suppose a man is caught in a town having intercourse with a woman who is engaged to someone else. You are to take them outside the town and stone them to death. the woman is to die because she did not cry out for help, although she was in a town where she could have been heard'. This also seems quite clear. If a man rapes some guy's fiancee, then the victim is to be executed. Sounds fair enough. After all, if I can spank my kid because the Bible tells me so, then surely the rules about rape victims should also be applied?
The Bible is a vast book containing a huge amount of information and sayings which cover practically everything one can imagine. We approach it with our own prejudices and preconceptions though. If I feel a distaste for homosexuality and look in the Bible, then lo and behold I can find a verse which conforms my views. If I were the sort of man who wished to hit his kid, I can find justification for that too. My daughter has drawn my attention to the fact that the New Testament specifically endorses Kosher slaughter and instructs all Christians to follow this tradition. At a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles, including Peter and Paul, decided to tell new converts who were not Jews how they should live. Acts 15:29 says that Christians should, 'eat no blood, eat no animal which has been strangled'. How many Christians today follow this explicit commandment form the apostles? Any Christians reading this who insist on Kosher meat?
I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and written by men. We must search carefully for the true message. To use it as justification for corporal punishment and the prohibition of homosexuality, as many Christian home educators do is very dangerous indeed. It can be a wonderful guide, but not if taken literally. I am aware that most English home educators will find all this pretty irrelevant, but while we were discussing Christian home education apropos of the Johansson case, I thought it worth going over this topic a little. Normal business will be resumed tommorow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you believe the Bible to be inspired by God and written by men, what criterion do you apply to decide which of its injunctions you need to follow and which you ignore?
ReplyDeleteJust curious.
You cut to the very heart of the matter suzyg. I must use my reason, prayer, the interpretation of the church and also my conscience. This makes it very hard to be dogmatic about anything which we might read in the Bible. If we're not careful, we just find ourselves using it to justify our own prejudices and give them respectability as the word of God!
ReplyDeleteshe is a God-fearing young woman with strong views backed by a formidable command of scripture.
ReplyDeletedid you force her to belive Webb? and does she except that most people dont belive in God in UK? we can tell this by the verylow numbers who go to church!
one good bit of news is that the Muslim faith is growing in the UK with high numbers going to mosque every day!
Indeed. Unfortunately, one person's reason, prayer, church and conscience might be another person's prejudice and ignorance. In my view the only way to decide what to do and what not to do is to look at evidence for the outcomes of courses of action.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible itself has done this, with doctrine and practice changing over time whilst the underlying principles remain constant. Marriage and divorce is good example.
So, Simon, is it reason, prayer, the church or your conscience that lead you to 'disapprove' of homosexuality? A mixture of all of those?
ReplyDeleteAh yes, Allie, I can see why you are irritated about this. The answer is of course that it is just my age and the weird prejudices which one often devlops with middle age. I certainly don't think that its a matter of conscience or religion! When I was younger, I did not feel that way and in fact used to be involved with the GLF.
ReplyDeleteNot really irritated, Simon. I long ago learned not to bother rising to even irritation unless the person 'disapproving' actually had any influence in my life. Just interested. Just your age, eh? I'm turning 40 this year. Hope I don't start developing weird prejudices. Are there any warning signs I can look out for?
ReplyDeleteSimon, what proof do you have of the existence of God? I'm just wondering if you have any more than anecdotal evidence. If not, have you ever considered that you might be guilty of sloppy thinking?
ReplyDeleteWe are atheist and one of the many reasons we had for pulling our child from school and not sending the next one was the religious content. We have no problem with others believing what they like as long as they don't inflict it on us or others that reject it.
ReplyDeleteOur impression was that the level of religious indoctrination in schools has increased since the '60s and '70s (along with a decline in rigour, particularly in science and maths). I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Amused by the contribution about the growth of the Muslim faith. From an outsider's perspective, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all look like squabbling sects belonging to the same group. It seems that whenever a particular faith group becomes dominant, it eventually forks into sects that are in violent opposition (literally, at least to begin with) and each claims unique and exclusive access to truth and righteousness.
ReplyDeleteToo complicated a subject for me to pontificate on today - too hot and supposed to be packing (to go and visit a camp for Christian home educators for the weekend - main theme of talks..."growing up Christian") I expect that there the hot topic of debate will be how much Latin to introduce into the curriculum.... hardly likely to be a breeding ground for revolution/diobeying the governing authorities.
ReplyDeleteI would add though that although I do believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, we live under grace, not OT laws, which, for whatver reason they existed then, don't apply directly now. So no stoning of anyone for anything (other parts of the world should perhaps notice this). Secondly although there may be circumstances in which the laws of the UK come into direct opposition to the laws of God, we are also obigated "to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's etc" -s thus far in my 50+ years of life I haven't had to face a direct choice. If the Govt starts passing laws requiring me to bow down to an idol, or anything else that is in directly contrary to the Word of God, then I have to face that decision, but it hasn't happened yet! I might not approve of some laws (eg Abortion Act 1967) but that doesn't make me free to disobey the speeding laws, for example.
Back to the suitcases
As usual Julie, you adopt the common sense position.
ReplyDelete"Simon, what proof do you have of the existence of God? "
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly no proof, but rather an overwhelming amount of evidence. The very finely balanced way the the Bog Bang took place during the period of inflation. A hundred billionth of a part different in either direction and the early Universe would have collapsed at once or simply flown apart. The resonence of carbon when it is synthesised inside stars, particularly considering its importance for the development of life. The wonderful balance between the forces of nature such as the strong nuclear force, elctro-maganetism and gravity. The appearance of consciousness in the Universe. All these suggest that something more than a bunch of random particles is involved in the world. The fact that every one of us has a conscience is also pretty interesting. All over the world, in every society on can imagine, people know that it is wrong to steal, lie and various other things.
From a theological point of view, it would be a very bad thing is God actually gave us 'proof'. This would remove our free will. As it is, we can ignore God if we wish and do all sorts of bad things. Imagine though if God decided to remove that element of doubt about his existence. Most people would then feel obliged to be good and obey the moral law. It is that very uncertainty which allows us the freedom to choose good over evil.
"Our impression was that the level of religious indoctrination in schools has increased since the '60s and '70s (along with a decline in rigour, particularly in science and maths). I'd be interested to hear what others think."
ReplyDeleteI agree about the decline in rigour, at least at seconday level, but not about religious indoctrination. I think this depends very much on the individual school. There are church primary schools which do quite a lot of indoctrinating (one of my children went to one for a while), but no more than I had at my church school in the 60's. There are, of course, faith schools. But my impression is that most state schools teach much more about religions other than Christianity than they did back then, without indoctrination about any faith in particular.
I think that schools vary a great deal in how they teach/include religion. I have a niece and nephew who went to a primary school with a religious headteacher and it was very much in evidence - little pamphlets about Jesus coming home in book bags etc. Another niece is in year seven at a local secondary where her RE lesson yesterday was watching a film called Evan Almighty. She said her humanities teacher is really a geography teacher and he's just squeezing in RE at the end of term.
ReplyDeleteBack in the 80s I did an O level in what was then Religious Studies (won the 'scripture cup' much to the horror of my atheist family!)and it was interesting enough. Learning about religion is part of learning about life. But there's a difference between teaching about religion and teaching children that certain religious beliefs are the truth. That's fine in families, of course, but I'm not too keen on my tax money funding schools where that goes on.
"There is certainly no proof, but rather an overwhelming amount of evidence."
ReplyDeleteInteresting argument. I'm an agnostic, when it comes to God, although perhaps perversely I do believe in spirituality. I think there's as much, or as little, evidence for any faith as for any other, from buddhism to paganism to pantheism. I choose to believe that there is a reason for the existence of the universe, and for consciousness, because it suits me better than believing that there is no reason. I have had many experiences which I choose to see as evidence for my belief, but I am aware that these experiences could be interpreted, and are by many people, as nothing more than quirks of brain chemistry.
Another of my beliefs (for which I have ample evidence in the form of personal experience, and which makes sense to me in terms of the evolution of the human race) is that children are innately social and innately curious, and that given the opportunity, they will choose to learn what they need to know in order to become fully functioning members of society. This is why I believe in autonomous education. I don't understand why you think this belief is any more "sloppy" or "touchy-feely" than your own belief in the existence of God. Can you explain?
Simon said: "There is certainly no proof, but rather an overwhelming amount of evidence. The very finely balanced way ..."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid this line of argument doesn't hold water; the circumstances that prevailed could have been very different and a different universe with a different balance might have evolved. We evolved to fit the circumstances. Before us, stars that generate elements - including Carbon - up to Iron - evolved to fit the prevailing physics.
Natural selection applies in physical systems as well as biological ones, so we don't see the consequences of a different set of fundamental constants because we depend on the initial conditions in our universe.
There are many evolutionary dead-ends that we don't see; there are also many possibilities where completely different physical systems might arise and something akin to life (with reproduction, growth, self-organisation etc.) follows. You only have to consider the diversity of life on earth as an example of what happens with a given set of physical properties.
In any case, if you consider our own universe on a much longer timescale - say 10^1000 years - it might look like a dead end in which nothing much is happening other than a few lone photons zipping about and most of the mass is in black holes (or something completely different, depending on things we don't understand yet).
There is no "overwhelming evidence" for a deity in any of this; instead, people would do better to try to gain a rigorous understanding of complex physical systems and they way in which they evolve. It's fun and more useful.
When I was at school, it wasn't even called RE. It was called 'scripture' and that's all that we used to study; the Bible. This was not a church school, but an ordinary state school in the early sixties. Christianity only takes up a small part of the syllabus now and Islam often gets a larger slice of the time. Possibly because many teachers are atheists and feel uneasy talking about God.
ReplyDeleteSimon said: "I also disapprove of homosexuality".
ReplyDeleteWhat's your view on those sinister left-handed johnnies? Perhaps you're even one yourself?
I'm fine with learning about different cultures, but our child - in an ordinary state school - was saying prayers four or five times a day; no uneasiness about talking about god there. For this and other reasons we pulled the plug.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Possibly because many teachers are atheists and feel uneasy talking about God."
Not enough of them in my book.
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"In any case, if you consider our own universe on a much longer timescale - say 10^1000 years - it might look like a dead end in which nothing much is happening other than a few lone photons zipping about and most of the mass is in black holes".
Sounds a little like parts of Essex already.
"Perhaps you're even one yourself?"
ReplyDeleteWell of course that is very common with the sort of people who are hostile to homosexuality. In my case I think it is more just getting older. Back in 1972 I belonged to the GLF and was quite active in this field. Somehow, the appeal of the thing, like my taste for noisy pop music, has waned over the years until these days both get on my nerves. I have over the years moved towards the perspective that children are best raised by their biological parents in a stable relationship, ie marriage. Of course I used to feel very differently about this as well, because I spent a lot of time in the late sixties and early seventies living in communes, where things were done somewhat differently.
We all of us change as we get older and our tastes change too. I am teetotal these days, but was once a very heavy drinker. So although at one time I might have engaged in heavy drinking, pre-marital and gay sex or listening to Crosby Stills Nash and Young; these days I have other interests. The chances that I am going to hop in the sack with another guy these days are about the same as finding me smoking dope while listening to Hawkwind!
"Sounds a little like parts of Essex already."
ReplyDeleteNot the part we live in.
"When I was at school, it wasn't even called RE. It was called 'scripture' and that's all that we used to study; the Bible."
ReplyDeleteWhen you went to school there was no National Curriculum. It could be that the headteacher at your school had strong religious beliefs and influenced the curriculum in that direction. Other schools would have taken a completely different approach.
"In any case, if you consider our own universe on a much longer timescale - say 10^1000 years - it might look like a dead end in which nothing much is happening other than a few lone photons zipping about and most of the mass is in black holes (or something completely different, depending on things we don't understand yet)."
ReplyDeleteEven in this empty Universe, stealing and telling lies would still be wrong.
"There is no "overwhelming evidence" for a deity in any of this; instead, people would do better to try to gain a rigorous understanding of complex physical systems and they way in which they evolve. It's fun and more useful."
These two activities are not mutually exclusive. One can study physics and cosmology and also theology. There can be no contradiction between the two disciplines. Indeed, if I find my science in conflict with my religious beliefs, then there is something wrong somewhere. You speak as though science were one thing and religion another.
"When you went to school there was no National Curriculum. It could be that the headteacher at your school had strong religious beliefs and influenced the curriculum in that direction."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is just that calling the subject RE or RK was not as common fifty years ago. It was simply called Scripture. Even those studying it for O level only covered the Bible.
"Even those studying it for O level only covered the Bible."
ReplyDeleteWhat was the O level called?
"No, it is just that calling the subject RE or RK was not as common fifty years ago."
ReplyDeleteHow do you know? Did you carry out a survey as part of a maths project maybe?
"Even in this empty Universe, stealing and telling lies would still be wrong."
ReplyDeleteNow that is a wild conjecture if ever I saw one!
"These two activities are not mutually exclusive. One can study physics and cosmology and also theology."
Of course, but nevertheless, the evidence for the existence of God is no more overwhelming than the evidence for his non-existence.
"The chances that I am going to hop in the sack with another guy these days are about the same as finding me smoking dope while listening to Hawkwind!"
lol! That conjures up an interesting picture!
Now, have you anything to say in response to my question about autonomous education?
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"These two activities are not mutually exclusive. One can study physics and cosmology and also theology. "
That's certainly true - indeed I knew someone that did this and there are other cases. However, when you say:
"You speak as though science were one thing and religion another."
I respond that they are most definitely different. Some religious people (including some scientists) have a tendency to cherry-pick science - as you did when you raised the point about the "balance" of physical constants - and use it as "evidence" for a deity.
That is intellectual hypocrisy because they won't allow the scientific method to be applied to religion by posing testable hypotheses about god.
Of course, religion is based on faith and I accept that many people are happy to believe without evidence - I can get along fine with them, agreeing to disagree - but don't try to claim that there is any evidence coming from science. On the contrary, I'd go so far as to say that theology is about sifting, selecting and burying evidence so that a chosen doctrine prevails.
"by posing testable hypotheses about god."
ReplyDeleteThere are no testable hypotheses about God. One can make an hypothesis about anything in the Universe. Once you start talking about things outside the Universe or before it, no hypothesis can be constructed, even in theory.
"Of course, religion is based on faith"
On the contrary, religion is based upon evidence. Before I can even consider whether the Bible might be reliable, I need to know a lot about archeology and history. I need to know about the dating of ancient manuscripts, how reliable the transmission of oral tradition can be; masses of things. It is the same with the nature of the Univers. I must examine it carefully and see whether there is anything about it which suggests a creator. If I think that I have found evidence, then I must next search for evidence against the idea of a creator. Faith does not really enter into it too much, at least no more than when we try and decide if we believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory. By the way, these two are almost impossible to test, just like the existence of God. You certainly can't prove them; simply accumulate evidence until the balance of probabilities tells you that you might be on the right track.
"I'd go so far as to say that theology is about sifting, selecting and burying evidence so that a chosen doctrine prevails."
Anybody burying, suppressing or ignoring evidence is not a theologist.
"Another of my beliefs (for which I have ample evidence in the form of personal experience, and which makes sense to me in terms of the evolution of the human race) is that children are innately social and innately curious, and that given the opportunity, they will choose to learn what they need to know in order to become fully functioning members of society. "
ReplyDeleteThat children are innately curious is undeniable. That left to themselves they will learn all that they need to function in society is less certain. That leaving them to choose what they learn rather than follow a curriculum is better educationally is an interesting idea, but the evidence is sparse.
Many Christians often make the mistake of thinking that they can spank children because of 'spare the rod and spoil the child'. However, Shepherds did not use rods or staffs to beat sheep, they used them to guide and protect them. I am a Christian mother and I guide my children and protect them. Jesus did not beat people and neither do I. Also Psalm 23:4 says 'your rod and your staff, they comfort me'. This is surely not because people are being beaten with them, but because they are being protected and shown the way.
ReplyDelete"That leaving them to choose what they learn rather than follow a curriculum is better educationally is an interesting idea, but the evidence is sparse."
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I have ample evidence in the form of personal experience, not only of my children, but of many other autonomously educated young people. I also have evidence in the form of the survival and evolution of the human race for millions of years before curricula were invented. This may not satisfy you, but your evidence for the existence of God is no more satisfying to me, and in my opinion it is very sparse indeed. Certainly, I have never met God, I have never met anyone else who has, and I have never seen a video of him, or even read a book or an email about a meeting with him, whereas I have met, face-to-face, plenty of fully functioning young people who have been autononmously educated, and seen evidence that there are many more who I have not met in person.
However, I do not have a blog with a profile which states, "I cannot abide sloppy thinking and touchy-feely lifestyles, which is probably why I do not get on particularly well with Christians", and in which I frequently make inaccurate and unsubstantiated comments about the shortcomings of Christians and Christianity, and I do not believe that Christian home educators should be monitored by the state to ensure that they are not misleading their children about the origin of the universe. Each to his own.
"You certainly can't prove them; simply accumulate evidence until the balance of probabilities tells you that you might be on the right track."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what I did with autonomous education. But I don't expect anyone else to come to the same conclusion. I don't impose my opinions on them, and I don't want them to impose theirs on me.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Faith does not really enter into it too much, at least no more than when we try and decide if we believe in evolution or the Big Bang theory. By the way, these two are almost impossible to test, just like the existence of God. You certainly can't prove them"
Likening the intellectual process involved in modern physics, astronomy and cosmology to anything that happens in theology and religion is arrant nonsense.
Religion is founded entirely on faith - including dubious interpretation of stories made-up long after events that probably never happened.
Scientific hypotheses aren't proven but become useful theories if they offer tests that withstand scrutiny by experimentation and measurement.
When you were a child the Big Bang had a strong competitor in the form of the Steady State hypothesis; both made predictions about the density evolution of radio sources at cosmological distances and Steady State failed. In addition, Big Bang theory also predicted an afterglow of the explosion - detected serendipitously in the form of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
Refinements to Big Bang theory - in particular inflation - make very detailed predictions about the frequency distribution of spatial fluctuations in the CMB. Measurement of the most exquisite precision using the COBE satellite have verified this prediction.
At some point, theories break down; for example, Newton's theory of motion of gravity work very well and are still adequate for designing bridges, cars and spacecraft, and for understanding planets and galaxies. However, under extreme conditions or very fine measurement (the kind or precision required for the Global Positioning System), Newton fails and and new theories - Einstein's Special and General Relativity - took its place.
All of this involves intellectual effort and rigour that towers above anything you will find in religion and theology. Believe what you like for your own comfort, but don't promote it on a par with science.
"Religion is founded entirely on faith - including dubious interpretation of stories made-up long after events that probably never happened."
ReplyDeleteThis is a truly breathtakingly bizarre view of religion! Religion does not start with faith. Faith is the final step which comes from following where the evidence leads. Of course we interpret stories which may have been made up after the event. Historians do this as well; that's how we know about the lives of people like Socrates. Just because the stories were not set down at the time, does not mean that they are all false. One has to bring reason to the whole business. By your view above, we would know nothing of the past at all, because an awful lot of history consists of what you call stories made up long after the events.
"Scientific hypotheses aren't proven but become useful theories if they offer tests that withstand scrutiny by experimentation and measurement."
This is a very crude and horribly simplified description of the scientific process. The Standard theory relies upon such things as the Higgs Boson, something for which there is no evidence at all. We hope that the evidence will emerge at some time in the future. Similarly the Multiverse concept is an idea like God for which we can never have any evidence, let alone proof. It does not stop some respectable astronomers like Martin Rees from touting it as though it were actually a scientific idea."
"Believe what you like for your own comfort,"
Absolutely baffled by this comment! Why should my religion be a comfort? Life would be a good deal easier without a belief in God. It would mean that we were free to lie and cheat as much as we pleased without feeling at all guilty about it. I don't believe in life after death, so I am not likely to get any reward for doing the right thing. There is certainly no reward for virtue in this world. What advantage would there be to my subscribing to this belief system; it is of no benefit to me and actually gets in my way?
"Life would be a good deal easier without a belief in God. It would mean that we were free to lie and cheat as much as we pleased without feeling at all guilty about it."
ReplyDeleteWhy? I don't believe in God but I also don't feel free to lie and cheat. Do you only avoid lying and cheating because you fear God's punishment? Do you think it's impossible to be moral without faith?
"Do you only avoid lying and cheating because you fear God's punishment? Do you think it's impossible to be moral without faith?"
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth has God's punishment got to do with the case? I do not believe that God punishes or rewards anybody, either in this world or the next. We all have a conscience which tells us the difference between right and wrong. It is possible to over-ride this safety device, but we are ill advised to do so. See the maker's instruction manual!
The conscience can be suppressed or it can be tuned up like a racing car engine. Usually, the more aware that people are of the origin of this mechanism, the more attention they pay to it.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"This is a very crude and horribly simplified description of the scientific process. The Standard theory relies upon such things as the Higgs Boson, something for which there is no evidence at all..."
I should own up to nearly twenty years experience of the sort of thing I've been talking about, so I have some idea of how simple - or otherwise - the whole process is (yet another of those pesky PhDs).
The Higgs boson is a fine example of a prediction based on an accumulation of evidence, refinement and testing of theory and development of a new hypothesis - all using a great deal of sophisticated maths and physics.
If detected, Higgs will validate an incredibly sophisticated theory using an experiment on a grand scale. If not, then there will have to be a rethink but it won't be the end of the world.
The Higgs boson is yet another testable hypothesis, following in a long line of things - such as the quarks - predicted by the very successful standard model of particle physics.
Nevertheless, there are areas where new ideas - some of which challenge the standard model - may be necessary, particularly if gravity is to be included as part of a single fundamental model. That's a quest that hasn't succeeded in ~80 years of trying.
"Similarly the Multiverse concept is an idea like God for which we can never have any evidence, let alone proof."
On the contrary; multiverse models with testable consequences may be closer than you think - certainly not the 5000 years and counting for the supporters of the abrahamic god conjecture to come up with anything we can test! See, e.g., Linde and Vanchurin, http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1589 (and in case you're wondering, it's in a heavy-weight peer-reviewed journal - PhysRevD - none of your arty-farty stuff)
I think you're trying to elevate theology and religious studies to the level of history; I suspect most historians would be horrified by any such connection.
Development of religious belief doesn't come anywhere close to any of this. You're on a hiding to nothing, which is why I say stick to faith, it's the least irrational approach.
Do you believe in "evidence" such as raising the dead, turning water into wine etc? I'm not sure that the standards of evidence there are particularly strong. If you don't believe these literally, then what do you believe to be evidence?
"Do you believe in "evidence" such as raising the dead, turning water into wine etc? I'm not sure that the standards of evidence there are particularly strong. If you don't believe these literally, then what do you believe to be evidence?"
ReplyDeleteI have never in my life met anybody who was persuaded into faith by miracles and I am dubious about those you cite.
" following in a long line of things - such as the quarks - predicted by the very successful standard model of particle physics."
And of course there have been a whole string of other things such as tachyons and magnetic monopoles which have been quietly dropped. The Higgs Boson may well fall into this category. At the moment it is a useful hypothesis. As for the Multiverse, this is quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator.
You seem obsessed with the concept of faith, although do not seem to know what it means. I suspect we mean different things by it. If you mean a blind and obstinate belief in something, possibly in the teeth of the evidence, then this is not at all what I or any modern person in the western world means by the word. Religious faith is the culmination of the examination of the evidence. Faith which is not founded on the scientific view of the world is simply a nonsense. Perhaps you have been reading some outdated books on the subject. You mentioned the Steady State Theory earlier. Your ideas on theology are a bit like that. I feel the way you might if you met somebody who was only familiar with the ideas of cosmolgy from around the late 40's and did not know that the contest between the Steady State and Big Bang was over. I could recommend a few modern books on theology, these would enable you to make your discussions on the topic a little more relevant.
"What on earth has God's punishment got to do with the case? I do not believe that God punishes or rewards anybody, either in this world or the next."
ReplyDeleteWhy would life be easier without a belief in God then? If it's not fear of punishment (even if the punishment is only the disapproval of your God), why would his absence mean that you are free to lie and cheat without feeling guilty? Would I only feel guilty about lying and cheating because God exists even though I don't believe in him?
I used to have conversations like this in the 6th form common room, with a vicar's daughter. She was very intelligent, but there came a point in every discussion when logic and intellectual rigour left the room and only faith remained. I really don't mean to offend anyone here who has faith; I have already said that I choose to believe in spirituality myself; but to claim that there is overwhelming *evidence* for the existence of a creator is nonsense. All the Bible gives us is evidence that people like Jesus and his followers *believed* that God existed, and interpreted their experience in the light of their belief. There are many other possible explanations for those experiences, and for every mystical experience that has ever been. None of the reasons you gave, Simon, for your belief in intelligent design is actually evidence of any such thing. You believe that it is, that's all.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the only reason humans care for other humans is the existence of God? Without God humans would not have a conscience? There are no other reasons such as evolutionary benefits, for instance?
ReplyDeleteSorry, the 16:12 post should have been part of the 16:10 post but ended up sandwiching the other anonymous' post at 16:11.
ReplyDelete"Religious faith is the culmination of the examination of the evidence. Faith which is not founded on the scientific view of the world is simply a nonsense."
ReplyDeleteIn that case, you should be able to convince me of the existence of God. Go ahead. I'd really like you to. My parents were believers and I've been examining the evidence for most of my life. I would love to have their certainty.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"As for the Multiverse, this is quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."
So you seem to have a problem with it because it might push your "creator" out of the way. Tell me about this creator; what questions are we allowed to ask about it? Can we ask about its origin? Why do you feel the need to invoke something so complicated when, for centuries, rational thought has been able to gradually eliminate the "need" for a deity from more and more of our world?
Why do you say "quietly dropped" in talking about monopoles and tachyons? Are you trying to imply something surreptitious? Given that - as is so often the case - you are further out of your depth than a BP oil well, perhaps you should spend some time trying to understand a little about the words you are using.
Tachyons have never really found a very strong requirement in any theory - they were hypothesized, theoretical constraints were placed upon them and in some forms they may be useful, but most of the theoretical weight is against them and there is no experimental evidence.
Magnetic monopoles have certainly not been "quietly dropped"; if they don't exist, that could be a problem, but they are also likely to too heavy to be seen in any particle accelerator that one can build and naturally rare. In this sense, the name "God particle" should perhaps have been applied to the monopole rather than the Higgs boson.
So, nothing sinister here - but some things are very, very difficult.
"Religious faith is the culmination of the examination of the evidence"
I'm aware that there has been a move - one might say a wriggling - from a position of faith-based belief in god to the idea that religion is evidence based - religion is nothing if not adaptable - but that shift simply means transferring faith from god to "evidence".
I am not convinced in the least. The evidence is decidedly shaky, the interpretation usually biased and the conclusions offer no way of disproof by testing. This is a sham - a dressing-up of theology to appear more like science when it is nothing of the sort.
"Why do you feel the need to invoke something so complicated when, for centuries, rational thought has been able to gradually eliminate the "need" for a deity from more and more of our world?"
ReplyDeleteI love this one! Perhaps it is time to apply Occam's razor. We have a puzzle; why does the Universe seem so wonderfully designed, fine tuned if you like for the emergence of life and consciousness. There are only three possible explanations. The first is that this is sheer chance; it just happened that way. The second explanation is that it was indeed designed by God. Until a few years agoo, the first explanation was the one favoured by many atheists; that's just the way it is. In the last twenty or thirty years, as we discovered more about the nature of the Universe, the first fraction of a second after it began, the conditions of inflation and so on; this hypothesis beagn to look a little far fetched. Combined with work on the sub-atomic level and an increasing realisation of just how perfectly balanced the forces of nature are, it became almost as far fetched to invoke chance as an explanation as it did to posit a creator. The answer was a third explanation; the Multi-verse. If there were an infinite number of other Universes, all with random physical laws, then obviously at least some would be hospitable to life and the emergence of consciousness. This did away with the need to imagine that our own Universe was special, it was just one of many.
This explanation is the ultimate violation of Occam's Razor. We observe one Universe and hypothesise that there are many more. We can never see them, interact with them or have any evidence for their existence though. As you said yourself, " Why do you feel the need to invoke something so complicated...?" Which is the simpler explanation, that there is one Univers or many? Some feel that to suggest an infinite number of other universes is a more complicated explanation than a single Deity.
This is not science. It is an attempt to wriggle out of where the evidence leads. As regards faith, I gave the example of the Magnetic Monopole for that very reason, to show that scientists also have various types of faith. After the February 14th 1982 event, everybody had the same evidence but the belief in the reality of the observation depended less on the evidence and more on the strength of faith in the theory. I'm sure you must remember this.
"Why would life be easier without a belief in God then? "
ReplyDeleteBecause without a belief in God we can ignore our conscience. We can over-ride it and claim that it is just some strange evolutionary mechanism or perhaps an accumulation of guilt and neurosis from our early childhood. We all feel the urgings of conscience, how we react to them depends upon what we believe to be the origin of the thing.
"In that case, you should be able to convince me of the existence of God. Go ahead. I'd really like you to."
ReplyDeleteIf only the complicated matters in life were that easy. Very often, evidence points in several directions and we have to make a choice between the two options. Think about the idea of plate tectonics. The evidence seemed plain that continents don't drift about all over the place. To some people, the evidence seemed to indicate that they did. During the 50s. all scientists had access to the same evidence, it just pointed in one direction for some and in another for others. In essence, it was necessary to take a leap of faith in choosing one theory over another. This is often the case, both in science and theology. The evidence takes you to a certain point and then you have to make a decision. The important thing is that your decision is not contradicted by the evidence. Any sort of faith which ignores or goes against the available evidence is not faith but idiocy.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps it is time to apply Occam's razor."
Oh dear; put it down, it's sharp and you'll cut yourself! There are lots of other tools you should learn to use first. Unfortunately you seem to have spent too much time getting stoned, listening to very loud music and contenting yourself with softer subjects where verbiage can change or solve everything - or not. Wikipedia and TV don't hold all the answers - neither does science but it has a good record on making progress - often two steps forward and one step back.
However, if you don't see the difference in complexity between a sentient creator and multiverses or other hypothetical concepts then there is very little point in arguing with you.
Many concepts in fundamental physics - like the monopole - have remained on the hypothetical list for decades, but often they're part of a larger theoretical framework which works well in many other ways, so there is strong justification for "faith" in the unseen thing - for the time being. The Higgs boson was predicted over forty years ago but only now are we approaching a definite test. Still, a lot less than 5000 years.
The point about science is that its proponents constantly strive to devise tests and eventually, these tests either validate a hypothesis or theory or contradict it and new thinking is required. This does not happen overnight and not always perfectly.
As I pointed-out earlier, Newton appeared to be perfectly correct for a while - almost 200 years, in fact - but eventually failed experimental tests.
The same thing will happen with current theories - perhaps the monopole will be the breaking point, perhaps not. The same is true of multiverses; the same was true of the heliocentric view versus the geocentric one.
I think that even the catholic church has progressed beyond your position and understands that the sensible thing to do is to retreat. I'd prefer total capitulation but they aren't pretending to do science from a position of ignorance in the the way you are. In fact, science alone can't harm them anymore.
The great irony in all of this is that Newton's theory laid the foundation for technological development that - amongst one or two other thing - advanced humanity to the point where it could devise and perform a test of the required precision. The fundamental physics of the 19th and 20th century allows you to put your views out to a wider audience. Unfortunately it often seems that paleolithic man did much better with cave paintings at least 17 millennia ago.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete""Why would life be easier without a belief in God then?"
Because without a belief in God we can ignore our conscience."
Why would the existence of God stop you ignoring your conscience if you do not believe he will punish or reward you (including disapproval and disappointment in you on God's part as punishment)?
"Unfortunately you seem to have spent too much time getting stoned, listening to very loud music and contenting yourself with softer subjects where verbiage can change or solve everything - or not. Wikipedia and TV don't hold all the answers "
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Ad hominem attacks like this are the infallible sign of somebody who has exhausted the stock of rational argument. I wondered how long this would take. For an objective person, the idea of a great number of invisible spirits such as angels, demons and the souls of the dead hovering around is a very strange one. These entities cannot be seen, their existence can never be demonstrated, we can never verify their presence. For most of us, this is sheer nonsense. Some people however believe in this foolishness; they have a belief for which there is literally no evidence. The latest scientific version of these invisible entities is even more amazing. It involves not invisible angels, but invisible universes. An infinite number of them in fact, which can never be observed, with which we shall never be able to interact and whose existence must be taken on faith alone.
I am a raional persons and I see little to choose between these two ideas. I regard those who believe in the invisible spirits as a little craacked and have much the same view about those who would pretend to conjure up an infinite host of universes. Both are unnecessary complications and a hideous multiplication of entities without necessity. However I am happy for those who wish to, to believe in either notion. As long as we realise that neither is scientific, no harm is done.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Excellent. Ad hominem attacks..."
Nonsense; I see you're still resorting to the same moth-eaten old kit bag of meta-arguments. You left an open goal with your earlier admissions. Don't try to throw the ball out of the net.
"I am a raional person..."
You frequently ask for peer-reviewed studies, yet when I presented you with one (of many) you can only attack the concept as "quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."
What's the problem Simon - too hard to deal with or perhaps you can't find "the answer" in Wikipedia? There are no easy answers here Simon. I'm agnostic so far as multiverses are concerned and always uneasy about scientific conjectures without tests, whereas you seem to claim deeper insight without any scientific experience at the same time as invoking a creator. Very rational, I don't think.
I have a degree of respect for religion based on faith; that seems to give people a strength of character which often enables them to do great things far beyond their religion. I don't share their beliefs but they don't pretend to force science to fit dogma - indeed, some scientists fall into this category.
Your approach, on the other hand, tries to dictate which elements of science are right or wrong. The catholic church learned its lesson on this with Galileo, finding itself dangerously exposed. They've been careful to avoid this ever since.
You'd do well to take a leaf out of their book rather than embroiling yourself in things way out of your league. We may not have easy answers - science is not like that - but trying, as you do, to answer fundamental scientific questions by resorting to a creator is, to use your words, sloppy thinking. Show us your evidence with testable predictions or stick to faith.
"perhaps you can't find "the answer" in Wikipedia?"
ReplyDeleteAnother ad hominem attack. See my comments on this method of argument above. From your remarks, it is pretty clear that your field is not physics. May I ask what it is? I have been a regular reader of New Scientist for something over forty years now and it seems to me from the way you fail to pick up some of my allusions that your knowledge of physics is probably shallower and more recent than my own. The Maganetic Monopole controversy was one example. I get the distinct feeling that you are yourself frantically googling to find out what I am talking about!
"but trying, as you do, to answer fundamental scientific questions by resorting to a creator"
You answer fundamental scientific questins by the application of science, not religion. I have no idea what you are talking about here or where you get this idea. Possibly from an outdated book on popular theology. How would you possibly answer a scientific question by resorting to a creator? More research needed on that one I fancy.
"Very often, evidence points in several directions and we have to make a choice between the two options."
ReplyDeleteSuch as the existence or non-existence of God?
"all scientists had access to the same evidence, it just pointed in one direction for some and in another for others."
Yes, that's what I said. Some people see evidence for intelligent design, others see evidence against it. The evidence is the same in both cases; it is the interpretation that differs.
"In essence, it was necessary to take a leap of faith in choosing one theory over another."
Yes, you've got it. A leap of faith is involved. Religious faith is not just "the culmination of the examination of the evidence". It is this, plus the leap of faith. At least, that's what I think you're saying.
"Faith which is not founded on the scientific view of the world is simply a nonsense."
Well, yes. Faith that flies in the face of the evidence is clearly nonsense. But faith that takes the evidence and leaps to one conclusion out of a number of equally likely ones, is not more credible just because it is "evidence-based". Take an example: male African-Caribbean children in the UK tend to do worse at school than other children. This is the evidence. There are many ways of interpreting it, all of which involve making an evidence-based hypothesis. One of these is that male african-caribbeans are stupid. At this stage, with the evidence that is available, this hypothesis is as likely to be true as any other evidence-based one. So far so good.
Now, the problem with the God hypothesis is that you accept it, at exactly this point in the process, as the truth (make a "leap of faith", which is another way of saying leaping to a conclusion), when in fact there is a number of other possible evidence-based theories available which are just as likely to be true. You said this:
"As for the Multiverse, this is quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."
Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but you appear to mean something like the following:
"Why bother to think of any more possible explanations for the fine tuning of the natural world when we already have the God hypothesis, which is the correct one?"
Apply the same thought process to my African-Caribbean example: why bother going any further than the obvious truth that African-caribbean males are inferior?
Do you see the problem here?
You said this:
"The important thing is that your decision is not contradicted by the evidence."
Yes, that's *an* important thing. But it's not *the* important thing. One much more important thing is that you do not see your leap of faith as the final step in the process, and therefore conclude that other evidence-based hypotheses are obviously wrong because yours is right. Making the hypothesis is not the end of the process, it is the beginning.
I think I've finally worked out why you are so prejudiced against autonomous education; you've used the same sloppy, quasi-intellectual process to convince yourself that there is overwhelming evidence that you are right and we are wrong. And then you use this belief to argue that because your theory is right, ours must be wrong. Very rigorous.
"Yes, you've got it. A leap of faith is involved. Religious faith is not just "the culmination of the examination of the evidence". It is this, plus the leap of faith. At least, that's what I think you're saying."
ReplyDeleteWhen the evidence is ambiguous, as it often is in the real world, people take a jump and choose one theory against another. I think you mentioned earlier the Big bang/Steady State controversy in the early fifties. The evidence at that time was such that both theories fitted well. Some chose one side and then stuck to it very enthusiastically. Fred Hoyle hung on to it right up until his death a few years ago. When new evidence emerged, in this case the microwave background, wise people changed their theories. To plump for the Big Bang or the Steady State side required a leap of faith, precisely as the decision to opt for belief in the Deity does. The evidence supports either point of view and until new evidence comes along, either hypothesis is perfectly good. Atheists and theists are both equally likely to be right; there is no rational way of choosing between theories.
"Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but you appear to mean something like the following:
"Why bother to think of any more possible explanations for the fine tuning of the natural world when we already have the God hypothesis, which is the correct one?"
I have no idea at all if my idea is the correct one. It fits the facts as well as the alternatives. I simply can't see the point of devising a new hypothesis which is more complicated than what we currently have and which can never be proved, even in theory. It would be as though I suggested a new theory that the planets were being pushed around their orbits by angels. They are invisible and we can never demonstrate their existence, but it would explain the observed motion. This would be an unnecessary hypothesis. Most hypotheses are if they are unprovable.
"One much more important thing is that you do not see your leap of faith as the final step in the process, and therefore conclude that other evidence-based hypotheses are obviously wrong because yours is right. Making the hypothesis is not the end of the process, it is the beginning."
This depends. If there is a possibility that new evidence might emerge in the future to prove or discredit an hypothesis, then this is certainly the right attitude. This is not really the case with some things in the physical world. Raidoactive decay happens because it happens. There are no hidden variables which we might one day discover; it is just in the nature of the world that the precise time that one particle will decay is unknowable. The creation of the Universe is a bit like this. We can certainly calculate further and further back and we have a pretty good idea of the intial conditions a tiny fraction of a second after it came into existence. In effect, we know about all that we are likely to know about the event. This is because in the very early stages, quantum events were involved, which means that we cannot really say this happened because of that. A consequence of this is that the hypothesis you choose about what was going on there is not likely to be disproved by future evidence. This does not of course make my idea right and yours wrong. All we can say is that one of us is wrong but we will never be able to say which of us it is!
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Another ad hominem attack..."
If you insist on refusing to deal with the issue by providing testable evidence and instead write nonsense then don't get upset when you take flak. You don't have a line of argument; your allusions are more like illusions.
"From your remarks, it is pretty clear that your field is not physics."
Then you are quite wrong and it is clear that you have a very tenuous understanding of physics and the reality of science generally (New Scientist won't be of very much help to you; it has declined severely).
"You answer fundamental scientific questins by the application of science, not religion. I have no idea what you are talking about here or where you get this idea."
This is breathtaking, given that you suggested that a fine balance in the Big Bang was part of the "overwhelming amount of evidence" for the the existence of god - your words.
This balance poses an interesting scientific question; it's not an excuse to invoke a creator as you did. It provides no evidence for God; will you retract it (I suspect you won't) and recognise that you have no evidence, instead of trying to disguise the issue with a lot of irrational bluster?
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Another ad hominem attack..."
If you insist on refusing to deal with the issue by providing testable evidence and instead write nonsense then don't get upset when you take flak. You don't have a line of argument; your allusions are more like illusions.
"From your remarks, it is pretty clear that your field is not physics."
Then you are quite wrong and it is clear that you have a very tenuous understanding of physics and the reality of science generally (New Scientist won't be of very much help to you; it has declined severely).
"You answer fundamental scientific questins by the application of science, not religion. I have no idea what you are talking about here or where you get this idea."
This is breathtaking, given that you suggested that a fine balance in the Big Bang was part of the "overwhelming amount of evidence" for the the existence of god - your words.
This balance poses an interesting scientific question; it's not an excuse to invoke a creator as you did. It provides no evidence for God; will you retract it (I suspect you won't) and recognise that you have no evidence, instead of trying to disguise the issue with a lot of irrational bluster?
I would have to agree with you about New Scientist. It used to be quite a respectable magazine. I used to read it back in the sixties when it had the old blue and white cover. the rot set in when they began putting pictures on the cover! Don't get me started on that one. I mentioned it not because it's where I get most of my scientific knowledge, but to draw a comparison with the current interest in the Higgs Boson and the excitement about magnetic monopoles thirty years ago and how these featured in New Scientist. Since you probably don't rememmber this, the allusion, or illusion if you prefer to spell it that way, was lost on you.
ReplyDeleteYou said;
"but trying, as you do, to answer fundamental scientific questions by resorting to a creator"
I gather that you feel that this is how I think about things. It is not. Let me explain. After 1911 when Rutherford had put forward the idea of electrons orbiting the nucleus, there was what you might indeed term a "fundamental scientific question." It was this. If the electron whizzed round, shedding radiation then it should spiral in and crash into the nucleus. There should be no stable matter in the Universe. Fundamental scientific question? Resorting to the creator to answer this might entail imagining God racing round, keeping all the electrons spinning round; a bit like some celestial plate spinner. Of course there's no reason in theory why an omnipotent Deity could not do this, but that would be an incredibly lazy way of answering the question. In the event of course, quantum theory came to the rescue and this solved many other difficulties; black body radiation, the ultraviolet catastrophe and so on. I dare say that Wikipedia has articles on these if you are unfamilar with these if you wish to know more. In fact it is science which we use to answer questions of this sort. There are other questions that cannot be answered by science, due again to quantum effects. If we take a naked neutron it will decay after fifteen or twenty minutes. We can never predict when this will happen and this is not due to some hidden variable which we may some day discover; this is just how the Universe is made. I suppose we could invoke the Deity here as well and say, "Oooh look! God made it happen". Another lazy explanation. Science answers the how questions very well in many ways. Sometimes though the why questions are meaningless as scientific questions. This is why I cannot understand your idea of resorting to a creator to answer fundamental scientific questions. It is a meaningless concept.
By the by, you keep mentioning the Catholic Church and miracles like turning water to wine and so on. I think you might have got the idea that I am a Christian. I am not and cannot really be held answerable for anything of this sort!
Simon, I think you'd better reread what I wrote - and what you wrote yourself - or are you attempting to mislead anyone coming in late?
ReplyDeleteYou, Simon, are the one that invoked a deity as an answer to fundamental scientific questions; here's what you wrote in answer to a question about proof for the existence of god:
"There is certainly no proof, but rather an overwhelming amount of evidence. The very finely balanced way the the Bog Bang took place during the period of inflation. A hundred billionth of a part different in either direction and the early Universe would have collapsed at once or simply flown apart. The resonence of carbon when it is synthesised inside stars, particularly considering its importance for the development of life. The wonderful balance between the forces of nature such as the strong nuclear force, elctro-maganetism and gravity. The appearance of consciousness in the Universe. All these suggest that something more than a bunch of random particles is involved in the world."
Later you explicitly rejected one scientific hypothesis - multiverses - as "quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."
Do you still stand by all of this Simon? Do you still maintain that a creator is required or preferable to explain questions about the values of fundamental constants?
I mention the catholic church because they are much more savvy than you in recognising the danger inherent in venturing into fields that they don't understand. I have plenty of other issues with them but they don't dare to challenge science any more. In fact they even invest in their own astronomers who are pretty respectable.
I've no idea where you stand in your religion - you seem to be a moving target in order to dodge things and you lack consistency in your responses to me and others here. I gather you are monotheist (maybe that will provoke you into pantheism), possibly an abrahamic; I don't really care, it's all much the same to me.
By the way, as a Physicist and PhD Astronomer - my partner likewise and still very active in research - we're pretty well versed with the stuff you regurgitate from Wikipedia - and much more. Professional published journals and the preprint arxiv are our preferred source.
I wrote in reference to the catholic church:
ReplyDelete"they don't dare to challenge science any more"
I should have said "fundamental physical science" - one of the issues I have with them is in their views on life science and related matters.
"we're pretty well versed with the stuff you regurgitate from Wikipedia "
ReplyDeleteTell me, are you working on commission from Wikipedia to recommend them? It's not my own preferred source of information, but you seem positively fixated with it. I think we have pretty well worked this topic to death. I keep approaching this from different angles but you seem to have something of a bee in your bonnet about religion which stops you engaging with what I am saying. The contradictions which you apparently see in my staements are perhaps because you have a fairly basic view of religion and cannot deal with fine graduations between the various positions. I really don't mind whether you believe in God or not, but you seem very evangelical about your own lack of faith. As for my being a moving target with regard to my religion, this only suggests to me that you like to be able to put people into neat categories; this one is a Christian this person is a Muslim and so on. I have never subscribed to this view of religion and am equally home worshipping in churches, mosques or even Hindu temples. I have covered this before, but since you are not really that interested in religion, there seems little point in going through it all again.
As usual you are being thoroughly evasive Simon.
ReplyDeleteYou posed a religious answer as being superior to a scientific hypothesis in answer to an issue that lies in the domain of science. You seem to wish to divert attention from that.
As for wanting to categorise you, I don't know where you got that idea; earlier you suggested that I might think you were a christian when I had made no such suggestion and clearly indicated I didn't care. You seem to try to argue by adopting some part of your opponent's position; however, when one sees it written down that's not a very sensible approach as your self-contradiction is striking.
I note that comments on your behaviour in the Johansson case highlight your cavalier attitude towards representation of the truth and stubbornness in rectifying matters. It's all part of a pattern and I see no point in trying to engage with you in rational argument.
"The evidence supports either point of view and until new evidence comes along, either hypothesis is perfectly good. Atheists and theists are both equally likely to be right; there is no rational way of choosing between theories."
ReplyDeleteI agree.
"I have no idea at all if my idea is the correct one."
You say your daughter is "God-fearing". Was this her own decision? Did you tell her that you had no idea if you were correct in believing in God? That God was equally likely to exist and not to exist?
"I simply can't see the point of devising a new hypothesis which is more complicated than what we currently have and which can never be proved, even in theory."
Because it's interesting? Because as conscious beings we are curious about our origins and the nature of the universe we live in? Because it's just as likely to be true as the God hypothesis?
"This would be an unnecessary hypothesis. Most hypotheses are if they are unprovable."
This seems a rather depressingly utilitarian point of view. Are you really suggesting that it is unneccessary to make any hypotheses we can't prove? Surely that makes our rich culture of mythology, religious art, poetry, music and drama, mysticism, philosophy, religious architecture, and so on, all pointless because it is based on unneccessary hypotheses? And doesn't it make the God hypothesis itself unneccessary?
"I note that comments on your behaviour in the Johansson case highlight your cavalier attitude towards representation of the truth and stubbornness in rectifying matters."
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think you should post an apology to the Johanssons. For a God-fearing man, you're remarkably uncharitable.
"I note that comments on your behaviour in the Johansson case highlight your cavalier attitude towards representation of the truth and stubbornness in rectifying matters."
ReplyDeleteI have offered to rectify any errors in what I have said a number of times. The only one so far pointed out by the Friendss of Dominic Johansson turned out according to the child's father not to be an arror at all. Please point out any mistake and if you are sure you know what you are talking about, I will correct it.
"You posed a religious answer as being superior to a scientific hypothesis in answer to an issue that lies in the domain of science."
Is this another reference to the multiverse? If so, then to call it a scientific hypothesis is more than a little misleading.
"earlier you suggested that I might think you were a christian when I had made no such suggestion and clearly indicated I didn't care."
Hard to know then why you were making cracks about changing water to wine and raising the dead. The suggestion was that I believed in miracles, specifically Christian ones.
"You say your daughter is "God-fearing". Was this her own decision? Did you tell her that you had no idea if you were correct in believing in God? That God was equally likely to exist and not to exist?"
ReplyDeleteThis would be well enough if I were some sort of philosopher like Socrates! In such a case I would present every idea in a neutral fashion and not allow my own prejudices to creep in. There is no such thing as a neutral religious upbringing. Not having a Bible on the bookshelf says as much about your attitude as having one on display. What most people call a neutral religious upbringing is actually an irreligious one, which is a very different thing. Interesting to think how a genuinely neutral religious upbringing would look. I suppose you might attend Mass one week and then the following go to mosque. One week a Wicca festival and then the next synsgogue. I don't know many people who do this. We all transmit our beliefs and prejudices to our children, even if it is just grimacing when a politican comes on the television from a party we dislike. I am sure that i have done this myself and that my own political beliefs and views on religion, sex and many other things have affected my child. This is particularly likely when a child has been home educated and so spends more time with her parents.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Is this another reference to the multiverse? If so, then to call it a scientific hypothesis is more than a little misleading. "
Why is this misleading? As I've said, I'm somewhat agnostic about it but your criticism is based on your shallow understanding. Any suggestion that that it is comparable to religious concepts is utterly vacuous.
The multiverse concept has been the subject of a considerable body of research published in refereed journals (I recall you making a lot of fuss about the importance of peer review and can provide some references if you'd like) and there is a substantial theoretical framework that is consistent with the rest of physics.
It turns out that multiverses are predicted by three existing theories: quantum mechanics, string theory and inflation. Of these, quantum mechanics is extremely well established and finds applications in everyday life - including the semiconductors in the computer equipment we're all using. Inflation is more recent and has stood up to some stringent tests I mentioned earlier. String theory is still very controversial but may be progressing to form part of a larger theory but this is still incomplete.
Moreover, there is at least one tentative piece of evidence in a claim that an observed deficit in the Cosmic Microwave Background is a predictable relic of entanglement between our universe and another.
This is cutting-edge and highly controversial, but that's inevitable with new science. General Relativity and Quantum theory seemed bizarre and complex when proposed over a century ago; both now find applications in everyday life as well as serving as foundations for new research.
Multiverses might or might not turn-out to be a dead end but they are part of a process of fundamental scientific exploration.
Your god concept cannot be questioned and tested in the same way if used - as you propose - to explain things like the current balance of physical constants. It is a scientific roadblock. Have faith by all means, if you wish, but don't pretend to have an alternative to science.
"but don't pretend to have an alternative to science."
ReplyDeleteThere is and can be no alternative to science. It is the only tool which we have for investigating the physical world.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Hard to know then why you were making cracks about changing water to wine and raising the dead. The suggestion was that I believed in miracles, specifically Christian ones. "
I made no such suggestion; I asked a question, thus: "Do you believe in "evidence" such as raising the dead, turning water into wine etc?"
Don't you understand the difference between a suggestion and a question or are you simply trying to obfuscate and mislead?
I feel a paper title coming: "Spontaneous symmetry-breaking in the Simon Webb Truth Transformation Field".
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"There is and can be no alternative to science. It is the only tool which we have for investigating the physical world."
Then why do you object to the multiverse hypothesis? Just as a reminder, you said:
"As for the Multiverse, this is quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."
Before answering, read my comment logged at 00:36 again and then consider whether the Americas, the moon, Pluto, the most distant galaxies or the Cosmic Microwave Background were part of the "physical world" for paleolithic Europeans.
"I asked a question, thus: "Do you believe in "evidence" such as raising the dead, turning water into wine etc?"
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would anybody ask this question of anybody but a Christian? Only a Christian would be familiar with the story of the marriage feast at Cana and believe it to be literally true. This is not a question which one would address to a Hundu. Obviously, it is culturally specific and the underlying assumption was that the person of whom it was asked was a Christian. The question reveals something of the person asking it and her prejudices and assumptions. This sort of question is far more than a mere suggestion and is actually a statement of the questioners own beliefs. By placing quotation marks around the word 'evidence', we are invited to share the questioners own thoughts about the suggestion. We are told before hand that this is not really evidence at all. She clearly does not believe that water was changed to wine at Cana and is inviting us to share her incredulity.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"Why on earth...The question reveals something of the person asking it and her prejudices and assumptions...She clearly does not believe..."
The question reveals nothing of the sort, least of all the sex of the person asking. Really Simon, your powers of inference are somewhat flaky. Why do you feel the need to assign a gender - particularly when you've made this mistake at least once before? It's not necessary if you have a command of the English language, and if nothing else, I'll credit you with that.
Anyway, enough of the diversions. Answer my points at 00:36 and 01:25; just to clarify, I'm not asking you to believe in the multiverse hypothesis (I've said I'm agnostic - doubtful even - on this at present), merely to accept this as a scientific hypothesis and not on a par with religious concepts. You should also recant on any notion that there is evidence for the existence of god and accept that any belief you have in a deity is based on faith. All fairly straightforward really.
ReplyDelete"Why do you feel the need to assign a gender "
ReplyDelete" It's not necessary if you have a command of the English language, and if nothing else, I'll credit you with that."
On the contrary, it is the very nature of the English language, which lacks any gender neutral pronouns for humans, that makes it necessary to guess about your gender. That and the fact that you insist on anonymity.
"The question reveals something of the person asking it and her prejudices and assumptions...She clearly does not believe..."
How could I have phrased this in order to avoid guessing the gender? I suppose that somebody who didn't care about the English language could have said,
'their prejudices...they clearly do not believe.'
The problem there is that having begun the sentence with the singular 'person', I can hardly then switch seamlessly to using a plural pronoun like 'they'. This would be an illicit concordance, something which I avoid like the plague precisely because I care about the English language. A few years ago, the convention was to use the masculine pronoun when in doubt, but I don't like doing this either. I could have kept talking of 'the individul in qiestion' or 'the person to whom I refer', but this sounds affected and pompous. Instead I must make an intelligent guess about gender. The majority of home educators are female, as are most of those who comment on forums such as this. Statistically, you are more likely to be a woman than a man. if you were really bothered about this you would, instead of posting as 'anonymous', have chosen a male or female pseudonym so that I had some idea about your gender. The fact that you have not done so led me to suppose that you did not care. One person who comments here, for instance, calls herself Mrs. Anon: This indicates gender. Since you have still not said whether you are male, female or intersex, I assume that you wish to keep this secret, leaving me no option but to hazard a guess.
Why did you bring your daughter up to fear a god who has only a 50% chance of existing, and whom there is no reason to fear because he does not punish or reward us for our behaviour?
ReplyDeleteSimon said:
ReplyDelete"anonymity"
Bingo!
"Why did you bring your daughter up to fear a god who has only a 50% chance of existing, and whom there is no reason to fear because he does not punish or reward us for our behaviour?"
ReplyDeleteI may regret this, but how did you do the statistics for this?
"how did you do the statistics for this?"
ReplyDeleteYou gave them to me. Look at the quotes below, in particular the last sentence:
"I have no idea at all if my idea is the correct one."
"In essence, it was necessary to take a leap of faith in choosing one theory over another. This is often the case, both in science and theology. The evidence takes you to a certain point and then you have to make a decision."
"To plump for the Big Bang or the Steady State side required a leap of faith, precisely as the decision to opt for belief in the Deity does. The evidence supports either point of view and until new evidence comes along, either hypothesis is perfectly good. Atheists and theists are both equally likely to be right; there is no rational way of choosing between theories."