The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Hardly so if such religious organisations are the only provider of an essential service the state is mandated to provide for the vast majority of the population. This is clearly the situation in Ireland, where the vast majority of the population have no choice to avail of a state funded education other than one that imposes a religious ethos. This is not secular by any standards.

Well, such a discussion properly belongs on another thread, but I will point out that the State has no mandate to provide education in Ireland; it has a mandate to provide for education. Even if it did, it wouldn't change the fact that withdrawing support from schools on the basis that they're religious would be anti-theist.

Professor Moriarty

Absolam wrote: »

Well, such a discussion properly belongs on another thread, but I will point out that the State has no mandate to provide education in Ireland; it has a mandate to provide for education. Even if it did, it wouldn't change the fact that withdrawing support from schools on the basis that they're religious would be anti-theist.

Or pro-secularisation depending on your perspective. I would have no problem with the state providing a school down the road where religion would not be involved in any way and then withdrawing funding from the religious school.

Absolam

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Or pro-secularisation depending on your perspective. I would have no problem with the state providing a school down the road where religion would not be involved in any way and then withdrawing funding from the religious school.

I's say pro secularisation would be providing funding to schools regardless of their religious stance, since a secular State is supposedly neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting or opposing. Hence the fact that a State which withdraws funding from a religious school and provides it to a secular school isn't secular; it's not acting neutrally, it's acting anti-theistically, and a person who has no problem with that doesn't have a secular view, they have an anti-theist view.

Professor Moriarty

Absolam wrote: »

I's say pro secularisation would be providing funding to schools regardless of their religious stance, since a secular State is supposedly neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting or opposing. Hence the fact that a State which withdraws funding from a religious school and provides it to a secular school isn't secular; it's not acting neutrally, it's acting anti-theistically, and a person who has no problem with that doesn't have a secular view, they have an anti-theist view.

I disagree. That would be the state adopting a neutral stance. Providing funding to religious schools is condoning religion - a pro-theist stance. Providing non religious schools is adopting a neutral or atheist stance. An anti-theist stance would be to punish self-funding religious schools.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

Just like you seem to be wary of the RCC, because of what has happened in the past ... I'm just as wary of Secularism/Atheism ... for the very same reason.

The evolution controversy in America, where scientists or teachers who questions its orthodoxy, are punished and/or litigated against is ominous for the freedom of religion and belief guaranteed by the US Constitution. This doesn't give me much confidence that the God-less 'secular eutopia' ... currently being constructued throughout the World will be a place that will respect me and my beliefs.
Of course I could be wrong ... and I hope that I am ... but there is nobody giving me any assurance on this ... the reverse is actually the case.

Well, you see here's the thing. I'm always somewhat bemused when religious people, particularly Christians condemn or otherwise express concern at secularism because it shows a remarkable ignorance of history.

You see JC, it's not atheists you have to fear, it's your co-religionists, for the most part. It's the people who believe mostly what you do but not all the little details. You see, the history of Christian sects has been the history of one sect attaining some measure of power and using said power to persecute another sect. For example:

• In 1554 in Ghent, David van der Leyen and Levina Ghyselins, two Dutch mennonites were killed by Catholic authorities.
• In Glasgow in 1615, a Jesuit priest named John Ogilvie was hanged by Protestant authorities.
• On October 31, 1731 Catholic Archbishop Leopold von Firmian issued an edict expelling 20,000 Lutherans from the city of Salzburg, many of whom froze to death while wandering the countryside trying to find new places to live.
• In the textbook "The American Promise" the treatment of Quakers in New England in the 17th century is discussed noting:
  • New England communities treated quakers with ruthless severity. Some Quakers were branded on the face with a red-hot iron with an H for heresy. Some Quaker women were stripped to the waist, tied to the back of carts and whipped as they were paraded through the town. When Quakers refused to leave Massachusetts, Boston magistrates sentenced two men and a woman to be hanged in 1659.
• In 1661, a Boston statute ordered that Quaker men and women be "stripped naked from the middle upwards and tied to a cart's tail, and whipped through town and branded with an R on the left shoulder."
• Throughout the 16th century Catholics in France persecuted French Huguenots including a massacre of Huguenots at Sens in Burgundy in 1562. Eventually the right to religious freedom of Huguenots was guaranteed when the Edict of Nantes was passed in 1598. However, the growth of Catholic power and influence throughout the 17th century watered down those rights until the edict was formally repealed in 1685.

Incidents like these and many, many, many others horrified the men who became the founding fathers of America. These men understood that secularism was a necessary bedrock of the new America so that one religious group could not be allowed to hold power sufficient to inflict the kind of persecution that had happened up to that point. Ben Franklin for example commented:

"If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England. To account for this we should remember, that the doctrine of toleration was not then known, or had not prevailed in the world. Persecution was therefore not so much the fault of the sect as of the times. It was not in those days deemed wrong in itself. The general opinion was only, that those who are in error ought not to persecute the truth: but the possessors of truth were in the right to persecute error, in order to destroy it. Thus every sect believing itself possessed of all truth, and that every tenet differing from theirs was error, conceived that when the power was in their hands, persecution was a duty required of them by that God whom they supposed to be offended with heresy."

George Washington is of similar sentiments and expresses the problem more concisely:

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated."

While Thomas Jefferson explicitly details why secularism is good for everyone:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, ... that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, ... legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Secularism isn't something which just protects atheists from religion JC, it also protects you from each other.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

a secular State is supposedly neutral in matters of religion

By whose definition? Again from the national secular society;

We all share hospitals, schools, the police and the services of local authorities. It is essential that these public services are secular at the point of use so that no-one is disadvantaged or denied access on grounds of religious belief (or non-belief.) All state-funded schools should be non-religious in character, with children being educated together regardless of their parents' religion. When a public body grants a contract for the provision of services to an organisation affiliated to a particular religion or belief, such services must be delivered in a neutral manner, with no attempt to promote the ideas of that faith group.

I'd tend to go with this in that I'd have no problem with the state funding schools run by religious organisations so long as those organisations did not use the school to promote their religion.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

I's say pro secularisation would be providing funding to schools regardless of their religious stance, since a secular State is supposedly neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting or opposing. Hence the fact that a State which withdraws funding from a religious school and provides it to a secular school isn't secular; it's not acting neutrally, it's acting anti-theistically, and a person who has no problem with that doesn't have a secular view, they have an anti-theist view.

Well that would depend on the actions of the patron body, wouldn't it?

As you say, a secular stance is one which is neutral on religion. Therefore, the teaching of religion ought to be descriptive, teaching students what different religions believe without stating that any one religion is correct. Similarly such a school would have no faith formation since this has no bearing on education and simply exists to indoctrinate people into the religion.

Another way to look at it is this. Let's say you have a public school (of the kind which is ostensibly practiced in the USA). This school has no faith formation, religion classes which are purely descriptive not prescriptive and no other religious or political leanings in its operation. It's as generic and vanilla a school as you're likely to come across. Its single focus is education. So, from a secular perspective, this school would receive state funding.
Now, let's say you have a second school. This school is run by a religious organisation (it doesn't really matter which one). This school has token amounts of information about other religions in its curriculum and heavily promotes its own religion, teaching it as fact in its RE classes. This religious influence extends to other subjects too, such as downplaying the importance or evidence for evolution and cosmology. Also, a portion of the time is given over to faith formation for that religion and the school has entrance policies heavily stacked in favour of members of its own religion. My question is, on what logical basis does this second school have any entitlement to state funding? Why should the state pay to promote this or any religion?

Further, your idea that a state which funds a secular school but refuses to fund a religious school is anti-theist not secular is wrong. If the state were to refuse funding from religious schools but allow funding for schools which actively denigrated the idea of religion and taught students that religion is bad or dangerous for society, then that would be anti-theist. A state which doesn't allow people to use state money to promote religion isn't anti-theist, it's secular.

As I said, the question is not about who the patron of the school is but how religion is dealt with in the school. The state also has a responsibility to ensure uniformity of education that all children are educated to the same standard so that none are unfairly disadvantaged, like say being taught that evolution is "only a theory" or that believing things on faith is a good thing.

spacecoyote

Just to touch back on a point that JC made earlier in the thread around what would atheists do if there was a God. It reminded me of this clip from Ricky Gervais, which I think is an accurate summation of what I feel most Atheists believe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnjDCZUV6A

If you want to jump straight to the relevant point, its around the 3 minute mark.

In a nutshell, if God is proven to exist, I would think that basically every Atheist would accept that.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

So you'd no problem when the interviewer Godwinned the video?

I.e. suggested that 'survival of the fittest' was what was happening as Hitler killed millions?

There was indeed historical use/abuse of the Theory of Evolution to justify, for example, the Nazi racist policies ... and indeed many eugenics initiatives in other countries in the 1920s and 30s.
This is a historical fact.
Indeed many Evolutionists say that whilst the basis of Darwinian Evolution is 'survival of the fittest' ... this principle shouldn't be applied to Human Beings as, in extremis, it would be grossly un-ethical and indeed immoral.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There was indeed historical use/abuse of the Theory of Evolution to justify, for example, the Nazi racist policies ... and indeed many eugenics initiatives in other countries in the 1920s and 30s.
This is a historical fact.
Indeed many Evolutionists say that whilst the basis of Darwinian Evolution is 'survival of the fittest' ... this principle shouldn't be applied to Human Beings as, in extremis, it would be grossly un-ethical and indeed immoral.

Dig up, Jc! Dig up 😋

Samaris

J C wrote: »

There was indeed historical use/abuse of the Theory of Evolution to justify, for example, the Nazi racist policies ... and indeed many eugenics initiatives in other countries in the 1920s and 30s.
This is a historical fact.
Indeed many Evolutionists say that whilst the basis of Darwinian Evolution is 'survival of the fittest' ... this principle shouldn't be applied to Human Beings as, in extremis, it would be grossly un-ethical and indeed immoral.

Generally not just in extremis, but in quite ordinary circumstances too. S'why mostly people don't support the Nazis (that and all the genocide, mass killing and vegetarianism*, ofc)

Tis a bit unrelated to the actual processes involved in speciation and evolution in general though.

*that was a joke

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I disagree. That would be the state adopting a neutral stance. Providing funding to religious schools is condoning religion - a pro-theist stance. Providing non religious schools is adopting a neutral or atheist stance. An anti-theist stance would be to punish self-funding religious schools.

The state is very happy to receive the taxes of religious people ... and then, if you had your way, pay the money back with secular 'strings attached' ... which amount to discrimination between schools with a religious and a non-religous / anti-religious ethos.
Even in America and France ... with long histories of state-sponsored secularism this kind doesn't even wash.

J C

Samaris wrote: »

Generally not just in extremis, but in quite ordinary circumstances too. S'why mostly people don't support the Nazis (that and all the genocide, mass killing and vegetarianism*, ofc)

Tis a bit unrelated to the actual processes involved in speciation and evolution in general though.

*that was a joke

One of the problems in the 1920's and 1930's is that there were Nazi-type policies pursued in many countries, and not just Germany ... and these policies used the 'scientific' theory of Evolution to justify these policies ... before it became politically toxic to continue with these policies, following the Nazi outrages.

Charmeleon

spacecoyote wrote: »

Just to touch back on a point that JC made earlier in the thread around what would atheists do if there was a God. It reminded me of this clip from Ricky Gervais, which I think is an accurate summation of what I feel most Atheists believe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnjDCZUV6A

If you want to jump straight to the relevant point, its around the 3 minute mark.

In a nutshell, if God is proven to exist, I would think that basically every Atheist would accept that.

The problem with most atheists is they don't know how to understand the phenomenon of religion. And I say that as an decades long atheist. They jump to a very simple conclusion before even examining the issues. They think it's all just individuals being hoodwinked or because they were once gullible children. There were very few publicly 'out' atheists even when I was growing up. Most of the people I went to school with were taught dogmatic religion and most of the older generation who have lost religion were taught the same.

Many religious extremists find religion late in life, not because they are stupid or believed everything they were told as children, but because it became a huge part of their cultural identity for reasons other than gullibility. Most scientists, if you dig deep enough, believe something they know would be proven false but they own and cherish these false ideas and would think it immoral to challenge them.

J C

spacecoyote wrote: »

Just to touch back on a point that JC made earlier in the thread around what would atheists do if there was a God. It reminded me of this clip from Ricky Gervais, which I think is an accurate summation of what I feel most Atheists believe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnjDCZUV6A

If you want to jump straight to the relevant point, its around the 3 minute mark.

In a nutshell, if God is proven to exist, I would think that basically every Atheist would accept that.

If God were proven to exist, I think that most Atheists would reject Him using the Stephen Fry or Richard Dawkins ... rather negative opinions of Him.
Quote Richard Dawkins:-
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

... and the 'piling in' against the idea, that goes on all over the world, when the evidence for Intelligent Design, for example, is provided ... is indicative that Atheists aren't as 'open-minded' or 'neutral' on the existence of God as Nicky Gervais suggests that they are.
Remember that Intelligent Design is very much 'God lite' as it merely posits an intelligent source for life ... and still the Atheists reject it out of hand.
They don't even say, lets look at the evidence and see if we can look at its deficiencies ... they simply reject it out of hand and threaten all kinds of sanctions against any scientist who associates themselves with it in any way. They even go to Court to have it legally 'stoppe in its tracks'. That isn't the behaviour of people who would accept the existence of God if it were proven to them.
It's the behaviour of somebody who would continue to deny the existence of God ... even when His existence is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I think that most Atheists would reject Him using the Stephen Fry or Richard Dawkins ... rather negative opinions of Him.

But thats it right there, you THINK people.would reject him so in your mind that's exactly what would happen.

If a "god" existed and showed himself to me tomorrow then I would gladly accept him into my life because it would be impossible for me to reject him after he has shown himself to me.

I would also gladly accept unicorns, yeti's, aliens and people from leitrim if they actually existed:)

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But thats it right there, you THINK people.would reject him so in your mind that's exactly what would happen.

If a "god" existed and showed himself to me tomorrow then I would gladly accept him into my life because it would be impossible for me to reject him after he has shown himself to me.

I would also gladly accept unicorns, yeti's, aliens and people from leitrim if they actually existed:)

... or so you say ... but would you really accept God, if He appeared to you? ... or would you simply say it was some kind of illusion / delusion that you suffered ...
... and just as importantly, what would your fellow atheists say about you, if you suddenly claimed that God appeared to you ... like some Roman Catholics claim about apparitions of Mary, for example?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... or so you say ... but would you really accept God, if He appeared to you? ... or would you simply say it was some kind of illusion / delusion that you suffered ...
... and just as importantly, what would your fellow atheists say about you, if you suddenly claimed that God appeared to you ... like some Roman Catholics claim about apparitions of Mary, for example?

See JC you sit there and negate what I have just said, not very Christian of you btw when you don't know a thing about me. Why would I care what anyone else said/thought about me?

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Secularism isn't something which just protects atheists from religion JC, it also protects you from each other.

... protect me from my erstwhile secular 'protectors' (who want to wipe religion off the face of the Earth) is all I'll say to that.:)

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

See JC you sit there and negate what I have just said, not very Christian of you btw when you don't know a thing about me. Why would I care what anyone else said/thought about me?

So what do you think of Roman Catholics who claim to see Mary ?
Indeed, what do you think of people of all religions and none who have claimed to have seen apparitions/visions over the statue in Ballinaspittle, Co. Cork over the past 30 odd years?
Your answer will show, just how supportive you are towards those who claim supernatural visions ... and by extension, how likely you would be to start proclaiming that you saw God, if He showed Himself to you.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

So what do you think of Roman Catholics who claim to see Mary ?
Indeed, what do you think of people of all religions and none who have claimed to have seen apparitions/visions over the statue in Ballinaspittle, Co. Cork over the past 30 odd years?
Your answer will show, just how supportive you are towards those who claim supernatural visions ... and by extension, how likely you would be to start proclaiming that you saw God, if He showed Himself to you.

I am skeptical and think of them in the same way I think of people who claim to have seen yeti, aliens and other unexplainable phenomena, does not mean I wouldn't start believing in any of those things if I witnessed them with my own eyes though!

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

The state is very happy to receive the taxes of religious people ... and then, if you had your way, pay the money back with secular 'strings attached' ... which amount to discrimination between schools with a religious and a non-religous / anti-religious ethos.
Even in America and France ... with long histories of state-sponsored secularism this kind doesn't even wash.

All citizens should pay their taxes. The state should then fund secular schools. If the religious people want their children to learn about religion then let them set up their own self-funded religion schools. Problem?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I am skeptical and think of them in the same way I think of people who claim to have seen yeti, aliens and other unexplainable phenomena, does not mean I wouldn't start believing in any of those things if I witnessed them with my own eyes though!

I think you would explain it away as some kind of illusion, the same way you have just explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena.

... and I'll bet that you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

All citizens should pay their taxes. The state should then fund secular schools. If the religious people want their children to learn about religion then let them set up their own self-funded religion schools. Problem?

... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I think you would explain it away as some kind of illusion, the same way you have just explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena.

... and I'll bet that you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?

Again you presume to know me and what my reaction would be, you dismiss my words without a shred of knowledge about the person that i am :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?

Sure isn't that how it has been for atheists in Ireland for centuries?

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?

In what way is providing a secular education anti-religious?

Samaris

J C wrote: »

... so religious people should fund schools, that promote a secular/anti-religious worldview through their taxes ... and if they want schools that promote their religious outlook ... they have to pay for this themselves ... anybody see an inherent injustice in such reasoning?

No. Why? Because atheists don't tend to claim to demand schools that provide an -anti-religious- point of view, they mostly in this thread at least, have wanted schools to either a) not promote religion at all (not just regarding your particular one) or b) give relatively equal time to all religions, as in teaching about them, without picking out one to insist on teaching the children as fact.

What you want is schools that teach -your- philosophy purely because -you- believe in it. If you believed in Islam, I am sure (hey, aren't these assumptions fun!) you would be demanding that schools teach Islam. Nothing stopping you from teaching your views to your own children at home. I'm sure you can even explain why your notions of Christianity are proven fact with empirical evidence, but Hinduism isn't.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sure isn't that how it has been for atheists in Ireland for centuries?

Hardly for centuries ... since Roman Catholics weren't allowed to set up schools (even at their own expense) under the Penal Laws.
... and anyway do two wrongs make a right?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Again you presume to know me and what my reaction would be, you dismiss my words without a shred of knowledge about the person that i am :rolleyes:

I have a good idea what you believe and want from interacting with you on the Boards ... but for the avoidance of doubt can I ask you:-
Would you explain away a vision of God appearing to you as some kind of illusion, the same way you have explained away other people's experiences of God and other supernatural phenomena?

Do you also reject, the scientific research carried out into ID, which claims to prove that life had an intelligent origin?