Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want the Gideons to get the #### out of my child's school

477 replies

PatriarchyPersonified · 15/02/2018 13:50

As I have made clear on threads on here in the past, I am an atheist (I'm actually a strong anti-theist) and I believe in the secularisation of society. (i.e religion can be there for people who want it but it should be irrelevant to anybodies day to day life unless they want to make it relevant.)

I believe that children should be taught about religions in school, as part of a comprehensive RE syllabus, and particularly about Christianity, as I believe from a cultural and historical perspective, it is impossible to fully understand the history and culture of the UK without reference to the bible. I would feel the same way about the Qu'ran if I lived in an Arab country btw.

What I am not happy about is that my oldest DC (12) has just had the bloody Gideon Society hosting an assembly in their school and dishing out Bibles! School is not the place for this. There is a reason why religious groups always target schools and prisons, its where the easy targets are.

OP posts:
TheGoldenBowl · 17/02/2018 23:19

Oh, 'science' doesn't accept that asking 'why' is even relevant? To clarify, you're speaking for the whole concept of 'science' here? Grin

People have been asking 'why' since the dawn of time. It's fairly central to human experience down the ages.

But you've decided it's irrelevant. And I'm the narrow-minded one Confused

Julie8008 · 17/02/2018 23:20

Did you mean to be so rude No just stating a fact that you have narrowed you options to 2.

Is there a third possibility? I dont know, you made the claim of 2, do you have proof of that? Until its shown they are the only options I will keep my mind open.

I was trying to suggest that science won't necessarily be able to explain why we find beauty in the world I think science could explain art/beauty, of course you would have to define them first, they seem very subjective.

My only axe to grind is looking for the truth.

TheGoldenBowl · 17/02/2018 23:21

Bottom line is, I'm willing to accept there might be things we can't understand. You Julie are able to dismiss whole areas of human thought as pointless.

But that makes me narrow-minded...

TheGoldenBowl · 17/02/2018 23:23

Julie my 'claim of 2' was either

A) Life on earth is purely scientific accident

B) There is a reason for life on earth that is yet to be confirmed.

That covers A LOT.

Tell me a third.

Julie8008 · 17/02/2018 23:25

People have been asking 'why' since the dawn of time. It's fairly central to human experience down the ages
Yes people have been asking 'why' for a long time. eg why does the sun rise every day. What science has discovered is that the question was wrong. Their is no why, the question should be how does the sun rise ever day. And that probably applies to most things.

So to ask why is there life is also probably wrong. The question is how is their life, and that is something that science can try to answer. there is no evidence that a why is needed.

TheGoldenBowl · 17/02/2018 23:26

(But I won't read it till the morning, so you've got loads of time to come up with the mythical third option in what is essentially a yes/no dichotomy!)

TheGoldenBowl · 17/02/2018 23:31

Oh ok - see you're already on it.

You seem very lacking in curiosity for someone so open-minded though.

Why wouldn't there be a 'why'? Sure, scientists found out how the sun seemed to rise. Did they find a reason why the sun is there? No. Not their job.

Doesn't mean it's not a question.

Science and religion have different questions.

Night

Julie8008 · 17/02/2018 23:32

I'm willing to accept there might be things we can't understand. You Julie are able to dismiss whole areas of human thought as pointless

Well you would be wrong. I accept there are things we cant understand, hence why we have developed science to try and explain those things. I do not dismiss any areas of thought as pointless. I prioritise thinking about the areas where there is evidence for and find it a waste of time prioritising any area where there is no evidence.

A) Life on earth is purely scientific accident
B) There is a reason for life on earth that is yet to be confirmed
You are the one claiming those are the only 2 options, where is your proof for that? I am not claiming there is a third, I am saying I dont know how many their are and until proven otherwise I will not narrow myself to just 2.

Julie8008 · 17/02/2018 23:35

You seem very lacking in curiosity for someone so open-minded though. When looking for answers you dont just randomly postulate solutions. You evaluate the evidence you have (whilst keeping your mind open).

Did they find a reason why the sun is there? There is NO 'why is the sun there'. We know exactly HOW the sun came to be there, its very sound science.

Julie8008 · 17/02/2018 23:37

Science and religion have different questions

And we come full circle:
Science is the how.
Religion wants their to be a why, but science does not accept that 'why' even makes sense.

Original poster
PatriarchyPersonified · 18/02/2018 08:10

TheGoldenBowl

Religion doesn't try to answer the question of 'Why', it tries to make the question fit a predetermined answer.

Religions start from the basis of unproven truth claims and then frame everything that comes afterwards in the light of those claims.

If you work like that, then my cat has a better chance of uncovering the secrets of the universe than you do.

Science is the study of the Universe. It has no agenda and it isn’t selective, though scientists themselves sometimes might be. Science has no goal, but the goal of scientists is to discover truth.

Ultimately, the point of doing science is to advance our understanding of what is true in the Universe. God is to be included in science because if he exists, he is a part of the Universe, and the truth (or otherwise) of his existence is a topic that science has every right to explore.

You won't find many religious people who agree with me though, because as Julie stated, they want you to drink the koolaid and accept that somehow their ideas should be exempt from reason and testing.

Why do you think that is?

OP posts:
Original poster
PatriarchyPersonified · 18/02/2018 08:32

TheGoldenBowl

You see some parts of the Old Testament as allegory? Which parts specifically?

I ask because this practice of not taking the Bible literally is a relatively new idea. People certainly used to believe in the Creation story, Noah's flood, the tower of Babel etc etc. (In fact the whole point of the human sacrifice of Jesus hinges on the concept of original sin. If you don't believe the Adam and Eve story is literal truth then it kind of makes a mockery of the Jesus story as well.)

Why do you think more and more parts of the Bible have suddenly become 'allegorical' only after science has shown that they could never have happened?

It's all very convenient isn't it?

OP posts:
spillanthes · 18/02/2018 08:36

Actually taking it literally is the newer idea... I believe

Original poster
PatriarchyPersonified · 18/02/2018 08:46

Spillanthes

You're right that biblical literalism has seen something of a resurgence recently amongst the more extreme end of the Christian sects, (in the USA) mostly as a reaction to and a rejection of modern society and it's perceived encroachment into the 'spiritual'. This is mirrored in the rise of extremist, literalistic wahabiism within Islam in the last 100 years for exactly the same reasons.

In mainstream Christianity, it's only relatively recently (the middle ages onwards) that the literal interpretations of the creation, Noah's flood etc have even been questioned.

OP posts:
Original poster
PatriarchyPersonified · 18/02/2018 09:03

Spillanthes

The little known, anonymous manuscript that has been hidden for 1500 years.

Little known

Anonymous

Hidden

So your point that non-literal interpretation of the Bible was mainstream in the past...?

OP posts:
spillanthes · 18/02/2018 09:03

There's a theory not saying it's true that Jesus may have been part of a sect called the Essenes or any other mystery school that had initiation rites... it sounds suspiciously similar to the Freemasons not suggesting he was a Freemason either but I do think it very interesting that secret societies use the bible in an "allegorical" way in their initiation rites

The Dead Sea scrolls I personally think add weight to the possibility scriptures were used to pass on "secrets" and perform initiation rites and were intended for use allegorically at the time of Jesus if he was a real person

Kaballah for instance... Jewish mysticism?

TheGoldenBowl · 18/02/2018 09:22

Wow. I'm unsure why you, OP and Julie, are so defensive.

Firstly, Julie , you keep misunderstanding one of the basic points I made. The 'two-option scenario' I suggested was just another way of posing a yes/no question along the lines of 'Is there a creator or not?' You might not like that question- but any yes/no question has two possible answers, whichever way you slice it. I'm suggesting we can't know for sure which it is. Why does that make you so angry? I'm not saying I know the answer any more than you do.

Of course it's fine if you want to prioritise science type questions. Why wouldn't it be? But why try to shut down other people's curiosity?

It's totally nonsensical to pit science and religion against each other. As I said upthread, we don't demand 'evidence' for all sorts of human experience.

And OP I'm not going to debate biblical issues with you, sorry. Religion is man's clumsy attempt to make sense of the deeper issues of life. I think it's fair to say man has made a hash of it big time. But then man has made a hashof an awful lot of things.

I didn't come on here to defend the Gideons- I've made that clear.

I merely said that it's worth keeping an open mind rather than categorically rubbishing all religion. Weird how angry that makes die-hard atheists.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2018 09:31

“I merely said that it's worth keeping an open mind rather than categorically rubbishing all religion. Weird how angry that makes die-hard atheists.”

I don’t rubbish religion. But faith and the scientific method are incompatible. Fine if you want to believe. Just don’t tell me you have evidence for your beliefs, you don’t. And don’t expect special treatment because of your beliefs. Don’t seek to impose them on others. And all will be fine.

JassyRadlett · 18/02/2018 09:47

As I said upthread, we don't demand 'evidence' for all sorts of human experience.

I don’t think that’s true, actually. Huge amounts of research into how the brain functions, how we see and perceive things, the factors that cause people to react to things in different ways.

Humans experience things and we look to understand them better. If there is no evidence to back up one particular hypothesis, it is dismissed or at least shelved.

I think the problem with talking about deities and ‘religious’ experiences in the same sort of context as human experience and evidence base/explanation for them is that the ‘god’ part is often trying to do two jobs - the experience (‘I felt God’s presence’) and the explanation (‘because of God’).

Just don’t tell me you have evidence for your beliefs, you don’t. And don’t expect special treatment because of your beliefs. Don’t seek to impose them on others. And all will be fine.

This.

pennepasta · 18/02/2018 10:41

BBCqt talking around the topic this morning

pennepasta · 18/02/2018 10:48

Tbq even

runningoutofjuice · 18/02/2018 12:05

But how long do 'die-hard atheists' have to keep an open-mind for? As far as I'm aware no new evidence of the existence of god has come to light in at least two thousand years.

BertrandRussell · 18/02/2018 12:14

Obviously, you can’t prove a negative. But we can be pretty sure that something for which there is consistently no evidence over an extended period and which does not fulfill the functions claimed for it does not exist.

Brahumbug · 18/02/2018 15:31

Atheism is the rejection of the claim that God exists, due to lack of evidence. I will change my mind the moment sufficient evidence is presented, in the same way I will change my mind on the existence of fairies, father xmas, and the Easter bunny.
I am sure that most xtians reject the existence of Thor and Zeus for the same reason. Even if proof was provided I would still not 'worship' him as he is a deranged immoral monster.