Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:



But there it is again. Your insistence is wrong because it falsifies the nature of belief. There can be no evidence for belief. There never will be.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you have just shown the reason why. There is no such thing as absolute faith or belief either. That is idolatrous, because it tries to make mystery into something which is absolutely known. It can't be known; it can only be believed in, an object of faith.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties, don't -knows, etc. However, to explain them with a faith belief is the way, in my opinion, to block the finding of the best answer.

---

quote:

---

I think you have chosen a fairly easily demurred against topic here!
maths is a known thing;. it needs no faith to accept its 'existence'.

---

quote:

---

I have heard people say that mathematics existed before human brains *found* it, or that that humans are *discovering* something that already exists. Well, I don't think that matters, since no-one worships maths , i.e. in a similar way to worshipping God. . It is perceived as an amazingly marvellous thing and it is awe-inspiring to hear mathematicians speak about their subject.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unum Solum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus boiled it down to two great commandments, but the first still presupposes the existence of God.

---

But does the second require the first as it seems to me to be something that is ‘good’ (whatever good means), and existence (another loaded word) would be better for all if adhered to.

Or does belief/submission of will to God (the Biblical one) mean that we have divine help in carrying out the second command in a manner and extent that would not be possible alone? The indwelling Spirit enabling us beyond our mere mortal ability.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties, don't -knows, etc. However, to explain them with a faith belief is the way, in my opinion, to block the finding of the best answer.

---

quote:

---

I think you have chosen a fairly easily demurred against topic here!
maths is a known thing;. it needs no faith to accept its 'existence'.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.[/

---

quote:

---

There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believe are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.

---

As does belief that no God/god/s exist. There are no “facts” that can prove this. Rather, there is an absence of facts, or evidence, that a particular person finds persuasive. One may say that without supporting facts they will not "believe" something, but that is itself a belief statement. It is "not proven and, I believe, unlikely to be proven" rather than "disproven." Others can, and do, look at the same evidence and say "more likely than not."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

None of us has strength imo. We are, every one of us, hugely vulnerable and reliant on having people of good will around us.

---

Brilliantly put, Boogie.

--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing, for me, is a no brainer. Sometimes a wrong brainer, but my positions and beliefs contain much internal examination. My journey is an odd one and I don't generally do personal details. But I believe what I do because it feels right. Not without question or challenge, but right. For me.
In the end, that is the only solid advice I can offer: Self-examination.
Unquestioned belief is worthless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... Who are the particular materialists who are denying any spiritual or huanist idea, who have no idea of beauty, arts to uplift the spirit, whose lifelacks any joy? ...

---

SusanDoris, I've probably asked this before, and I've chosen one of your statements making more or less the same point at random.

I'm not denying that many atheists experience beauty, uplift of the spirit, the effects on the spirit of inspirational art, even the inspiration of noble ideals and ethics. It's clear that you do.

What puzzles me, though, is where that fits into the atheist or humanist universe.

---

quote:

---

Where in it is the dimension in which these things can function?

---

quote:

---

Is there a sound explanation of how and where these higher human qualities are or can come from? Or is the explanation a bit of wishful thinking, an attempt to get round the possibility that the foundations of the atheist or humanist universe are sand?

---

quote:

---

Even without having to accept any particular theology as to what that 'more' is, and how it works, the other possible explanations are all too dreadful to contemplate
- because they all involve having to accept the possibility that there might be a 'more' of some sort.

---

quote:

---

It's a bit like Professor Dawkins's memes. They explain a problem for him. There might even be something in his theory. But he refuses to recognise that there is nowhere in his picture of the universe for them to exist. His theory of them, and to him, their malign influence, has to be dependent on an explanation of life, the universe and everything that is fundamentally alien to his understanding of it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unum Solum:
maybe its ‘why cant I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Then you are wrong. One has to have "faith" in the fundamental building blocks of mathematics just as one has to have "faith" in the philosophy of science. It isn't about uncertainty, that's a category error.

---

quote:

---

You just have to accept that this is how mathematics (or science) works. One can't prove it, because it is so fundamental that it isn't testable.

---

quote:

---

@SusanDoris Many truths of mathematics are much more uncertain then you perhaps realise. May I suggest you search for "Godel's Incompleteness Theorems" online.

---

Yes, there are uncertainties in maths, and, yes, I heard about that incompleteness theorem some years ago and listened to some of the Wikipedia entry, but only got the vaguest concept of it!!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.[/

---

As does belief that no God/god/s exist. There are no “facts” that can prove this. Rather, there is an absence of facts, or evidence, that a particular person finds persuasive. One may say that without supporting facts they will not "believe" something, but that is itself a belief statement. It is "not proven and, I believe, unlikely to be proven" rather than "disproven." Others can, and do, look at the same evidence and say "more likely than not."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction.

---

]I agree, SusanDoris, which is why, with all respect, I have trouble with the assertion you have repeatedly made, including in this thread, that you "know" there is/are no God/god/s.

---

quote:

---

Upon what facts is that knowledge based?

And it's no good saying that the burden is on those positing the existence of God to come forward with facts. I would agree if that those asserting that they “know” God exists bear the burden of proof. But here, you are the one who has made the assertion that you "know" God does not exist, so the burden of proof is on you.

---

quote:

---

For my money, no one "knows" that God exists or doesn’t exist. We all look at the same circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof, and go one way or ther other. Either we, we're talking about belief.[[QUOTE]I will dig my heels in here a bit because surely no-one can assert that the odds are equivalent?
[QUOTE]As for the OP, I can readily identify with the inability to not believe. That’s me. Even when I doubt—seriously doubt—I seem unable to let go of belief. It’s not so much because I don't want to, but more because at more core I find the non-existence of God even less "believable" than the existence of God.

---

quote:

---

One thing I wonder about in this context: We now seem to think of “belief” as intellectual assent. But it seems that those in Scripture thought of it more as trust—more the heart than the mind, so to speak.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
GG

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But some things cannot be proven, and must either be accepted or denied.

---

quote:

---

Mathematics is philosophy. Various complicated and beautiful mathematical proofs exist, but it isn't possible to prove the basic assumptions of how numbers work.

You just have to either accept it and move on with the complex ideas built upon those assumptions, or stubbornly reject them and likely remain ignorant about mathematics.

---

*mutters under breath a bit, but decides on no comment *

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But I do have faith in the fundamental building blocks of maths and the Theories of Science. They are based on observations, can be challenged and tested. I am constantly aware, though, of the fact that science never claims a 100% proof of anything.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Always with the acknowledgement that there is a chance, however vanishingly small, of either being right. It occurs to me that it is usually the non-believer who has to point this out. Believers, i.e. with not a scrap of objective (etc etc) evidence to back them up, do not mention this much!!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Unum Solum maybe its ‘why can't I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?

---

quote:

---

Galloping Granny I do not agonise over God. Now in my eighties I have fallen back on the conclusion that there is indeed something more that we can call God, which is Love, and which is present in and among us, and which we are sometimes conscious of, but which does not manipulate our lives, or send illness or drought or disaster or punishment or cure for illness. As a lay preacher, I tell my congregation that every person in the church has their own concept of God, and that ultimately God is the greatest mystery.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

quote:

---

Unum Solum maybe its ‘why can't I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?

---

I can't speak for the mindset of atheists …

---

quote:

---

…but my own faith journey is one of having discovered what a 'relationship' with God entails and experienced the dichotomy implicit in God's intimate proximity and paradoxically concurrent remote 'otherness'.

---

quote:

---

God is a concept of the human mind, just as everything else is entirely a construct of the mind but the construct is usually a construct of some objective reality, though in the case of a 'God' concept, substantially beyond our actual comprehension.[

---

quote:

---

Most people's understanding of what they mean by descriptive use of the word 'God' is quite limited, usually to images and concepts they formed as children. Most atheists brought up in a 'faith' environment, imagine that, 'growing out' of such infantile imaginings constituted, for them, a better understanding of 'reality'. In fact they merely arrived at an 'alternative' understanding of reality, not a definitive one.

---

quote:

---

There is no dichotomy between 'trying to be a good and caring person', and either atheism on the one hand or 'belief in a Transcendent Being' on the other. Neither philosophical position has any bearing whatever on the decision to be 'a good and caring person'. One either IS or one ISN'T, 'a caring person', instance by instance, according to personal choice and the dictates of circumstance. If 'faith in a transcendent being 'enhances one's prospects of success in that venture', then it would be foolish to 'walk away from your need to believe in God, (what ever level of intellectual comprehension you may have of the term 'God').

---

quote:

---

Neither philosophical position 'atheism' or 'faith', is mathematically, scientifically or theologically provably correct, and those who would convince you otherwise, whether 'certainty filled believers' or 'certainty filled and supposedly liberated atheists', are deluded liars.

---

quote:

---

Belief in the possibility of the existence of a creating transcendent being is not provably irrational. Belief that such a being does not NEED to exist as an explanation for what we choose to call 'reality' is a quite viable option. The choice is ours to make.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.

---

As does belief that no God/god/s exist. There are no “facts” that can prove this. Rather, there is an absence of facts, or evidence, that a particular person finds persuasive. One may say that without supporting facts they will not "believe" something, but that is itself a belief statement. It is "not proven and, I believe, unlikely to be proven" rather than "disproven." Others can, and do, look at the same evidence and say "more likely than not."

---

That sounds like a complicated way of talking about or asking for the negative proof theory. The onus for providing proofs and explanations for something they believe exists is on those who believe it does, most definitely not on those who have no reason to consider it as even possible.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction.

---

I agree, SusanDoris, which is why, with all respect, I have trouble with the assertion you have repeatedly made, including in this thread, that you "know" there is/are no God/god/s.

---

If indeed I have used words which make that assertion, then I will correct them. I try always to be most careful to allow for the probability, however, vanishingly, remotely, small of a god appearing one day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I know what it is to believe in God - that was belief in God only, none of the other associated mystical doings or miracles was more than a moral teaching, but then I realised that I’d known for ages that there was no such thing as God, or any god/spirit/etc for that matter, and that all gods have been entirely human ideas.

---

quote:

---

For my money, no one "knows" that God exists or doesn’t exist. We all look at the same circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof, and go one way or ther other. Either we, we're talking about belief.

quote:

---

I will dig my heels in here a bit because surely no-one can assert that the odds are equivalent?

---

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

One thing I wonder about in this context: We now seem to think of “belief” as intellectual assent. But it seems that those in Scripture thought of it more as trust—more the heart than the mind, so to speak.

---

Yes, but they were writing without the knowledge we have now.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by agingjb:
I can't see how Godel's theorems, which I do just about understand, imply anything about the existence, whatever that means, of God.

Cohen's independence proofs, which I cannot follow beyond their bare statement, might just be relevant, although I doubt it.

As for science, the details of Quantum Dynamics and General Relativity are beyond me, but what I would ask the scientists is how their observations rule out the possibility that we are living in a simulation - a simpler question than the existence of an undetectable transcendent deity.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Here is an example from this thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I know what it is to believe in God - that was belief in God only, none of the other associated mystical doings or miracles was more than a moral teaching, but then I realised that I’d known for ages that there was no such thing as God, or any god/spirit/etc for that matter, and that all gods have been entirely human ideas.

---

You have made similar statements in other threads.

---

quote:

---

For my money, no one "knows" that God exists or doesn’t exist. We all look at the same circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof, and go one way or ther other. Either we, we're talking about belief

---

quote:

---

Though many would assert they are not equivalent—that the odds of God existing outweigh the odds of God not existing. [[

---

quote:

---

I understand and respect that you do not see it that way at all. But others look at the same evidence you do and weigh it differently.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

One thing I wonder about in this context: We now seem to think of “belief” as intellectual assent. But it seems that those in Scripture thought of it more as trust—more the heart than the mind, so to speak.

---

Yes, but they were writing without the knowledge we have now.

---

quote:

---

Seriously though, I think that this is a red herring. Many of us accept all the science you do, and find it irrelevant to the question of whether God exists. In other words, the doubts we have are not prompted by scientific understandings. And there are those who, in light of all that science teaches us, find their belief in the existence of God strengthened. That is not your experience, but it is the experience of some.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unum Solum:
Not sue what I am really asking - maybe its ‘why cant I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm afraid it will be too late to edit that particular post, but the proviso should have been said that of course I always did leave that small opening for a god to appear one day., Perhaps if I add the word *proviso* everywhere, that will solve the problem!

---

quote:

---

I will dig my heels in here a bit because surely no-one can assert that the odds are equivalent?

quote:

---

Why not?

quote:

---

Because there is a wealth of objective scientific evidence for the TofE, nature etc, available for checking and zero objective evidence for any god.

---

---

---

quote:

---

No, simply that they were very limited in their available knowledge base.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Susan Doris: You wrote I'll just put in a line then to say that this particular atheist does not have a 'mind set' - I wonder how you define this?-

---

quote:

---

How do you have a relationship with an idea which you cannot observe in any way?

---

quote:

---

So if it is beyond your comprehension, how are you imagining you comprehend it, in order to have a relationship with it?

---

quote:

---

Why do you use the phrase supposedly liberated atheists?

---

quote:

---

Certainly is. My sort of bottom line is do not tell children that this belief is a true fact.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

Atheist Mindset - Definition:

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The problem is solved, SusanDoris, if you hold yourself to the same standard you’ve set for others: Only use the word "know"—as in "I know there's no such thing as God; I know that God is simply a human construct"—if you have facts that establish that knowledge. If you do not have such facts, then you "believe" there is no such thing as God,

---

quote:

---

just like some others believe otherwise. To do anything less subjects the knowledge-belief distinction for others to a higher standard than you’re willing to abide by for yourself.

---

quote:

---

I'll concede for argument there might be zero scientific evidence for the existence of any god, but that is not the same as saying there is evidence for the non-existence of any god. The reality is that people find ample evidence for the existence of a god;[/QB[

---

All of which is subjective, is it not?

quote:

---

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct if I have, but it seems to me that you put all your eggs in the basket of "If it can't be tested scientifically, it should not be believed."

---

Bearing in mind my age, the necessarily limited number of years I have left, and the total lack of objective evidence for God , I think I am fairly safe in concluding that!  However, I'll be checking up here until the very last moment!!

quote:

---

With regard to ancients:

quote:

---

[qb]No, simply that they were very limited in their available knowledge base.

---

If I recall correctly, this is what Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." It is certainly true they lacked our scientific knowledge base, and that bears on how they perceived and expressed things. But I think the idea that they were less wise than we are is demonstrable false. If anything, I too often suspect that the opposite is true.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Then one comes up against the tricky bit about having a positive belief that there is not, whereas I maintain that I lack belief in any god.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'll concede for argument there might be zero scientific evidence for the existence of any god, but that is not the same as saying there is evidence for the non-existence of any god. The reality is that people find ample evidence for the existence of a god;

---

All of which is subjective, is it not?

---

Yes, but no more subjective than evidence that there is no God. As I have said, I think science is, so to speak, agnostic. All other evidence will turn on the weight given it by those considering it.

Thank you for your interesting posts as well, SusanDoris. As someone else said, I appreciate the opportunity to think and re-examine. And I hope you'll be with us for many years.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?

---

No. Absolutely not. There are no beliefs based on faith alone. All beliefs are based on a mixture of facts, personal experience, the testimony of trusted people, one's other beliefs, and so on. Beliefs based on faith alone aren't beliefs, they're de facto evidence of schizophrenia.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?

---

No. Absolutely not. There are no beliefs based on faith alone. All beliefs are based on a mixture of facts, personal experience, the testimony of trusted people, one's other beliefs, and so on. Beliefs based on faith alone aren't beliefs, they're de facto evidence of schizophrenia.

---

I don't think I agree. Many people are what they are because of what they were born into. Now, one could stretch 'testimony of trusted people' to include what mum and dad believe, but people believe without real thought. All day, every day.
And that is pretty damn near faith alone.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

LilBudha Fixed this for you.
There. Is. NO. Such. Thing.
All being an atheist requires is not believing in god(s).
Really, truly.
Thought and reason are not required for any belief or lack thereof.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
And what percent, do you think, of the children of Christians remain in the church when they grow up? Whatever number you guess, it will be too high. No, this is just inaccurate. Children believe what their parents tell them, sure. But not for long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

quote:

---

LilBudha Fixed this for you.
There. Is. NO. Such. Thing.
All being an atheist requires is not believing in god(s).
Really, truly.
Thought and reason are not required for any belief or lack thereof.

---

And your Mind is therefore Set on an atheist perspective I suppose. QED.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Let's say person X believes something. You say it's by faith alone. I say it's from a multitude of causes, including the testimony of people they trust.

For some reason you think people don't trust their parents, and yet believe whatever their parents tell them.

This makes no sense at all.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can't see how this is remotely controversial.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can't see how this is remotely controversial.

---

Because you're playing with words. But we're not going to agree on this.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
First may I advise everyone not to Google 'Atheist Mindset'. You will get nothing but ranting religious, pedantic bigotry from dozens of American religious websites).

---

quote:

---

So I tentatively submit my own definition.
Atheist Mindset - Definition: A person's usual attitude, mental state or system of reasoning is his or her mindset. An atheist mindset believes the passage of time and event is entirely governed by 'cause and effect', attributing no cause of any effect, to a supernatural being of any sort. Such a mindset not only believes no effect could be caused by any supernatural entity but also predicts with confidence that no 'effect' will ever shake their confidence in their own prediction. This circular reasoning constantly reinforces their mindset.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do you have a relationship with an idea which you cannot observe in any way?

---

I have a relationship with 'Time' such that I feel myself subject to it and am compelled to exist in it, from moment to moment. However I do not even know what it is or how it operates. I merely know that its progress can be measured, but my experience of it is strictly speaking only relative, not objective. I can observe time passing and know its effects upon me, therefore I have a relationship experience, but I have no idea what time IS and neither do YOU.

---

quote:

---

I don't suppose you are one of those people who told your children "Santa does not exist, it is all untrue", before they were 3 years old?

---

quote:

---

Learning IS discovering truth but with children you have to start with something other than, "There IS NO Santa", "There IS NO Magic", "There ARE NO Fairies", "There IS NO God"!

---

quote:

---

Children are unable to ask sensible questions until they have some foundation of knowledge. Knowledge in the field of theology, (i.e. religion), is subject to the same sort of pedagogic limitations as science and mathematics. Higher thought forms and understandings are not possible for a child until the basic foundations of the discipline are in place. For science it is necessary for the child to conduct simple experiments and make simple observations before moving on to more complicated matters. In mathematics the child needs to be able to add, subtract, multiply, divide and reason before moving on to imaginary numbers, calculus, statistical analysis etc. In Christian Theology the basic stories of Old and New Testament need to be heard and understood before moving on to the possible nature of God / gods / no gods etc.

---

quote:

---

It is unreasonable to expect an adolescent to choosewhether to study higher mathematics if they have no understanding of basic arithmetic and algebra. It is unreasonable to expect an adolescent to choose to study quantum mechanics or astro physics, if they have never done a simple experiment. It is also unreasonable to expect an adolescent or adult to decide whether or not to believe in a Transcendent Creator Being or to reject such a hypothesis, if they know nothing whatever about the basics of their religion and have never been taught to question 'facts' presented by pedagogues.

---

More false analogy. By this token the young person will already have been deeply indoctrinated with a belief but without the necessary access to objective evidence. I say again that all other academic subjects have independent facts to refer to and learn; God has none.

And, yes, I feel quite strongly about this!

Thank you for your post.

[ 22. January 2018, 06:19: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.