The SquizLog

The only issue is whether the Jesus story is true; if it is, then we are right to teach it to our children. We teach our children what we believe.

Your parents taught you that it's OK to not believe in God; and they taught you that before you were old enough to make up your own mind.

With the greatest of respect David, on what basis can you assert that the Jesus story is true? Where is the evidence? Furthermore, shouldn't other stories that purport to explain "the meaning of life" be given equal credence? And, if truth is to be derived from scriptures, where is the line to be drawn between literal and allegorical interpretations? Who decides?

You say that my parents taught me that it's OK not to believe in God; and they taught me that before I was old enough to make up my own mind. Isn't that the point? To allow children to keep an open mind until they are old enough? I don't recall my parents sending me to any atheist classes when other children of my tender age were attending Sunday school.

The bible is my evidence.

What explanation do you give for its existance, and the assertions it makes?

What other stories do you mean? Tell me, and we shall do an internal critique to see if they should be believed.

At the very least, the accounts of the life of Jesus recorded in the bible claim to be accurate statements of actual events. Jesus either either became alive after his death, or he didn't. Each man decides.

Do you teach your children that the Earth is round? Do you teach your children to respect their teachers? Why shouldn't I teach my children to honor their creator?

Why do you care what I teach my children?

David: Obviously there is scope for a lengthy dialogue here so for the moment I'll just address the first part of your response.

So you use the bible as your evidence for Jesus surviving his own death. As evidence goes, I think that's pretty flimsy. What assurance do we have that the relevant sections of the bible describe actual events? In light of the fact that the earliest known documents that led to what we now know as the New Testament were written many years after Jesus is supposed to have died, isn't it just possible that an element of fictional legend was introduced?

Also, if the bible is your evidence of Jesus surviving his own death, do you believe everything that is written in the bible is the literal truth? The book of Genesis? The book of Revelations? There's some pretty weird stuff there.

Legends, whether they are about King Arthur, Rainbow Serpents or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are just that: legends. Myths. Figments of the imagination. Some legends may have even originated from actual events before mutating over the course of time. But I think it is reasonable to assume that a document that is derived from various others - none of which was written during the supposed lifetime of Jesus - and has not been subject to scientific peer review or change control cannot be relied upon to accurately describe what actually happened. And that is just the New Testament.

As a confirmed agnostic (I can't see how any can prove there is not a god anymore than anyone can prove there is one or more). I haven't read "The God Delusion" but as the influence of the religious right increases, whether Christian, Muslim or whatever, the need to maintain sanity increases. The rise of the quackery associated with "Intelligent Design" is the meta-physical threat of the magnitude of the physical threat of environmental degradation.

Anyway I had a rather different path in my childhood to you, but my path led me to my present view that all religions are dangerous, (just as, for example, a scalpel or vehicular transport is dangerous) and that many of the present custodians of the faiths would like to see them more dangerous. Having been raised by devout Catholics, and hence schooling by nuns ("Q:Who made the world? A. God made the world. Q: Why did he make it. A: To give me grief in catechism class") and brothers steeped in Irish traditions, I do not see exposure to religion as an excuse for abandonment of reason later on in life. At one stage I was hoping to believe that there was an omnipotent, omnipresent deity, and indoctrination in the mores, dogma and rituals provides the mental and physical presence of infrastructure that makes it easier to believe that the omnipotent, omnipresent deity is responsible for the universe as we perceive it.

So, despite my children asking if they could be excused from religion classes in the state schools they attended, I was insistent that they did attend. Was I afraid of them being indoctrinated in something I do not believe in, something I regard as a simplistic cop out at best, and something that history has shown can easily trip over into evilness. Well of course I hoped that the moral framework that I have adopted (and I must admit that at present I am one of the fortunate ones who has not had to have the strength of my convictions put to the test), would shine through and influence them. And that needless and pointless suffering inflicted on living things, along with wanton vandalism, is immoral since it decreases the feeling of happiness, contentedness and self worth (of course past and present religions have believed that torturing someone to death was neither needless nor pointless, and who knows where the dividing line is between wanton vandalism and development).

But I did want my children to have a knowledge of their Judeo-Christian heritage and I wasn't prepared to school them in the credo of Christianity myself. Later I hoped they would be inspired to search for the historical underpinnings of the society they live in, and armed with scientific reason, draw their own conclusions about how morality can be based on the belief that you should leave the world a better place (based on criteria previously mentioned). And hopefully a natural curiosity would see them wonder as to why there are other cultures and religions, and what problems they evolved to solve.

If you cannot attain happiness without a framework with which to judge morality (and I still have to reconcile how my beliefs do not lead to a "moral equivalence" for any and all belief systems), I would rather children exposed to the options as soon as possible, rather than become aware of possibilities later on, especially if the time they do come across them is when they are in crisis and under stress (the implications of which were certainly understood by Tony Abbott in some of the contracts he has recently dished out).

This is great fun.

In Keith's latest response he dismisses the evidence for the reliability of the biblical accounts as "flimsy". Has he really looked into it? I am willing to lend him books on the topic, although I suspect that he has his mind made up, and will not countenance the possibility that he is wrong. Nevertheless, my offer stands. There is at least this: on the Christianity side, just as on the atheism/agnosticism side, there are intelligent, well-researched academics. Are the Christians all idiots? Have they all been brainwashed? Or could it be that they have defensible reasons for their conclusions?

Keith challenges me to give him reasons for believing the bible; I challenge him to give me reasons for *not* doing so. He argues that it is "possible that an element of fictional legend was introduced"; but was it? If Keith has evidence for believing that the bible accounts are fiction, then let's hear it.

Keith's criteria for reliability requires "scientific peer review or change control"; but is that reasonable? Are there no other criteria for acceptance of historical records?

Mark: Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the discussion. I agree that there is a pressing need for sanity in these times of increasing influence of the religious right. I also agree that children should be "exposed to the options as soon as possible" provided that they are old enough to make sense of them.

David: Yes, I have looked into the history of the bible and have found it very interesting to learn of it's development over time (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament). And no, I don't think all Christians are idiots. On the contrary, Douglas Adams, in "The Salmon of Doubt", sums up my view perfectly: "I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Oh, and you're welcome to borrow my copy of "The God Delusion" if you like. ;)

Actually, Keith, I'd like to take you up on your offer (about "The God Delusion"). Thanks.

My favourite proof of why god exists:

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

I found The God Delusion a bit annoying, because Dawkins seemed to fall into the "when your only tool is a hammer" trap. When your only tool is natural selection, every problem starts looking like evolution.

When Dawkins started applying natural selection theories to things outside biology (like cosmology), he lost me a little.

A pity, though, because a lot of the other stuff he says is spot on.

Keith, how is what your parents did any different to what "religious" parents do? They imparted an ideology to you - just like all parents do.

Interestingly, I once read a letter Dawkins wrote to his daughter, and he told her, in the strongest possible terms, to avoid religion. Is that allowing her to think for herself?

Craig, I think it is more accurate to say that my parents encouraged me to question beliefs that others were taught to accept simply "because the Bible says so". So I don't agree with your assertion that all parents "impart an ideology" to their children.

My comments keep getting rejected for questionable content.

Sorry, Craig. I'm not sure why that is.

It seems it didn't like the URL to my blog page. I will keep my comments short so I don't lose anything.

I don't see that keeping you from scripture allowed you to question beliefs. In fact, it put you at a disadvantage when it came to evaluating those beliefs.

Say I am skeptical about quantum physics. If I write a note enabling my son to skip physics class, am I enabling him to make up his own mind about physics? No! I'm doing the opposite.

Craig, Science is based on empirical evidence. Every now and again new evidence arises that, after an appropriate period of peer review, results in acceptance of a new theory. That is how quantum physics came about.

Religion is fundamentally different. It involves belief systems based on interpretation of scriptures and stories handed down the generations by word of mouth. There are many different religious traditions. I don't have a problem with children being taught about a variety of religions and religion in general.

However, I don't think it is healthy for children to be taught that only one religion presents the truth. I think there would be alot less blood shed if children were taught to be more tolerant.

I respect everyone's right to believe what they want to believe. But I would like to see a world where people understand and wonder about their world with the help of science rather than contribute to divisive religious conflicts.

Keith, I don't think you've answered the point I was making - that is, by removing you from religious education, your parents were not enabling you to "decide for yourself". Indeed, it quite possibly introduced a prejudice in your thinking against religion. Is it all that surprising that you grew up sharing your parents views regarding religion?

Yes, empirical method is very useful, and is at the foundation of science. The empirical method doesn't get us too far with religion or metaphysics.

But I deny that the only worthwhile truth is that which can be obtained by empirical means. There is a massive amount of human experience that you would have to exclude from reasonable discussion if that were the case.

I have never met someone who is able to live as a purely empirical entity. They have to give up things such as love, peace, joy, art, morality - all become meaningless, and no-one can live consistently with such a reality.

For example, you can say that love is just a chemical agitation in the brain. But you cannot live consistently with such a view. You cannot help but live as if love actually meant something real.

Craig, Of course everyone is biased and it is natural for parents to want to protect their children. So, no, it is not surprising - even though I have given much thought to the matter and at one stage tried very hard to be a Christian - that I don't believe in God. And one of the reasons I rejected Christianity is that it insists it is the only "true" religion. What of other religious belief systems that grew from different cultures?

Of course we enjoy, learn and find meaning from many endeavours other than science. As you say, that is part of the human experience. Being human, I experience emotions such as compassion, joy and a sense of what is fair. That doesn't imply the need for metaphysics or religion to make sense of my world and give it meaning.

*And one of the reasons I rejected Christianity is that it insists it is the only "true" religion.*

I find this a fascinating idea. Why is it surprising that there should be one "true" way to God? In many other areas (maths for example) we recognise one "true" answer to a problem (eg 1+1=2). Why is it surprising that there is a true way to God?

You say that is "one" of the reasons you rejected Christianity. What are some of the other reasons?

Oh yes, and I'm glad to see you recognise that truth can exist beyond strict empiricism. That was the whole point of my post, so we are in agreement.

The tolerance bit is the thorny issue. Too much tolerance and we have moral equivalence, your view is as good as anyone elses, no matter what you advocate. If I am opposed to homosexuality or female circumcision, should I tolerate those who advocate it? If I am to state that I have morals, then there must be consequences in my behaviour based on what I believe those morals imply. And so it must be for a particular religion, those who follow it must have a firm belief in the righteousness of their cause. If, for example,they see their god-given duty being to prevent behaviour that goes against their tenets. Hence it should come as no surprise to us that intolerance is a characteristic of religion, or any belief system. Can someone who firmly believes in their religion be expected to be tolerant of others. This has always been a problem for religious people who seem to know that you can be a good person without following their religion. Hence the general rise of ecumenicalism and the need to emphasise similarities rather than pontificate on how you have found the one true way. Suffice it to say that I know I should at times be intolerant, and am envious of those who have solved the problem by having a religion that directs them on this matter.

As to whether any child to be exempt from science because they do not believe in it, I would see that as immoral and dangerous. I believe all children should have the benefit of such demonstrable facts as bacteria can cause disease. I believe they should learn such things as the theory of electrons which explains what we call electricity (even though I have never seen an electron or met anyone who has). I hope my children learnt in science class that logic (the inevitable outcome of events) does apply, and reason can be used to understand the universe (and that pyschological behaviour can have physical causes), although we may not have enough knowledge at the moment to explain certain phenomena. And possibly sit for an exam where they had to derive and explain logical outcomes. As to why it is a property of this universe that an electron must emit or absorb a photon as it changes energy states, why acceleration due to gravity on the earth's surface is roughly 9.8m/s/s, or why viruses want to jump species, I do not know, and the explanation that god wanted it that way seems to me, with my present knowledge, as "provable" as any other. Of course that then begs the question as to why pain and suffering is capraciously visited on some and not others, an outcome such a god must have had knowledge of and condoned.

I would not like my children attending a religion class where they had to believe there was a proof of god (as opposed to a tacit assumption that god exists, even mathematics needs Peano's axioms). I have no qualms with a belief in god being based on faith, and I suspect my mother is still praying that one day god will bestow upon me the gift of faith and I will believe. I suspect that the tolerant religious followers are quite reconciled with the idea of faith being their basis for belief, not science.