[Trinidad]

 han, on 2012-December-20, 13:21, said:

Trinidad considers himself a tolerant non-believer. He thinks that telling another kid that he will go to hell because he doesn't believe in god is comparable to saying that you don't believe in god when asked about your religion. After all, both kids are just telling what they think, and it is shocking to the other kid. I don't agree with this, it is not the same. The parents have taught the other kid that Deb's kid is evil because he doesn't share their beliefs. Deb hasn't taught her kid that the religious kids are evil, at least I have never heard of such a thing. Perhaps the other parents have also taught their kid that homosexuals are evil, or who knows what. I don't think that is all fine, and I appreciate that some people are willing to speak up to it.

Hold it, right there. I may not have expressed myself clearly enough. But this is what I wrote.

 Trinidad, on 2012-December-19, 03:14, said:

You cannot expect your son to just shrug his shoulders [upon being told he'll go to hell], so some action from your side might be called for which indeed might be construed as "fanatic atheism". Perhaps it is good to realize, though, that your son's remark about not believing in God might have been just as shocking to the other kid. He might not have been able to just shrug his shoulders either when he hears something as shocking as "I don't believe in God.". What both kids need to learn is how to deal with differences between people. Growing up might just do that and it will certainly help if the parents would recognize and respect the differences too.

I meant to express that in resolving the issue Deb might want to keep in mind that both kids may have been shocked. If you want to change a child's behavior (and I assume Deb wants this kid not to tell her son that he'll go to hell anymore) it is good to be able to see the world through their eyes. After all, if Deb isn't able to see the world through the eyes of this kid, the kid certainly won't be able to see the world through Deb's eyes.

I only wrote about the kids. You claim that the two kids being shocked is not the same, because of what their parents did. I did not bring the parents into the equation. I considered the two kids in isolation. They responded in a predictable way, as they were taught. Deb's son heard for the first time someone say that he will go to hell. He was rightfully shocked. The other kid may just have had his first encounter with blasphemy. From his limited perspective (he is a kid) he may have been -just as rightfully- shocked.

I did not write anywhere that I condoned the other kid's behavior (to be 100% clear: I don't). I actually wrote that "some action from [Deb's] side might be called for". Would I write that if I thought it would be OK to tell others that they will go to hell? I wouldn't think so.

Yes, I am a tolerant non-believer. But that doesn't mean my tolerance is unlimited, since in return for my tolerance I ask for tolerance. In concrete terms that means that I will happily let the kid believe what he believes, but I will act when he rattles my son by saying that he will go to hell.

Only with the aim to maximize the effect of the "action" Deb might take, I suggested that it would be good to be aware that the other kid may have been shocked too. You and I are both scientists. We believe in solving problems in a rational way by understanding the mechanisms that are involved in them. This case is not different: You will be better placed to solve this problem if you realize that the other kid may have been shocked too.

Rik

[gwnn]

 Codo, on 2012-December-20, 17:29, said:

So, when you teach your children that there is no hell (what you surely do, don't you?), why should your children be frightend if other kids else claims that their parents belive that in such a silliness?

I will just speak for myself here but it seems counter-productive to teach my children all the places that do not exist. I would try to teach my children about real places (our street, Australia, the Moon, etc) and real values, but not specifically explain to them all the things that they will not go to when they die. The only reason I would talk to them about heaven and hell is because they had heard about it from some other kids.

[Trinidad]

 Codo, on 2012-December-20, 17:29, said:

So, when you teach your children that there is no hell (what you surely do, don't you?)

Why would I do such a silly thing? Do I know for a fact that there is no hell? Do you? Then why would I teach them such nonsense?

With respect to these subjects, there is no need to teach them anything other than the ability to think critically for themselves. As a result, my kids have since long figured out that the existence of hell is extremely unlikely, as in: a lot less likely than the existence of Pokémons, Power rangers and Santa. (And they know the secret of Santa.)

Rik

[Codo]

I am quite sure that there are more then a handful of people who are sure that the hell is "real". So these people will teach their kids their belives. Why shouldn't they? And as we are so tolerant, we should tolerate their belives, despite the fact that we do not share them.

If your kids are old enough, you will teach your kids about the big bang and that the speed of light is the fastest possible speed you may reach- despite the fact that both these theories are "just" theories for you and me.

[han]

This is exactly the point where my opinion can change from being tolerant to highly annoyed: when the devout compare there religious truths to scientific theories. You believe in pi and evolution, I believe in hell, it's all the same!

Also the idea that atheists actively tell their children that there is no hell is pretty funny.

[Trinidad]

 Codo, on 2012-December-21, 04:33, said:

If your kids are old enough, you will teach your kids about the big bang and that the speed of light is the fastest possible speed you may reach- despite the fact that both these theories are "just" theories for you and me.

You are wrong.

My kids are old enough and I make very sure that I tell them about the theory of the big bang and the theory of the speed of light. Why? Because I think it is much more important to grasp the notion of "theory" than to learn the actual theories themselves (which I also consider very important).

Therefore, I discuss with them in terms of: "scientists believe" and "the current understanding is". Quite obviously, I have been discussing with them about the experiments with neutrinos that go faster then light. I do this not because 10 year old kids need to know what neutrinos are or what the speed of light is, but because I want them to know how the scientific process works. It is a tedious process of asking questions, being open-minded about the answers, suggesting many possible answers, falsifying them, confusing the matter by making lots of mistakes, and -slowly but steadily- developing knowledge.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 han, on 2012-December-21, 04:45, said:

Also the idea that atheists actively tell their children that there is no hell is pretty funny.

It's like "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Tell your kid there is no hell and he will know there is no hell. Teach them how to think and he will figure that, and a lot of other things in the process, out for himself...

By the way, I just asked my 11 year old son whether he knew what hell was. I had certainly never discussed it with him before and I'm pretty sure my wife hasn't either. But he does attend a catholic school, where they may have talked about it. (We chose it because we think it is a good school, not because it's catholic.) Anyway, this was the short conversation:
Me: "Do you know what hell is?"
Him: - "Sure. It's the place that many christians think you go to after you die when you haven't lived good. They think you go to heaven if you live good."
Me: "What do you think?"
Him - "I don't think there is a hell."
Me: "How about heaven?"
Him, smiling: "No heaven either"
Me: "Are you sure?"
Him: - "No, but I'm sure enough."

I think he got it.

Rik

[Antrax]

How is the speed of light a theory? It's been measured. If you accept sensory input, you should also accept the speed of light as a fact.

[Codo]

 han, on 2012-December-21, 04:45, said:

This is exactly the point where my opinion can change from being tolerant to highly annoyed: when the devout compare there religious truths to scientific theories. You believe in pi and evolution, I believe in hell, it's all the same!

Also the idea that atheists actively tell their children that there is no hell is pretty funny.

Yes I can see your post getting less tolerant.


Obviously it is hard to understand, but it is quite difficult to set borderlines between facts, theories and belives. There are some things we know for sure- a lot about gravity (but not everything) for example, that we need oxygen for living and million other things. Then there are theories which should be true. Einstein had not been able to prove all his theorems, but most people belived that they are true and most of them had been proved till today. Then there are theories which did not hold the test of times, f.e. the indivisibility of an atom- or the seaway to India while sailing to the west... In less exact science like pedagogy, politics or economy there are many people who belive that just their theory is true, despite the fact that there are other renowned luminaries who belive in just the opposite theorem. In philosophy it is getting even worse. And then there is religion. In the main part this is just beliving.

But if you think that there is a clear borderline between science and religion- I will challenge you that I can find science which will not fit your explanation. Even in science you have to work with the unknown and sometimes with unprovable theorems. So the difference is not as clear as you would like it to be.

[Trinidad]

 Codo, on 2012-December-21, 05:57, said:

Even in science you have to work with the unknown and sometimes with unprovable theorems. So the difference [between science and religion] is not as clear as you would like it to be.

The difference between science and religion is not in the amount of unknowns. Scientists have to work with many more unknowns than religious believers. The crucial difference is in how these unknowns are treated: Scientists continuously try to falsify the unknowns whereas religion just assumes the unknowns to be true. (And "assume" is an understatement. )

Setting up a model and testing it, over and over and over again to come closer to the TRUTH, is what defines science.*

Setting up a model and believing it to be the TRUTH, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, through prosperity and adversity, despite anything, is what defines religion.

This is why it is utterly futile to prove in a scientific way that religion is not true, or to believe religiously that science is not true: The two models of truth are fundamentally different.

Rik

* This is not only true for beta sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy) but also for alpha (linguistics, history, religious studies) and gamma (economics, psychology) sciences

[kenberg]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-December-20, 17:26, said:

I put in the middle for tolerance, however that is not really true I just didn't know how to answer it. If people start talking about their beliefs then "infuriated" but if people keep it to themselves then I don't care. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, just as everyone has the right to be stupid. However, if people say stupid things then it is annoying. If they continue to claim to be right in the face of all evidence/logic to the contrary then it is infuriating.

I date a christian, my entire immediate family is christian, etc, I know their views and they know mine and we just don't talk about it anymore and in that way I am completely fine/tolerant/whatever.

I like this a lot. My maternal grandparents were Seventh Day Adventists but my mother became a Presbyterian. My father also belonged to the Presbyterian church but he had a very tough early life and was far more inclined to think of the here and now rather than the afterlife or any other theological concept. Far, far, more likely. My wife believes in a God but has no interest in church. She once observed that if there really is a hell she has probably long ago been condemned to it so she doesn't worry. Actually this agrees, sort of, with Presbyterian ideas of pre-destination. My older daughter spent some time attending Unitarian services (the quip is that they believe in at most one God) but it didn't stick. After I, in my youth, left the Presbyterians I also tried the Unitarians with the same result. My younger daughter has, in her forties, become a believer in faith and prayer, but is (from my viewpoint) thankfully free of dogma.

We all get along, or at least any problems we may have are not generated by religious differences.


I found this amusing from a WashingtonPost obit:

Quote

Late in life, after he had married his second wife, a former Catholic nun, Judge Bork converted to Catholicism.

"There is an advantage in waiting until you're 76 to be baptized, because you're forgiven all of your prior sins," he said in an interview with the National Catholic Register. "Plus, at that age you're not likely to commit any really interesting or serious sins."

And by the way, best wishes to all for a happy winter solstice with whatever additional spiritual trappings you may include. Of course the world is scheduled to come to an end today, so....

[Fluffy]

 Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 05:28, said:

By the way, I just asked my 11 year old son whether he knew what hell was. I had certainly never discussed it with him before and I'm pretty sure my wife hasn't either. But he does attend a catholic school, where they may have talked about it. (We chose it because we think it is a good school, not because it's catholic.) Anyway, this was the short conversation:
Me: "Do you know what hell is?"
Him: - "Sure. It's the place that many christians think you go to after you die when you haven't lived good. They think you go to heaven if you live good."
Me: "What do you think?"
Him - "I don't think there is a hell."
Me: "How about heaven?"
Him, smiling: "No heaven either"
Me: "Are you sure?"
Him: - "No, but I'm sure enough."

Wish I can help my child into something similar. Best for me is the last part where he knows he isn't sure, and I supose he knows he does not need to be.

 Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 06:54, said:

Setting up a model and testing it, over and over and over again to come closer to the TRUTH, is what defines science.*

Setting up a model and believing it to be the TRUTH, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, through prosperity and adversity, despite anything, is what defines religion.

You are stereotyping religions here, there are many religions and many sciences, you are defining all religions with a sentence wich is nonsense.

[Fluffy]

As a summary I think most people here think along this lines:

-I don't care what reasons led yo to your conclusions as long as your conclusions are the same or similar enough to mines.

For western countries this conclusions seem to be: live and let live, don't steal if you don't need to, help others if you can, etc, etc.

This makes people comfortable, since everybody has similar values, and has money, health, etc on top of their priorities, we call people with this values "rational". Wich is wrong, what we like about this people is that they are "predictable" since we know what they want wich is the same as us. What scares us is people who do not seek the same things and thus could react in an unpredictable way.

western countries's values are flawed in many ways IMO, but that's another story.

[mikeh]

 Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 06:54, said:

This is why it is utterly futile to prove in a scientific way that religion is not true, or to believe religiously that science is not true: The two models of truth are fundamentally different.

Rik

No: it is not the models that are different: it is the different meaning of 'truth'.

In science, 'truth' is conditional. It means true as far as we currently know, but we are ready to revise our view should the evidence so require.

In religion, 'true' is whatever the leaders tell their followers is true, even if it flies inthe face of all available evidence.

One is honest, the other is delusional or worse.

One speaks to reality, the other speaks to the weaknesses of the human psyche

[mgoetze]

For all the similarity the poll results suggest between me and the typical BBFer, I do see a rather significant difference. It seems to me that most of my fellow atheists here are perfectly comfortable bandying about words such as "god" and "hell" as if they actually meant something. But ever since reading Wittgenstein, I have been convinced that these words are just empty shells, devoid of all meaning. For me, the answer to the question "do you believe in god?" is not "no," but rather, "I don't understand the question."

I'm not sure yet whether the term "Flying Spaghetti Monster" has meaning, the verdict is still out on that one.

Quote

Die richtige Methode der Philosophie wäre eigentlich die: Nichts zu sagen, als was sich sagen läßt, also Sätze der Naturwissenschaft – also etwas, was mit Philosophie nichts zu tun hat -, und dann immer, wenn ein anderer etwas Metaphysisches sagen wollte, ihm nachzuweisen, dass er gewissen Zeichen in seinen Sätzen keine Bedeutung gegeben hat. Diese Methode wäre für den anderen unbefriedigend – er hätte nicht das Gefühl, das wir ihn Philosophie lehrten - aber sie wäre die einzig streng richtige.

[mikeh]

 Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 05:12, said:

Quite obviously, I have been discussing with them about the experiments with neutrinos that go faster then light. I do this not because 10 year old kids need to know what neutrinos are or what the speed of light is, but because I want them to know how the scientific process works. It is a tedious process of asking questions, being open-minded about the answers, suggesting many possible answers, falsifying them, confusing the matter by making lots of mistakes, and -slowly but steadily- developing knowledge.

Rik

I assume you told them that intensive investigation revealed that there was an instrumentation flaw, such that the data was invalid. So far, at least, there is no valid experimental data that neutrnos move faster than the speed of light. What I liked about that incident was that not only did the news that such data existed cause an intense investigation, but that those physicists who were interviewed seemed almost uniformly both to doubt the data and to be very excited about it should the data be valid..even tho it would have fundamentally altered their current perception of what was 'true'.

This openness to the reality of the world is the ideal of science and the antithesis of religion.

[Trinidad]

 mikeh, on 2012-December-21, 09:18, said:

No: it is not the models that are different: it is the different meaning of 'truth'.

In science, 'truth' is conditional. It means true as far as we currently know, but we are ready to revise our view should the evidence so require.

In religion, 'true' is whatever the leaders tell their followers is true, even if it flies inthe face of all available evidence.

One is honest, the other is delusional or worse.

One speaks to truth, the other speaks to the weaknesses of the human psyche

A recurrent definition of truth? Or just circular reasoning?

I will not claim that either one of the truth models (or 'meaning' if you have a problem viewing one word 'truth' as a model) is superior to the other. And I don't need to either. It strikes me as unscientific. And they can exist next to each other, as far as I am concerned, as long as we are aware that these are two different models of the truth, we might call them S-truth and R-truth.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 mikeh, on 2012-December-21, 09:25, said:

I assume you told them that intensive investigation revealed that there was an instrumentation flaw, such that the data was invalid.

Of course I did. After all, a large part of science is about struggling with mistakes, flaws, errors or otherwise unsuccessful experiments. And, of course, I emphasized that the scientists who published the findings did that so others could help find the mistake, if there was one.

Rik

[billw55]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-December-20, 17:26, said:

I put in the middle for tolerance, however that is not really true I just didn't know how to answer it. If people start talking about their beliefs then "infuriated" but if people keep it to themselves then I don't care. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, just as everyone has the right to be stupid. However, if people say stupid things then it is annoying. If they continue to claim to be right in the face of all evidence/logic to the contrary then it is infuriating.

tbh it sounds like you are too easily trolled.

Are you also infuriated, say, by those who insist the moon landing was fake? Or that bigfoot exists? How about ghosts? For me, I find any stubborn belief in nonsense to be equally silly, but certainly not worth my emotional energy to get infuriated over. If you are reacting this way specifically to religious arguments, but not to other things you consider nonsense, it might mean something you don't expect.

If you get infuriated by all of them equally, you do get points for consistency. But it seems like a stressful way to live.

[mikeh]

 Trinidad, on 2012-December-21, 09:57, said:

A recurrent definition of truth? Or just circular reasoning?

I will not claim that either one of the truth models (or 'meaning' if you have a problem viewing one word 'truth' as a model) is superior to the other. And I don't need to either. It strikes me as unscientific. And they can exist next to each other, as far as I am concerned, as long as we are aware that these are two different models of the truth, we might call them S-truth and R-truth.

Rik

I didn't proof-read! I meant, and have edited, that science reflects reality. Good catch

As for them standing together, that is akin to having on one's bookshelf The Lord of the Ring next to an encylopedia and suggesting that they each reflect valid views of reality.