http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/10/23/in-god-we-trust%E2%80%A6and-hold-office/

My comment to Neil would be it is not fair to compare “christian children” to “Political children” is for the most part parents do not attempt to indoctrinate their child early to their political viewpoints, but they do with religion. Religion is something they start imparting on their children early in life, but I would not say the same of their political viewpoints (for the most part). You will always find the exceptions (and I think the video for this post is a small example) where parent will indoctrinate their kids with their political views.

In both cases, there is a fine line that seperates when kids are actually “believing” in what they are being told, and just parroting what they are being told (I would say this video is an example of parroting). Either scenario does not prevent the child from changing their actual viewpoint later on. But that does not make their previous viewpoint any less valid.

This is correct as far as it goes, but Neil’s point was that no child is “born into” a religion.

My view on this is that children do not believe in god until they are taught to do so. And that’s the point – religion isn’t something into which a person is born, it must be taught.

Also, if a child’s “previous viewpoint” is valid, does this mean you would argue that Santa Claus really does exist? Otherwise, how can a belief in Santa Claus possibly be valid for any meaningful use of that word?

Afraid, otherwise I can’t see any way around that. My sympathies, FWIW.

No worries, mate.

True, science attempts to answer “what” questions. Religion/philosophy attempt to answer “why” questions. You are in agreement with me.

No, PayasYouStargaze was arguing against you.

“Religion does not attempt to answer any questions about anything, and only demands “how should you then live”. “

Yes, that is what I said.

This is insane. You just said (your previous line in the same comment!) that religion answers the “why” questions. And now you are agreeing that religion answers no questions.

In fact, the latter is correct, religion answers no meaningful questions, it merely claims to do so.

That you choose to devalue “how we should then live” is your private affair.

You have not shown that any atheist does this. Is it because you cannot, or because you could not be bothered?

In fact, I have seen some pretty strong arguments that humanism is far more (heh!) humanitarian than any religion.

You are not free to tell me what I have or have not experienced. It is a simple fact that I have had atheists use those exact words.

Right, and from this you extrapolated your personal experience of a few (how many exactly?) atheists telling you something to all atheists everywhere.

Has it not occurred to you to apologise for behaving like a bigot?

Well yes, most people do assume that one’s children will more or less follow their parents and that’s a pretty good rule of thumb. But the question “Should the marginal tax rate be raised to 38%?” has hardly been a matter of utmost importance through all of human history the way that religious matters have.

This is disingenuous.

You know perfectly well that very nearly no-one calls a child a “Democrat” or “Republican” child, whereas “Christian” or “Muslim” are frequently used to refer to the children of parents in that faith.

BTW, the only way in which religion has been a “matter of utmost importance” is the number of wars that it has caused.

I don’t recall hearing anyone using the phrase “Christian children” in my life but I do know that it is a common assumption for people to make that one’s children will more or less believe what their parents believe. You are of course free to say that we shouldn’t always make that assumption and I would agree with you.

But you did not.

But you didn’t make that argument. You made a different argument. You didn’t make an argument about what we ought to do, you made a factual argument about what children *are*. That argument is invalid.

No, Neil’s argument is perfectly valid. Irrespective of what most people might call a child, that child’s professed belief in god or Allah or Yahweh or Thor or Zeus is meaningless until the child is old enough and mature enough to make a considered decision. Therefore, there really is no such thing as a “Christian” baby.

This:
“children tend to believe what their parents believe”

and this:
“they “believe” what their parents ( and other adults, e.g. Sunday school teachers ) teach them to believe,”

Are the same claim.

Quite clearly, they are not. Children believe what their authority-figures tell them is so. This is typically what their parents believe, but not necessarily. Additionally, no child believes in any kind of god until it is taught to do so. Thus, Neil’s argument stands, and yours does not.

Atheist criticism of religion is pretty consistent in it’s demand that theists live up to a literal interpretation of their sacred books.

What utter nonsense!

Many of the fundies that rant away on the internet get accused of breaking that commandment about “not bearing false witness”, brecause they either lie, or repeat the lies of others that they have heard or read elsewhere.

I’m not aware of any atheist who demands that religious people should live up to every last word of what’s in (for example) the bible.

AFAICT, the core criticism of religion is twofold – first, it requires the belief in something whose existence is implausible; and second, it propagates this belief, all too often in ways that crush critical thinking.

The demand that one’s sacred books be interpreted literally is the very definition of fundamentalism. So the atheist critique of religion is it’s failure to adhere to a fundamentalist understanding.

Wrong, because you are arguing against a strawman. As a functional atheist (by which I mean I do not regularly attend any kind of religious gathering), I can tell you that I have never criticised religion in the way that you claim “all atheist criticism of religion” is based.

The only difference then between you and a fundamentalist is that you correctly see that it must fail.

Wrong again. See above for the reason.

I have been told many times by atheists that the Westboro Baptist Church is the only true or honest church. To the extent that you believe the only true Christian is a fundamentalist that is what makes you a fundamentalist.

And whoever told you that was wrong. There is no such thing as a “true” church, because all churches claim slightly different things and there is no way to tell which is right.

If there were any such thing as a “true” church, I think the Anglican church comes closest, because they don’t make any claims that are contradicted by known facts. But they still uncritically accept that god exists.

I didn’t say that children tend to believe what their parents believe; I said they “believe” what their parents ( and other adults, e.g. Sunday school teachers ) teach them to believe, and that such “belief” is meaningless until they are old enough to understand it and make up their own minds. It’s meaningless, precisely because it’s usually taught at an age when children “believe” anything an adult says.

Yes. This.

So you admit that children tend to believe what their parents believe. You just don’t want to acknowledge it. Thanks for conceding. I win.

No, you don’t win. You have deliberatley misconstrued the point Neil was making.

Unless you are now going to argue that a child’s belief in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus carries the same weight and significance as your own belief in god?

No, that one fails from the outset. That children believe whatever their parents tell them is as close to self-evident that it isn’t worth arguing over. That this has the same significance as an adult’s belief (or not) in god is preposterous.

Only fundamentalists and atheists think that for religion to be valid the bible must be interpreted literally.

Not so. You are grossly mischaracterising all atheists with this comment.

Atheists (AFAICT) generally consider the bible to be irrelevant when it comes to making statements about the world. I am sure, however, that there are many atheists who consider the new testament to be as good a source of moral parable as Aesop’s Fables. The bible has validity in the appropriate context.

All that aside, this is not the issue. It seems to me you were just taking the opportunity to have a dig at atheism.

In both cases, there is a fine line that seperates when kids are actually “believing” in what they are being told, and just parroting what they are being told (I would say this video is an example of parroting). Either scenario does not prevent the child from changing their actual viewpoint later on. But that does not make their previous viewpoint any less valid.

Indeed, a dangerous man. Bachmann’s just a looney; I don’t think she seriously stands a chance once things get real (except maybe as a VP candidate brought in to get the crazy vote). But Perry does stand a chance, and he’s . . . well, given his attitude towards our actual government and our actual Constitution, I don’t think much of his American patriotism. He sees our country as an opportunity for himself, not the other way around.

This election is going to come down to deciding between a man who doesnt understand science, and a man who doesnt understand economics.

It is?

Are you seriously thinking Perry will win the Republican nomination or are you meaning it’ll be a Perry-Romney fight for that?

I very much doubt Perry (or Bachmann or S. Palin) will win the Republican party nomination. There’s a very long way to go before the 2012 election and a lot can and will happen over that time. Of the possible Republican candidates the one who I’d most prefer to win is John Huntsman but the one I think we’ll get is Mitt Romney. Who isn’t too bad science~wise from what I’ve heard & read of him. Not perfect sure but then no politician ever is.

Then it’ll be Obama versus Romney and that outcome .. well , so much will depend on the economy and general state of things at the time. My feeling is that Obama will likely win and get a second term.

If that’s what happens then Rick Perry and those of his political stripe are ultimately going to be irrelevant. If, FSM forbid, Perry gets elected -first to be Republican candidate and then President (which is highly unlikely methinks) well, the US political system does have its checks and balances that even a POTUS is limited by. How much damage can he really do? Not that I want us to find out.

Which do you think is more important to our lives and well being?

*Both*, durnnit!! Science and the economy are both vital areas. I dunno. If we really *had* to choose I guess science .. no wait, the economy, no wait, science or maybe .. nah. Both those are too critical to everyone’s lives for someone who is clueless and dangerous to either taking power. Of course, there are degrees of incompetence and idiocy in each area too.

@154. Neil Haggath :

Note also that I never used the term “child abuse”. However, it can’t be denied that in some cases ( again, I’m saying “in some cases”, not “always”! ), it amounts to exactly that. If you do deny this, then I strongly urge you to read Chapter 10 of Dawkins’ The God Delusion.

I think Dawkins at least to some large extent – engages in cherry-picking there. Yes, there are some arguable cases where children have been pyschologically traumatised by well-meaning (& themselves brain-washed) parents into literally fearing hell and religion. I do, however, think these are exceptional and that Dawkins goes too far in essentially calling parents who raising a child to follow their religion “child abusers.”

I think Dawkins argues well and makes a good if very polemical case – but he presents a decidedly one-sided perspective in a much more complex and less simple question. I think Dawkins ignores and oversimplifies a lot of the complexities and uses or at best focuses on only the very worst aspects of religion ignoring the positive side and stronger arguments against his position. So, no, I don’t find him entirley convincing.

(I’m agnostic FWIW. I don’t believe in organised religion but I don’t rule out the possibility of some grains of truth to religion either. I have friends who are religious and friends who are atheist and think religion vs atheism is a lot more complex and nuanced than most folks probably think. I’ve read widely from many worldviews on the matter and I know I don’t know what the answer is.)

@146. Neil Haggath :

#144 Noen: Do we label children as “Republican children” or “Democrat children” ( or “Labour children” or “Conservative children” in my country ), according to their parents’ political affiliations? No, we don’t.

Or do we?

I’m not really sure but I suspect in some cases at least we do. Would it be wrong to say that, frex, children in the Clinton family – or Kennedy one – are raised Democrat and children in say the Bush family or the Palin one get raised to be Republican?

Perhaps the difference is it doesn’t come up so often but I think parents generally try to raise their children in their own political beliefs just as they do the same religious ones. It seems kinda natural.

As for the way the kid was used here in asking Perry the question, it does make me cringe a little and didn’t look that great. But then I accept that I don’t know exactly what was going on there (appearances can be misleading) and that it is good to have Perry’s Creationist leanings exposed and known. It’s a separate side issue really.

PS. For Nigel Depledge – and anyone else who’s wonering – yeah, there’s another comment of mine above this one awaiting moderation too. So this is #156 assuming my other comment above this goes through which I expect wll occur. Don’t know if anyone else has left other comments awaiting moderation natch.

It’s far worse than anti-science. He is part of a rising cult that makes the Bush years seem mild: [Link snipped - Texas Observer, " rick-perrys-army-of-god"article.]

Good article link – thanks.

This one from the same source :

http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/rick-perrys-anti-science-streak-is-nothing-new

makes interesting reading too.

@129. Nigel Depledge :

Aaarg! I just noticed that a hole set of my posts referring to other comments now have the wrong references, as other posts have emerged from moderation and shifted the numbers. Curse you and your URLs, MTU!

Sorry Nigel. Unfortunately, sometimes the links are really interesting / useful / worth including I think – which I agree makes it confusing when they appear out of moderation and change the comment numbers.

I wonder if there’s a way the BA could set things up so that moderated comments appear in the order & get numbered only *after* they pass moderation and thus aren’t numbered in posting time but in acceptance time instead?

Afraid, otherwise I can’t see any way around that. My sympathies, FWIW.

Sorry, but isn’t that exactly what religion – at least, the organised kind – is all about???!!! Pot, meet kettle!

I certainly don’t consider myself a “New Atheist” – just an atheist. Like PAYS, I don’t even know exactly what “New Atheist” means; I’ve also only seen the term used in a derogatory manner by religious types.

You will notice that nowhere in my comments have I resorted to name calling! I’m not sure whether your insults are aimed at me personally, or at atheists in general, but it makes no difference.

Children “believing what their parents believe” and “believing what their parents teach them to believe” are NOT the same thing! There is a subtle difference; maybe it’s too subtle for you! To illustrate that difference, look no further than Santa Claus again; young children believe in Santa Claus, because their parents teach them to, i.e. their parents teach them to believe in something completely false. The difference, of course, is that Santa Claus is a harmless fantasy, which children grow out of, while religion is a harmful and sometimes dangerous one, which in some cases can screw up people’s psychological well-being for life.
Note also that I never used the term “child abuse”. However, it can’t be denied that in some cases ( again, I’m saying “in some cases”, not “always”! ), it amounts to exactly that. If you do deny this, then I strongly urge you to read Chapter 10 of Dawkins’ The God Delusion.

Well, my experience is different.

OK, but understand that you’re not dealing with a representative group.

You are not free to tell me what I have or have not experienced. It is a simple fact that I have had atheists use those exact words.

I am free to doubt your claims (that’s what being a sceptic is about). But OK. If that’s true, then you’ve come across an unfortunate group that don’t represent ALL atheists.

Most atheists make no such distinction. The New Atheist critique of religion is that they are all cults.

Again, most atheists will make distinctions. I can’t speak for “New Atheists”. I don’t know what they are because I’ve only ever seen that term used by anti-atheists who don’t like certain prominent atheists.

True, science attempts to answer “what” questions. Religion/philosophy attempt to answer “why” questions. You are in agreement with me.

No. Religion is not an attempt to answer “why”. It is an attempt to dictate “why”. It does not search for why, it claims to know why. That is why is is both dishonest and not very useful.

Yes, that is what I said. That you choose to devalue “how we should then live” is your private affair./blockquote>

You are again misunderstanding me. I don’t choose to devalue the question of how we should live. But I will not be told how to live by someone’s favourite fairy tale.

True, but knowledge of mere facts is not everything.

But it is the only thing we can KNOW.

When I use the term religion/philosophy I am referring to a person’s world view in general. When you discount another’s life world, “that which gives one’s life meaning”, and claim an exclusive privilege for your own, that is itself a world view. What one deems meaningful is a personal private affair. If one wishes others to drop their beliefs and take up yours you are going about the wrong way. Religious fundamentalists could not have a better partner than the New Atheists.

Again with the “New Atheists”. I’m not sure what they are, but most atheists are nothing like religious fundamentalists. We are usually on the opposite side. Now, I certainly support trying to educate people so they do not base their lives on irrational nonsense and blatant falsehoods. But that is not an attempt to foist any kind of world view on anyone.

This is a laughably bad argument. Really? Do you really want to say that science cannot tell us how we should live but that if we had more knowledge then it could tell us how we should live? If you pause to reflect a bit I am confident you’ll see how silly this is.

I will clarify, because you obviously didn’t understand. Lets science find out the facts. Then we can use the facts to determine how we should live. The more we know, the better our decisions will be. It’s not that with more knowledge that science can tell us how to live. It’s that with science we can have more knowledge to improve our ideas of how to live.

I see that you are a man a great faith. Welcome!

No. I am just not willing to abandon our quest to discover how and why are universe works on the basis of believing it can’t be done. Science has discovered so much that I have trust, not faith, in it.

Because I agree with David Hume’s general skepticism on the possibility of our knowing everything.

Fine, I agree that we might not ever know everything, but to give up would be a disgrace.

Well, that’s like, your opinion, man.

Sure, but considering how much we learned through science, and how little we have learned through faith, it is a justified opinion.

Facts are of course important and science can fix facts, but they are not everything. Those who have tried to say that facts are all there is have failed miserably. You are free to repeat those failures.

What are those failures? We have facts and then what? Show me what else there is and how it is useful to us.

Faith is simply the human capacity to take the reasons for why a thing cannot be so as proof that it must be so.

How is that of any use? It holds us back because we go on believing in the impossible, even when we know it is.

It does not of course apply to scientific questions. It does apply to how one conducts one’s life. Why? Precisely because we cannot know how we should live

We cannot KNOW how we shoud live, so we need a system to figure something out. What’s better? KNOWLEDGE or fairy tales? The former seems to be a better bet.

Those who would try to tell others how they should live are universally despised. Why one would choose such a path is beyond me.

Now that’s laughable. Why? Because it’s the religous leaders who are top of the list in telling others how to live, and a good majority of religious types do too. People love to be told how they should live, as long as it comes from someone who they agree with. It appeals to human laziness. Meanwhile, I don’t tell anyone how they should live. I encourage people to decide for themselves, and to not use fairy tales but actual facts and knowledge to do so.

Point is neon, you have apparently had a bad experience of atheists, and have decided that we are all the same. We are not, and are only loosely unified by the lack of belief. That’s why I picked up on your comment in 138.

Well, my experience is different.

“I doubt that.”

You are not free to tell me what I have or have not experienced. It is a simple fact that I have had atheists use those exact words.

“I would go so far as calling them a cult.”

Most atheists make no such distinction. The New Atheist critique of religion is that they are all cults.

“Science is a method of finding out about the universe around us.”

True, science attempts to answer “what” questions. Religion/philosophy attempt to answer “why” questions. You are in agreement with me.

“Religion does not attempt to answer any questions about anything, and only demands “how should you then live”. “

Yes, that is what I said. That you choose to devalue “how we should then live” is your private affair.

“Religion is not a search for knowledge.”

True, but knowledge of mere facts is not everything.

“Philosophy is not really relevant to how we actually live.”

When I use the term religion/philosophy I am referring to a person’s world view in general. When you discount another’s life world, “that which gives one’s life meaning”, and claim an exclusive privilege for your own, that is itself a world view. What one deems meaningful is a personal private affair. If one wishes others to drop their beliefs and take up yours you are going about the wrong way. Religious fundamentalists could not have a better partner than the New Atheists.

“Science cannot tell us how to live our lives, but with greater knowledge, we can make better decisions on the matter.”

This is a laughably bad argument. Really? Do you really want to say that science cannot tell us how we should live but that if we had more knowledge then it could tell us how we should live? If you pause to reflect a bit I am confident you’ll see how silly this is.

“I don’t see why a rational account of the world cannot one day be given.

I see that you are a man a great faith. Welcome!

“Why would you believe that anything could be beyond our knowledge?”

Because I agree with David Hume’s general skepticism on the possibility of our knowing everything.

“But irrational faith is probably humanity’s greatest curse, as it prevents us from actually searching for truth and facts.”

Well, that’s like, your opinion, man. Facts are of course important and science can fix facts, but they are not everything. Those who have tried to say that facts are all there is have failed miserably. You are free to repeat those failures. Faith is simply the human capacity to take the reasons for why a thing cannot be so as proof that it must be so. It does not of course apply to scientific questions. It does apply to how one conducts one’s life. Why? Precisely because we cannot know how we should live. Those who would try to tell others how they should live are universally despised. Why one would choose such a path is beyond me.

Well yes, most people do assume that one’s children will more or less follow their parents and that’s a pretty good rule of thumb. But the question “Should the marginal tax rate be raised to 38%?” has hardly been a matter of utmost importance through all of human history the way that religious matters have.

I don’t recall hearing anyone using the phrase “Christian children” in my life but I do know that it is a common assumption for people to make that one’s children will more or less believe what their parents believe. You are of course free to say that we shouldn’t always make that assumption and I would agree with you. But you didn’t make that argument. You made a different argument. You didn’t make an argument about what we ought to do, you made a factual argument about what children *are*. That argument is invalid.

This:
“children tend to believe what their parents believe”

and this:
“they “believe” what their parents ( and other adults, e.g. Sunday school teachers ) teach them to believe,”

Are the same claim. This:
“such “belief” is meaningless until they are old enough to understand it”

Is false because people (3rd person, people in general) decide what is important to them, not you. You don’t get to tell other people what their values ought to be. Trying demand that others believe as you do simply on your say so is considered rude and arrogant. This is why people react so strongly to the arrogance of the New Atheists, because you are. You (3rd person, New Atheists in general) seem to be unaware of interpersonal boundaries. I think you would be better served by using a different tactic. One that does not involve being a prick. Telling people that raising one’s child in one’s faith tradition is child abuse is taking dickishness to a whole new level.

“BTW you accuse me of “trying to score debating points”, and then use phrases like “I win” in your own response.”

Sarcasm, have you heard of it? People use it when someone is being a jerk in order to deflate their ego.

“I was simply stating my opinion

No you weren’t. You were stating your opinion as though it were a fact, which it is not. You stated as a fact the claim that children do not have a religion until they are adults and that any belief they express is meaningless. It is not the case that children do not profess to believe. It is not the case that others do not find such statements meaningful. You are free to wish it were not so and you may lobby for your belief but what you may not do is instruct others that they must do as you say. This is why the efforts of New Atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have been an utter failure. That you are unable to even imagine a strategy other than theirs says a great deal about your (3rd person) maturity level.

Atheist criticism of religion is pretty consistent in it’s demand that theists live up to a literal interpretation of their sacred books. The demand that one’s sacred books be interpreted literally is the very definition of fundamentalism. So the atheist critique of religion is it’s failure to adhere to a fundamentalist understanding. The only difference then between you and a fundamentalist is that you correctly see that it must fail.

Wrong. I doubt there is a single atheist who demands that a theist lives up to a literal interpretation of their holy book. I think you’ll find it is quite the opposite. We will applaud any theist who will question what their holy books state, because that is being open minded and intellectually honest, both good traits.

I have been told many times by atheists that the Westboro Baptist Church is the only true or honest church. To the extent that you believe the only true Christian is a fundamentalist that is what makes you a fundamentalist.

I doubt that. I think most atheists will condemn that bunch of crazies and I would go so far as calling them a cult. There are few true or honest churches, and the WBC is one of the least honest out there by forcing themselves to defend their book of nonsense.

The belief that the only legitimate statements are those which can be shown to be logically true is philosophical positivism. The only way anyone today can assert positivism without being laughed at is either through their utter ignorance at even the most sophomoric level or through willful denial. Religion isn’t a science hun. Religion/philosophy attempts to answer the question “How should we then live?”. Science can only answer factual questions, it cannot tell us what should be, only what is in fact the case.

No. Science is a method of finding out about the universe around us. Religion does not attempt to answer any questions about anything, and only demands “how should you then live”. Religion is not a search for knowledge. Philosophy is not really relevant to how we actually live. It is purely a thought exercise. Science cannot tell us how to live our lives, but with greater knowledge, we can make better decisions on the matter.

You also have irrational beliefs that cannot be confirmed. You’d better take care of that beam in your eye before you go around hectoring people about the spec in theirs. I accept the fact that life is irrational, that a fully rational account of the world cannot be given. Indeed, I believe that irrational faith is humanity’s greatest achievement.

Of course I have irrational beliefs, thoughts and feelings. I’m human. But I do not expect others to pay attention to them. I don’t see why a rational account of the world cannot one day be given. Science marches on and we understand more about the universe around us. Why would you believe that anything could be beyond our knowledge? But irrational faith is probably humanity’s greatest curse, as it prevents us from actually searching for truth and facts. It is certainly not an achivement, though you could call it a trait of our nature.