Science and Theology, the sequel

04/11/2008 12:51:25 PM · #451

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Unless you consider that "christianity" may have evolved (oops, there's that word again) from something else.

The argument is that children are more likely to follow the teachings (religious) of their parents, rather than some "other" teaching. My point is that although it appears to be a "logical" conclusion, the evidence (meaning that christianity originally had only 13 members - Christ and his 12 Apostles and grew to today having millions of members) suggest something different. Christianity could not have happened if the choice of parents and their teachings was the predominant influence, as all of todays christians have ancestors who believed something else.

edit to add; I think this is a perfect example of Free Will.

And to add to what Shannon said, see Gordon's post above re:Intelligent Design :)

04/11/2008 01:03:06 PM · #452

Originally posted by scalvert:

Your point is lost (or just plain false) when you consider than Islam and Judaism share the same roots as Christianity. There is no assumption that parents can't change their minds or branch off into some new direction (I'm pretty sure Martin Luther's parents weren't a member of any Protestant church, and Jesus was Jewish), but the overall tendency is simply to believe what you've been told all your life by those around you.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/11/2008 01:07:04 PM · #453

Originally posted by Flash:

have you just totally given up on reading what's said before you start arguing a different point ? Just checking.

You constantly take not black and white points, make them black and white, then go off and try to argue that black isn't white. It is getting mostly pointless.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 13:08:13.

04/11/2008 01:11:39 PM · #454

Originally posted by Flash:

Your maps are more an indication of the doctrines taught, rather than evidence that christianity is unknowable.

Actually, they're strong evidence that the dominant beliefs of an area are more likely to be the result of local tradition than actual truth. It should be obvious that you can often determine a person's beliefs just by looking at a map of where his or her family came from. Your assertion that the core beliefs are the same falls apart when you extend this to other regions. If your family had come from India or Iran, your core beliefs would almost certainly be very different, and you would be professing those competing beliefs with equal conviction. The only similar teachings you would "parse out" of competing religions would be very concepts that you would expect to benefit the survival of a social animal (don't kill, don't lie, help those in need, respect your elders, etc.). Religion is not necessary to make those ideals noble.

04/11/2008 01:12:35 PM · #455

I think we're down another rabbit hole where ultimately the argument doesn't matter. I already agreed that having Christian parents makes you more likely to be Christian, but I don't particularly worry about it. I just don't like the idea that such a truth precludes "rational, enlightened thought."

People raised with no faith are more likely to be without faith. Do the same non-enlightened arguments apply there? Does that put those of us arguing (who obviously know something about what they believe) in some elitist group to look down upon all others?

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

04/11/2008 01:13:04 PM · #456

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:
Its not only not lost nor false, but actually proven again. The fact that any other religions exist (other than the first one practiced by the very first fish/amphibian/ape/man), prove the argument against children automatically following their parents beliefs.

have you just totally given up on reading what's said before you start arguing a different point ? Just checking.

You constantly take not black and white points, make them black and white, then go off and try to argue that black isn't white. It is getting mostly pointless.

You argued that children are more likely to follow the faith/beliefs of their parents and submitted a map as evidence of your point. Scalvert then showed 2 more maps essentially agreeing and further claiming that if christianities "truth" was so self evident or knowable, then these distinctions would not exist.

I wrote that on the surface, your argument seemed logical, however, if it were really true, then we would not have other religions, as we would only follow what went before. Scalvert said that it was false to calim that. Which it is not.

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 13:15:09.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/11/2008 01:14:34 PM · #457

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Your point is lost (or just plain false) when you consider than Islam and Judaism share the same roots as Christianity. There is no assumption that parents can't change their minds or branch off into some new direction (I'm pretty sure Martin Luther's parents weren't a member of any Protestant church, and Jesus was Jewish), but the overall tendency is simply to believe what you've been told all your life by those around you.

Its not only not lost nor false, but actually proven again. The fact that any other religions exist (other than the first one practiced by the very first fish/amphibian/ape/man), prove the argument against children automatically following their parents beliefs.

No one is arguing that the faith of the parent is the only factor in the choice of faith (or lack thereof) in adulthood. The argument is that the predominate faith of the parent/community/society is the primary factor in that later choice of faith. Studies looking at this are pretty cut and dried in agreement. That faiths rise and fall, move in and out of popularity, or are sometimes created whole cloth and catch on, in no way disproves or calls this basic observation in to question.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/11/2008 01:15:01 PM · #458

Originally posted by Flash:

Its not only not lost nor false, but actually proven again. The fact that any other religions exist (other than the first one practiced by the very first fish/amphibian/ape/man), prove the argument against children automatically following their parents beliefs.

You argued that children are more likely to follow the faith/beliefs of their parents and submitted a map as evidence of your point. Scalvert then showed 2 more maps essentially agreeing and further claiming that if christianities "truth" was so self evident or knowable, then these distinctions would exist.

Yup. Then you responded to disprove the entirely different point, that nobody made, that children always automatically follow their parents beliefs, totally.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

04/11/2008 01:16:15 PM · #459

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:
Its not only not lost nor false, but actually proven again. The fact that any other religions exist (other than the first one practiced by the very first fish/amphibian/ape/man), prove the argument against children automatically following their parents beliefs.

have you just totally given up on reading what's said before you start arguing a different point ? Just checking.

You constantly take not black and white points, make them black and white, then go off and try to argue that black isn't white. It is getting mostly pointless.

You argued that children are more likely to follow the faith/beliefs of their parents and submitted a map as evidence of your point. Scalvert then showed 2 more maps essentially agreeing and further claiming that if christianities "truth" was so self evident or knowable, then these distinctions would not exist.

I wrote that on the surface, your argument seemed logical, however, if it were really true, then we would not have other religions, as we would only follow what went before. Scalvert said that it was false to calim that. Which it is not.

Flash, this is a nonsequitor to the actual argument being debated. See my post above.

04/11/2008 01:19:21 PM · #460

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Flash:
Its not only not lost nor false, but actually proven again. The fact that any other religions exist (other than the first one practiced by the very first fish/amphibian/ape/man), prove the argument against children automatically following their parents beliefs.

You argued that children are more likely to follow the faith/beliefs of their parents and submitted a map as evidence of your point. Scalvert then showed 2 more maps essentially agreeing and further claiming that if christianities "truth" was so self evident or knowable, then these distinctions would exist.

Yup. Then you responded to disprove the entirely different point, that nobody made, that children always automatically follow their parents beliefs, totally.

Except that for any movement or change or different belief to take hold, it requires a sufficient number of children to go against their previous teachings. We're not talking one or two, but masses, and masses equal a refutation on your argument as that quantity would defy your logic.

04/11/2008 01:21:34 PM · #461

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think anyone claimed that the idea precludes "rational, enlightend thought" (although maybe I missed it somewhere). The issue for me is that once you are an adult and embrace the religion of your parents (or something similar), is it because it resonates with you? And is it possible that the reason why it resonates with you is that it is what you grew up with?

What about Christianity made you fully embrace it as an adult, instead of say, Hinduism?

04/11/2008 01:21:36 PM · #462

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Flash, this is a nonsequitor to the actual argument being debated. See my post above.

I see your post and will subsist my current line of postings. I already agreed that it was and is logical to understand, however that other evidences need weighing.

04/11/2008 01:25:09 PM · #463

This article on religion in general explains the mechanisms for maintaining belief pretty well- "Most religions encourage their believers to reproduce and to pass on their religion to their children, at an age when children tend to believe anything their parents tell them; this is one of the most powerful mechanisms by which religion is spread, and certainly the most powerful method by which it is maintained against contrary evidence."

"Religion is a kind of sanctioned irrationality, an organized suspension of disbelief in certain areas by a coalition of willing believers. In exchange for this suspension, believers receive their belief-system essentially pre-digested (to an extent which varies by religion) by higher authority, rather than having to go to the trouble of working it out for themselves. Some believers will go to the trouble of trying to reconcile their beliefs with reality, but this generally only goes so far; when push comes to shove, it is reality that gets second priority. The main western religious traditions, having at their core the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, can use the supposed existence of that being as a fake explanation for any seeming inconsistencies in doctrine, or between doctrine and observed reality. 'Q: How could all those fossils seem to be hundreds of millions of years old, when the world was created in 4004 BC? A: God did it! Q: Why would God plant all that false evidence to confuse us? A: God moves in mysterious ways!'"

04/11/2008 01:28:11 PM · #464

Originally posted by scalvert:

That quote is biased bullshit Shannon. You gotta be kidding. Obviously it's written by someone with an ax to grind...

04/11/2008 01:29:51 PM · #465

Originally posted by eqsite:

[quote=DrAchoo]I don't think anyone claimed that the idea precludes "rational, enlightend thought" (although maybe I missed it somewhere). The issue for me is that once you are an adult and embrace the religion of your parents (or something similar), is it because it resonates with you? And is it possible that the reason why it resonates with you is that it is what you grew up with?

What about Christianity made you fully embrace it as an adult, instead of say, Hinduism?

Ya, that was a quote from a Gordon post. I mentioned in my turn to answer those questions why I embrace Christianity. All other world religions offer salvation through works and I don't agree with it. Polytheistic religions also have problems dealing with good and evil so I don't go for those either (Hinduism being one of them).

Message edited by author 2008-04-11 13:30:42.

04/11/2008 01:31:57 PM · #466

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
What about Christianity made you fully embrace it as an adult, instead of say, Hinduism?

Ya, that was a quote from a Gordon post. I mentioned in my turn to answer those questions why I embrace Christianity. All other world religions offer salvation through works and I don't agree with it. Polytheistic religions also have problems dealing with good and evil so I don't go for those either (Hinduism being one of them).

But I'm curious about what led you to feel that way about salvation through works? And maybe you've already answered it and I've missed it. I'm not trying to put you in a corner, I'm honestly interested.

04/11/2008 01:37:45 PM · #467

Originally posted by eqsite:

What about Christianity made you fully embrace it as an adult, instead of say, Hinduism?

1. I really like a good steak. (actually med rare Prime Rib is #1)
2. I don't totally discount other methods to reach enlightenment or even inner peace.
3. Reaching enlightenment is different than being forgiven.
4. Spirituality is important to a "survival" mindset as it frees one to concentrate on the task at hand.
5. My spritual adviser became Jesus, after a "lost" time. Not sure why.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

04/11/2008 01:41:39 PM · #468

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That quote is biased bullshit Shannon. You gotta be kidding. Obviously it's written by someone with an ax to grind...

How eloquent. Here's another quote for ya-

"If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather then by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless and will therefore result to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called education. ~ Bertrand Russell"

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/11/2008 01:43:05 PM · #469

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
This article on religion in general explains the mechanisms for maintaining belief pretty well- "Most religions encourage their believers to reproduce and to pass on their religion to their children, at an age when children tend to believe anything their parents tell them; this is one of the most powerful mechanisms by which religion is spread, and certainly the most powerful method by which it is maintained against contrary evidence."

"Religion is a kind of sanctioned irrationality, an organized suspension of disbelief in certain areas by a coalition of willing believers. In exchange for this suspension, believers receive their belief-system essentially pre-digested (to an extent which varies by religion) by higher authority, rather than having to go to the trouble of working it out for themselves. Some believers will go to the trouble of trying to reconcile their beliefs with reality, but this generally only goes so far; when push comes to shove, it is reality that gets second priority. The main western religious traditions, having at their core the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, can use the supposed existence of that being as a fake explanation for any seeming inconsistencies in doctrine, or between doctrine and observed reality. 'Q: How could all those fossils seem to be hundreds of millions of years old, when the world was created in 4004 BC? A: God did it! Q: Why would God plant all that false evidence to confuse us? A: God moves in mysterious ways!'"

That quote is biased bullshit Shannon. You gotta be kidding. Obviously it's written by someone with an ax to grind...

Yep, he's got an ax to grind. But once stripped of the indelicate rhetoric, his description seems to be entirely valid and pretty accurate.

04/11/2008 01:43:09 PM · #470

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by eqsite:
What about Christianity made you fully embrace it as an adult, instead of say, Hinduism?

1. I really like a good steak. (actually med rare Prime Rib is #1)
2. I don't totally discount other methods to reach enlightenment or even inner peace.
3. Reaching enlightenment is different than being forgiven.
4. Spirituality is important to a "survival" mindset as it frees one to concentrate on the task at hand.
5. My spritual adviser became Jesus, after a "lost" time. Not sure why.

1. Make mine a ribeye and then we can talk :)
2. I feel the same.
3. I agree with this as well, although I think I'm more interested in self-forgiveness, but that's me.
4. I actually agree with this, which is why I think humans seek spirituality -- it's part of our evolution
5. This is where my interest in the argument lies. It's hard to discuss without it sounding like I'm discounting your life's journey, but is it possible that you were "open" to Jesus because that's what you knew. I'd be much more surprised if Vishnu had become your spiritual adviser.

04/11/2008 01:48:08 PM · #471

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Yep, he's got an ax to grind. But once stripped of the indelicate rhetoric, his description seems to be entirely valid and pretty accurate.

What he said.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

04/11/2008 01:53:44 PM · #472

Originally posted by eqsite:

5. This is where my interest in the argument lies. It's hard to discuss without it sounding like I'm discounting your life's journey, but is it possible that you were "open" to Jesus because that's what you knew. I'd be much more surprised if Vishnu had become your spiritual adviser.

I really understand your point and like I previously "agreed" with the logic that one is likely to return to what one knew before, I suspect that this might be the case. At least from the perspective that during my "lost" period when I was dabbling in TM and Buddism and New Age enlightenment, Asian arts and world philosophies, none of it "filled" me. I was still hungry. One day I decided to see if some answers layed in Holy Scripture - 3 years later I found what I was looking for. I wasn't hungry anymore. That illusive yearning for "something else" was gone.

Really can't put it any plainer than that. Did I end up wher I started because of childhood exposure to christianity - maybe. Could I have ended up elswhere - I certainly tried.

Louis

Nikon D800

04/11/2008 01:56:00 PM · #473

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Yep, he's got an ax to grind. But once stripped of the indelicate rhetoric, his description seems to be entirely valid and pretty accurate.

What he said.

May as well say I thought the same thing too.

04/11/2008 02:02:37 PM · #474

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Yep, he's got an ax to grind. But once stripped of the indelicate rhetoric, his description seems to be entirely valid and pretty accurate.

And would then also accurately describe any systematic teaching of children. So we should be wary of teaching in school? History before they can understand the bias of "history is written by the winner"? Spelling before they understand that languages evolve? Mathematics before they understand how to apply it to everyday life?

Obviously I'm hyperbolizing for effect. The point is you guys are merely saying, "teaching religion to kids is dumb because religion is false." If someone disagrees that religion is false then the whole premise fails.