to think that some non-religious parents over-react just a teensy-weensy bit when their children are exposed to religion in the most benign form?

[SueBarooeeooeeooooo]

s'ok if I am. But threads complaining about this sort of thing are a regular MN feature, and I can't help thinking that some parents seem tremendously precious about it. We're Christians and it often comes up that not everyone believes the way we do, and I talk to my children about it and they wander off and scribble on the lounge walls again.

I've seen people complaining about Christian mums and tots groups, simple 'thankyou' prayers and christian charities. I am 100% ok with you bringing your children up atheist, theist, or chocolate-worshipping. Honestly, if I whipped myself up into a panic over every mention of different beliefs or none that my children encounter, I'd never get anything done.

(Please note, this is not a church schools whinge, I'm against selection on religious grounds.)

lol emsmum.
still think the praise/child metaphor is a bit of a copout Sue, but take yourpoint.

Sue, I know what point you were trying to kake with the child/praise comparison but it doesn't work for the very reason that your child is meant to be imperfect and you love them despite their faults. The idea of god is that it's meant to be perfect?

I am an open-minded scientist. In that where there is a testable hypothesis, I keep an open mind (well, as open as most scientists ). I also believe in God. For whom I think there is no testable hypothesis.

justabout - but weighing of evidence is usually the way people arrive at the decision that they don't believe in god, even if it is not so often the way people decide that they do. You can't prove a "non", so weighing of evidence is surely the only sensible way to do it.

It's like me and the Loch Ness Monster. I can't prove there's no such thing, but the balance of the evidence (about 95%-5% for me) suggests to me that this is the sensible position.

This is why to return to faith from atheism (or to go to faith for the first time from atheism) seems to me like a retrograde step. It's like you're saying "You know all those things I said were nonsense? Er - I now think they're not. Sorry." Whereas to go vice-versa is to say, "You know all that stuff I used to believe in? Well, I've had a think about it and now I don't. For these reasons. Sorry."

and all of this very interesting back-and- forth on faith, especially the reason being only part of the story, is precisely why atheists get cross when children are .. um.. 'encouraged' to embrace Christianity or any other religion.

But well said, very very interesting thread and thank you all.

justabout - I meant to say that it occurred to me (rather too late) that of course for many believers it is impossible to separate mission for service. I think I am too compartmentalised.
I would emphasise that in my everyday life I witness fantastic work being done in the community by religious groups and individuals, work that other people simply do not want to do, and people living the mission rather than just talking about it.
and I am always polite to the JWs when they come round and take their magazines

separate mission from service

UQD, I'd look for 'atheism' tags on the posts. I've only been reading it for a while, but I've seen him debating in other parts of the net.

You're missing the point about the praise, thing, I think. If you have a child who is just utterly beautiful, you don't say 'Isn't she lovely?' with any thought of faults or things like that. The simple act of saying 'wow' is a natural reaction that expresses and completes your enjoyment.

Harpsi, that's the point, really, Justa has expressed it well.

For me, mission and service are all of a piece. To refuse to give a cup of water to a person in desperate need of a drink wouldn't be right. But if I also believe that I have something that's more lasting than water that I think is even more important, it wouldn't be right for me to keep that to myself.

That's the motivation for many religious believers and why it's hard to disentangle the two.

Harpsi, I take your point about Dawkins, but I heard the same complaint from most of the believers I know in RL and online, and we're not all professors of theology

Eliza: it's not about paying for the church it's about paying taxes for resources (schools, playgroups etc) which are for everyone, and having those services run by the superstitious. And yes, some faith groups are made up of generous sensible tolerant people who appreciate that not everyone believes in their imaginary friend and that it isn't relevant or necessary when it comes to schooling, health check ups or whatever - but given that religious groups have been campaigning for the right to discriminate (on the grounds that their imaginary friend hates poofs or whatever), why should they be allowed government funding?

Thanks for input justabout & Sue.

All analogies fall down really - water is life-giving for everyone and everyone would want it (except if you had rabies ) but some people just don't want or need this thing called "faith" being offered. There is no god-shaped hole in my life.

I have yet to see a refutation of Dawkins which covers anything which he himself does not specifically already address in "The God Delusion". His problem, I think, with engaging in theology on its own terms and in its own vocabulary would be that there is no compelling evidence for him to do so. See my dragins reference above. He frequently says things in interviews about people who are, say, Christian having decided Thor (for example) doesn't exist, and they didn't need to study Norse mythology to do that - they just know it's mythology.

Of the scenarios justabout outlines above:
I have encountered (3), but don't think that the fact that they have had their lives changed necessarily means anything for me;
I have encountered (2), but never yet compelling enough;
I have yet to encounter (1). Although maybe I have encountered (1) and just had a different explanation for it. Very few things are truly "inexplicable". If something did happen - say, a child was hit by a car and survived without a scratch - then I'd be profoundly relieved, but I'd still be aware that every day children are hit by cars and die.

I'm always the least convinced by 1) myself because personal mystical experiences are the ultimately in subjectivity. Great in their place, but not the best foundation for things.

That's ultimate in subjectivity, rather.

I don't have a god-shaped hole, either, and not just because I do believe in God. It's because I don't have a life run on bumper-sticker phrases. ick.

One rather trivial example of the 'loop' is when people say they believe something because its written in the bible. But why do you believe whats written in the bible? Well, its the word of God. Um - how do you know? ...and eventually you get back to bible quotation.
I've been in that particular loop myself and I just couldn't see it was a circular argument, it all made perfect sense to me from the inside!

But mostly its an experiential thing. If you believe in a loving God, you will see evidence of God's love which will reinforce your belief. You will feel joy during praise and worship. You will feel peace. You will feel love. And you'll believe these flow from God.

Well I did anyhow. Nowadays, out of the loop, I think they are perfectly real mental states of the sort which can be induced by meditative practices or oxytocin.

Dawkins talks a little here about scientists who profess a religion, and again here - search for "Peacocke" and "Stannard" if you don't want to scroll through it all.

I like this thread.
That's all, really. As you were.

emsmum - I've been surrounded by people obviously feeling that "joy" and being left totally cold by it (at evangelical churches which Christian friends have invited me along to). It's a bit like being the only person at a rave who is not on drugs.

I've seen people faint through excitement and (possibly) hunger, who have then tried to pass this off as some moment when the holy spirit descended. Funny, the church bouncers (sorry, not sure what they actually were) seemed on hand to be standign behind them and catch them as they fell backwards.

On the "love" thing - not sure love and reason are exclusive or that post-Enlightenment thought necessarily raises reason to the highest and most important level. It's entirely possible to recognise the importance of "love" but for this not to be a factor in believing supernatural phenomena. I don't see the connection, really.

very quickly justabout, and sorry if I've misread this: 'I think it depends which you think is more important, the impulse to love or the capacity to reason.'
I think I think they are both equally (incredibly) important. It sounds rather as if you're saying Atheists don't think the impulse to love is important.. or am i not getting this?
Its a false opposition.. I think.