This post is not meant in any way to shut down, or limit, discussion around religion (not that I expect I could ever wield such power!). It is only meant to serve as a reminder of the difficulties inherent in maintaining accurate perspective when tackling a complex subject no matter what angle we are approaching it from.

First of all, though, I have to say that I think we have come a long way from some of the nastiness that we used to see on here a number of years back, and I am glad that we can now get stuck in such a discussion without it becoming a thread of insults and smears against people and their deeply-held beliefs. Of course there continue to be misunderstandings and mild insults, but nothing a good ride couldn’t clear up.

That said, while I entirely and unequivocally accept and support the fact that some people believe and some people don’t, and I don’t think for one moment that religion should be imposed on anyone, the one thing I find hard to overlook is when a person’s position (either way, and in whole or in part) is based on inaccuracies. Yet dealing with some of those inaccuracies is difficult in this cyber-environment due to its inherent limitations (such as multiple lines of discussion opening up at once), and the fact that we all have our personal difficulties (such as not being very fast at typing, or not being able to respond right away to an objection).

Unfortunately, however, I think that some of the points made both for and against the idea of God and the practice of religion are either derived from, or modelled on the basis of, the way we were forced to study it at GCSE in the UK. In Canada, where there is no religion in schools, people tend to discuss it (if, indeed, they discuss it at all!) in a very different way. Mind you, I haven’t been to Canada for almost 15 years, so things might have evolved in the wake of Dawkins’ work, but I would have characterised the conversation around God and religion in Canada as more inquisitive as opposed to probative. Here, by contrast. it very often seems a matter of having to prove things, with things needing proving being pretty elementary.

By way of illustration, an ideal discussion might look something like this:

-So, I hear you like to ride bikes.
-Yes.
-How come? What do you like about it?
-Well, [explanation follows].
-Interesting. I’m not sure I’ll ever try it, as I tend to prefer things like chess, but thanks for sharing.
-Cool. Tell me something about chess.

Whereas, the sort of probative discussion I find frustrating tends to be more like this:

-So I hear you like to ride bikes. Why?
-Well, I guess ever since I was young I just liked…
-Since you were young? So your parents made you ride them?
-No, not really. I guess my parents did buy me my first bike…
-So you’re one of those people then, who just did what their parents made them do?
-What? I…
-So anyway, back to bikes. I suppose you’re going to try to tell me that they’re more environmentally-friendly than cars?
-Well, no, it wasn’t the first thing on my mind. I was just going to tell you about how my friends and I used to…
-Because everyone knows that between the tyre rubber, and frame material, and chain oil, and bearing grease, and the fact that all cyclists either have more than one bike or would like to, all environmental benefits are mitigated.
-What? I just wanted to tell you…
-Get your head out of your ass, man. Bikes suck.

😀

I jest, but I am sure you can see what I mean.

In any case, I am happy to continue participating in most of the discussions that take place on here, including the religion ones; I just thought it could be helpful to pause and point out how and why, at least in my opinion, religion threads in general can be quite difficult.

But this, on the whole, being a decent place, do carry on. 8)

Thanks for this and your considered input on the other thread.

But this, on the whole, being a decent place, do carry on.

On the whole yes, in political and religious threads generally not at all. Also many posters make a point of agressively attacking others based on views expressed in other non-connected threads.

Lesson learned.

Related a personal experience as I perceived it with the caveat that I in no way wished to encourage anyone to either believe or participate and was swamped with “Your argument isn’t sound as it lacks evidence”

No argument offered. No evidence required.

Will not be doing it again. 🙁

You are putting the blame for the discussion, usually melting down, on the non-religion-istas?

The problem comes from the fact that one side can’t explain their beliefs, or show evidence and the other demands evidence.

Thus it’s a never ending circle.

Where the perception of blame is lies is based on the individual level. ie, Where you personally are on the spectrum of belief and non-belief.

personally, i tend to avoid them these days. Tedium, doesn’t even begin to describe it.

I can’t see any difficulty in discussing religion on this forum. In fact there’s a really long discussion on the front page.

You could remove the “on the forum” bit from the title.

Most forums have a complete ban on religion and politics for good reason.

The fact that there’s even a hint of a constructive thread on here speaks volumes about the management and the STW forum users.

Now – Mega Drive vs SNES?

If religious threads were easy then STW would’ve solved one of mankind’s most enduring and divisive problems. Ain’t gonna happen.

You are putting the blame for the discussion, usually melting down, on the non-religion-istas?

I’m not putting blame on anyone, because I don’t think there is any ‘blame’ to be imputed. I am trying to say – in as mild a way as possible – that complex subjects such as religion can be difficult to discuss, especially because of a certain discursive style.

End of. No problem, and no one to blame. Just, from my point of view, a fact that affects certain types of discussion more than other types.

Is there a problem?

I get the impression that those people who chose to join the thread and discuss their beliefs are just annoyed that everyone else didn’t go ‘great, that sounds nice’ and are quite shocked to find that non believers think they’re a bit odd.

The simple solution is that if you’re a believer and can’t accept that some people might not think your belief is rational, don’t post on internet religion threads. Same goes for the converse.

OP.

You touched on the way RE or religion is taught in schools, at least when I was at school, it was taught in the same manner that maths, science, etc. We’re taught. 2+2=4. F=ma. It is because it is. And can be proven.

God, etc. Was taught in the same manner. It just is. Don’t question it. One particular teacher dismissed all other religions as non true religions and the true faith was CofE.

And STW loves a good argument. It’s not about the subject, it’s about who can quote the most and WIN!

😉

I get the impression that those people who chose to join the thread and discuss their beliefs are just annoyed that everyone else didn’t go ‘great, that sounds nice’ and are quite shocked to find that non believers think they’re a bit odd.

Nope.

Just disappointed that, what started out as an open, grown up discussion of belief or lack thereof descended into a melee of swivel-eyed loons on both sides of a non-existent argument quoting scripture / Dawkins at each other and demanding reference sources.

Disappointed. Not even slightly surprised.

TBH, I don’t think the anti-religionists really care what you get up to in your own (or your Gods) house if it wasn’t for the impact on them.

Mostly, I posted this because I thought my comparative ‘discussion’ was funny.

@footflaps: I am not suggesting there is a problem with the fact of the threads; just quite often with the facts within the threads. And that can apply to all sides. In the meantime, my original post says nothing about rationality vs irrationality because it has nothing to do with what I was getting at.

You touched on the way RE or religion is taught in schools, at least when I was at school, it was taught in the same manner that maths, science, etc.

You sure, with science we were taught from age 13 that every experiment starts with a hypothesis which you then set our to prove or disprove via the experiment. You state the hypothesis first, the conduct the test, record the results and then analyse the results against the hypothesis…

RE was just ‘some people believe this and some believe that….’

Look on the bright side – it keeps trolling and bad manners on one thread and provides relief to others.

Religion-bashing is part of the DNA – just accept it

Annoyed I got dragged into the latest one – better to walk away – damn failed again!

Unfortunately, however, I think that some of the points made both for and against the idea of God and the practice of religion are either derived from, or modelled on the basis of, the way we were forced to study it at GCSE in the UK.

I was pre-GCSE, but our RS course was a study of the Synoptic Gospels and typically questions would be compare and contrast Luke’s approach to this compared Matthew’s etc. In the same way that one would compare two author’s approach to a subject to English. It was therefore a study of texts more than religious thought.

Footflaps.

Yes it was. Very much so. The RE bit anyway. I think the interview for the post of RE teacher went something like: “Are you a religious zealot?” “YES!” “Oh good, you can start on Monday”

SNES.

SNES.

Weak Argument.

Evidence?

Sources?

RE was just ‘some people believe this and some believe that….’

The difficulty being that if we then go away and say, ‘right, I’ve got a handle on what these sorts of people believe’, then we are likely to ascribe incorrect things to them, as belief systems tend to be far, far more nuanced than a GCSE course can possible communicate.

And I would say the same thing no matter what religious point of view was being discussed, including atheism.

I would observe that the entire problem with teaching religion in schools and then drawing anything but the most superficial conclusions, is similar to studying anthropology at an elementary level and using phrases like, ‘Africans are all…’ or ‘Europeans are all…’ or whatever. There may be a grain of truth in such a statement like that, but you know how grossly wrong any further conclusions you could draw might be.

Agree with mefty – my O level Divinity (!) was v Synoptic Gospel/text focus. The contrast between this and the RE that my kids received is stark. Almost different subjects and far nor analytically critical esp of the specific texts – I learned a lot from my two sons.

Best place to discuss airplanes – an airplane forum.
Best place to discuss bikes – a bike forum.
Best place to discuss religion. . . . . .

🙂

We’re taught. 2+2=4. F=ma. It is because it is. And can be proven.

Ohh! Go on then!!

Best place to discuss religion. . . . . .

I would say ‘anywhere’ to all of these. After all, a bike forum just about bikes would descend into tyre discussions ad infinitum. I would just remind participants of the hazards. 🙂

In my opinion the problem with most religions is that they are right and every other religion is wrong. This is despite the fact that three of the major ones; Judiaism, Christianity and Islam, all worship the same god. Alongside viewing other religions as “inferior” these three also view women as inferior. In short, they are bastions of discrimination.

Personally I don’t have an issue with faith. I believe that there is something I just don’t know what. I do believe however that if there was a great creator then s/he would be looking down on and weeping at how religions kill each other in his / her name. Adherence to doctrine and the need to spread “The Good Word” is tearing the world apart. Maybe if the religious could get together and agree a way forward and treat everyone as equal then maybe the topic wouldn’t be so divisive.

I would observe that the entire problem with teaching religion in schools and then drawing anything but the most superficial conclusions, is similar to studying anthropology at an elementary level and using phrases like, ‘Africans are all…’ or ‘Europeans are all…’ or whatever. There may be a grain of truth in such a statement like that, but you know how grossly wrong any further conclusions you could draw might be.

Nothing special about teaching RE.

At all levels in all subjects there are crass assumptions taught and the lower down the academic scale (i.e. younger students) the bigger the assumptions are. If you choose to study a subject in details you then spend most of the time refining all the assumptions you learnt at the previous level.

TBH, I don’t think the anti-religionists really care what you get up to in your own (or your Gods) house if it wasn’t for the impact on them.

What impact is that?

Genuine question, especially in Scotland where, for example, you can get married to anybody by anybody (with a licence), anywhere you choose.

TBH I can’t think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.

You’re an economist too FF?

Actually that turns full circle in the real world and goes back to basics!!

I find your position on religion and faith genuinely quite interesting, Coyote. I think that there are a few things I could say to mitigate the first concern you raise (though not necessarily convince you), but I think your point is an important one.

Charlie Mungus.

It was an example of how subjects were taught at my school. If you want to discuss theorem, knock yourself out.

SaxonRider – Member
You are putting the blame for the discussion, usually melting down, on the non-religion-istas?
I’m not putting blame on anyone, because I don’t think there is any ‘blame’ to be imputed. I am trying to say – in as mild a way as possible – that complex subjects such as religion can be difficult to discuss, especially because of a certain discursive style.

your examples are a bit biased then, you needed a 3rd for balance.

btw i never did any exams in religions and I went to a catholic school, I don’t think we are forced in to learning it really. in fact RE classes in 1st and 2nd year were the most riotous of my classes! 😆

At all levels in all subjects there are crass assumptions taught and the lower down the academic scale (i.e. younger students) the bigger the assumptions are. If you choose to study a subject in details you then spend most of the time refining all the assumptions you learnt at the previous level.

Absolutely! Thanks for pointing this out. My op was perhaps far too wordy a reminder that this is the case, and that when we get into discussions about religion (for example), it is wise to remember our own personal limitations based on the lack of depth of our knowledge.

I can’t think of anything connected to religion (barring the usual WoS OO pish) that has ever had an impact upon my life or that of my family.

Didn’t you know squirrelking? Every Sunday, I go to the Kirk, sing a few songs with hundreds of pensioners and oppress the shit out of you.

As regards the WoS OO pish – Hee Haw to do with actual religion. Everything to do with bigoted tribalism.
Our church has hundreds of members, none of whom are in the OO. Other local churches report the same phenomenon. Funny eh?

I could argue that, quite clearly, the best place to discuss religion isn’t “anywhere” . . . . 😯

You’re an economist too FF?

Economics is a bit of an outlier as they deliberately chose to teach (at undergraduate level) completely false models (based on the rational consumer), will full knowledge that the models are next to useless. There has been quite a fuss about this in Economics circles, as the whole thing is just stupid. Bit like Geography degrees deciding to teach the world is flat as it makes maps easier to use…

What is WoS OO? It seems to be contentious.

The Orange Order in the West of Scotland.

Don’t ask. You don’t want to know.

sure, with science we were taught from age 13 that every experiment starts with a hypothesis which you then set our to prove or disprove via the experiment. You state the hypothesis first, the conduct the test, record the results and then analyse the results against the hypothesis…

RE was just ‘some people believe this and some believe that….’

However there are a great many scientific hypotheses that we have been unable to ‘prove’ but instead become “accepted wisdom” on the basis of non-conclusive evidence that we believe overwhelmingly reinforces the hypothesis. On a number of occasions these accepted scientific hypotheses that have been repeated as ‘fact’ have later been proved incorrect. (Eg. Gravitation) The ‘scientific method’ is far from as pure as we would generally believe.

Yikes. I’ll keep my head down.