This appeared out of nowhere:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
The God FAQ
47 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by rufusruff » 09 Mar 2006, 20:23
Hi, pointed here by my friend Janet W and went to the Skeptics in the Pub on the Religious Hatred Bill - impressive and thoughtful analysis by David Allen Green, I thought.
Putting my cards on the table as what (IIRC) David referred to in our conversation at the time as a "Christian Skeptic" - i.e. a person of faith, willing to question but liable, as here, to react to unnecessarily facile baiting (by which I mean examples like that webpage) and assumptions/conclusions based on insufficient knowledge of faith matters, just as many here object to assumptions/conclusions based on insufficient scientific knowledge and rational thought...
And I criticise my husband for his long sentences :oops:
Putting my cards on the table as what (IIRC) David referred to in our conversation at the time as a "Christian Skeptic" - i.e. a person of faith, willing to question but liable, as here, to react to unnecessarily facile baiting (by which I mean examples like that webpage) and assumptions/conclusions based on insufficient knowledge of faith matters, just as many here object to assumptions/conclusions based on insufficient scientific knowledge and rational thought...
And I criticise my husband for his long sentences :oops:
- rufusruff
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 22:49
by rufusruff » 09 Mar 2006, 20:34
Max wrote:Nice sentence! Do you meant the post here was baiting or whoever created that page? I suspect it was just created as a joke.
The page, which is why I was careful to specify(I don't want to tick people off from the get-go :)
Yes, of course intended as a joke, but not a very clever one, IMO. I've seen better.
- rufusruff
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 22:49
by rufusruff » 10 Mar 2006, 00:22
Max wrote:Cool. Is it ok to ask you about your faith, why you have it and all the other stuff that skeptics like to ask? For my part, I will not bait and if I say anything that sounds like it, I apologise now. Just let me know if I do.
Sure. I can't always promise to be 100% coherent and skeptical because a) important emotional etc. investment going on there b) I'm not one of those who tries to advance 'proofs' for faith because I'm not sure any of the common ones are wholly satisfactory c) the old grey matter is not as sprightly as it was :) I will try not to be over-sensitive.
On the subject of humour, not religion-related, but I was pointed to this by a friend and found it both amusing (pretty sure it's a spoof, though you never can tell bearing in mind some of the stuff online) and well-rendered:
http://www.cowabduction.com/
- rufusruff
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 22:49
by Max » 10 Mar 2006, 10:29
Hi Rufus
Poor cow! Have you seen the Southpark cow abduction episode? Similar theme.
So, back to you being a Christian. Two questions really.
1. What made you become a Christian? For example, was it a choice you made later in life, or were you born into a Christian family? Or something else perhaps?
2. Skeptics often use scientific method to explain the world including why people might be religious and so on. Are you familiar with scientific method, and if not, I'll gladly go through a few of our assumptions. I often wish it were the other way round - where a faith-based person got hold of me and said "Max, why are you a skeptic. Were you born into a skeptical family or was it a decision...etc" :) "Max, faith-based people were to a particular set of assumptions - are you familiar with these and would you like them explained before we start?" :) And so on.
Anyway, I look forward to learning from this thread.
Max
Poor cow! Have you seen the Southpark cow abduction episode? Similar theme.
So, back to you being a Christian. Two questions really.
1. What made you become a Christian? For example, was it a choice you made later in life, or were you born into a Christian family? Or something else perhaps?
2. Skeptics often use scientific method to explain the world including why people might be religious and so on. Are you familiar with scientific method, and if not, I'll gladly go through a few of our assumptions. I often wish it were the other way round - where a faith-based person got hold of me and said "Max, why are you a skeptic. Were you born into a skeptical family or was it a decision...etc" :) "Max, faith-based people were to a particular set of assumptions - are you familiar with these and would you like them explained before we start?" :) And so on.
Anyway, I look forward to learning from this thread.
Max
- Max
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 23 Dec 2005, 01:33
by rufusruff » 10 Mar 2006, 19:08
1. I'm the only believer in my(birth) family. It was a decision made as a teenager/young adult and one that continually gets tested, stretched and renewed in lots of ways... I try not to do dogmatism, though I have a number of strong personal convictions that haven't changed much over the last 30 years or so...
2. I'm not a scientist by training, so I have only the average intelligent person's reasonable grasp of scientific method. I do, I think, have some idea of what many here are trying to do in exposing charlatans in areas like "alternative therapy" etc, and stopping people taking money off other people under false pretences is of course laudable. Arguing that there should be no idea or practice that is not based wholly and solely on the scientific method is not, however, a position I'd support, not chiefly because of my own beliets but because I think much that is of value in human activity would be lost.
I'd be quite interested, for example, in what a wholly materialist, scientific analysis would make of the job I do in social care. I work for a local authority, by the way, and am required to work in a completely non-partisan way, although "values" are talked about a great deal. These "values" seem to be based chiefly on social work theorists' consensus over the last twenty years or so rather than on a 'rational' assessment of e.g. benefit to society as a whole, however defined. But I suspect I should start that discussion in its own thread!
2. I'm not a scientist by training, so I have only the average intelligent person's reasonable grasp of scientific method. I do, I think, have some idea of what many here are trying to do in exposing charlatans in areas like "alternative therapy" etc, and stopping people taking money off other people under false pretences is of course laudable. Arguing that there should be no idea or practice that is not based wholly and solely on the scientific method is not, however, a position I'd support, not chiefly because of my own beliets but because I think much that is of value in human activity would be lost.
I'd be quite interested, for example, in what a wholly materialist, scientific analysis would make of the job I do in social care. I work for a local authority, by the way, and am required to work in a completely non-partisan way, although "values" are talked about a great deal. These "values" seem to be based chiefly on social work theorists' consensus over the last twenty years or so rather than on a 'rational' assessment of e.g. benefit to society as a whole, however defined. But I suspect I should start that discussion in its own thread!
- rufusruff
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 22:49
by Max » 10 Mar 2006, 19:23
Hi Rufus
1. So why did you make the decision to become a Christian?
2. I agree that life need not be lived by scientific method. For example, I don't use it when listening to a beautiful poem or in a art gallery. Or during sex (much!). But the second that anyone makes a claim (of connecting me to a dead person, that this will heal me, that this will save my soul), etc., my need for scientific method usually kicks in.
3. The way you describe social care sounds like the 20-year elders determine policy what is best because they know what is best. I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point here. But it's the same in many schools of psychotherapy e.g. couples' therapy. While there is research going on, the "elders" "know" what works and don't encourage evidence-based practice perhaps because it threatens their power-base. Is there is a parallel in social services?
1. So why did you make the decision to become a Christian?
2. I agree that life need not be lived by scientific method. For example, I don't use it when listening to a beautiful poem or in a art gallery. Or during sex (much!). But the second that anyone makes a claim (of connecting me to a dead person, that this will heal me, that this will save my soul), etc., my need for scientific method usually kicks in.
3. The way you describe social care sounds like the 20-year elders determine policy what is best because they know what is best. I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point here. But it's the same in many schools of psychotherapy e.g. couples' therapy. While there is research going on, the "elders" "know" what works and don't encourage evidence-based practice perhaps because it threatens their power-base. Is there is a parallel in social services?
- Max
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 23 Dec 2005, 01:33
by rufusruff » 14 Mar 2006, 18:27
Hi Max. Sorry for big gap but been a bit unwell lately and supposed to be doing an OU essay.
1) Hmm. Complicated. I think the chief influence was mixing with committed Christians whose words really did match their deeds and who didn't hold thinking to be optional :-) That and some personal, spiritual experiences I'm not sure I could describe after all this time and you might think wholly subjective and inadmissible...
2) I can see the need to check claims that can be checked; but whilst I can see that one can prove or not that, e.g. echinacea cures or prevents the common cold, I don't see how one can use the scientific method to test claims of salvation or indeed psychological wellbeing because they deal with realms that are either supernatural or subjective. It's quite possible to say that "I see no evidence of anything outside the natural, observed order so I choose not to believe that anything else exists", or that "I can see no reason why x treatment made you 'feel better' so I am inclined to think you imagine/exaggerate/have created a better mood for yourself". I doubt that one is *compelled* to take such a position.
3) It is a bit of an exaggeration, as you say, to think of "social work values" as wholly created and imposed from above - although there was a brief fashion a few years ago for the "all white people are ipso facto racist and can never do anything about it but admit it" to be simply imposed by all the guilt-ridden libs at the top of the profession; until enough people pointed out that that was nonsensical, and that instead we should just be continually on the lookout to guard against assumptions about other cultures (achieves the same beneficial effect without the built-in failure card). Every now and again social changes and new theories lead to certain assumptions gaining ground and becoming widely accepted and adopted in academic circles and eventually "in the field".
Evidence-based practice is in fact very much "in" in SW circles. Some of it is about recording and demonstrating what "works"; some is, sadly, more about professional butt-covering in case of legal challenges/complaints. But the question remains: how can you tell if something "works" unless you have a good idea of what "oh, look, it turned out right" looks like? Take my field: fifty years ago it was taken for granted that adults with Learning Disabilities should be segregated from their communities and given a productive and peaceful life in long-stay institutions. Suggest an institution even for the very disabled nowadays and you'd be lynched!
That's where values are king...
1) Hmm. Complicated. I think the chief influence was mixing with committed Christians whose words really did match their deeds and who didn't hold thinking to be optional :-) That and some personal, spiritual experiences I'm not sure I could describe after all this time and you might think wholly subjective and inadmissible...
2) I can see the need to check claims that can be checked; but whilst I can see that one can prove or not that, e.g. echinacea cures or prevents the common cold, I don't see how one can use the scientific method to test claims of salvation or indeed psychological wellbeing because they deal with realms that are either supernatural or subjective. It's quite possible to say that "I see no evidence of anything outside the natural, observed order so I choose not to believe that anything else exists", or that "I can see no reason why x treatment made you 'feel better' so I am inclined to think you imagine/exaggerate/have created a better mood for yourself". I doubt that one is *compelled* to take such a position.
3) It is a bit of an exaggeration, as you say, to think of "social work values" as wholly created and imposed from above - although there was a brief fashion a few years ago for the "all white people are ipso facto racist and can never do anything about it but admit it" to be simply imposed by all the guilt-ridden libs at the top of the profession; until enough people pointed out that that was nonsensical, and that instead we should just be continually on the lookout to guard against assumptions about other cultures (achieves the same beneficial effect without the built-in failure card). Every now and again social changes and new theories lead to certain assumptions gaining ground and becoming widely accepted and adopted in academic circles and eventually "in the field".
Evidence-based practice is in fact very much "in" in SW circles. Some of it is about recording and demonstrating what "works"; some is, sadly, more about professional butt-covering in case of legal challenges/complaints. But the question remains: how can you tell if something "works" unless you have a good idea of what "oh, look, it turned out right" looks like? Take my field: fifty years ago it was taken for granted that adults with Learning Disabilities should be segregated from their communities and given a productive and peaceful life in long-stay institutions. Suggest an institution even for the very disabled nowadays and you'd be lynched!
That's where values are king...
- rufusruff
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 10 Jan 2006, 22:49
47 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Religion and Atheism
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest