Explaining god - advice needed by non-religious parents

[BadHair]

Ds1 has developed a fascination for churches. He knows the names of all the churches for miles around and can tell you if they have spires, clocks, towers etc. Although I find this a bit strange, as we're not a religious family by any stretch of the imagination, I also think its quite sweet.
However, he's started to ask what churches are, and who lives in them. I've told him that no-one lives in them and that they're places where some people like to go to sing hymns and say prayers, and so far he's happy with that. But its only a matter of time before he asks what hymns and prayers are.
So, how on earth do atheist parents give a simple explanation of god etc to a 3 yr old in a balanced, sensible fashion?

Jimjams, didn't see your post, but eloquently put. The more we realise about brain and brain chemicals the more we can physically 'see' love, morality, pain, compassion - the lot! I found it fascinating that for centuries we've been using metaphors such as emotional 'pain' - only to find using scanners that actually, when in distress, the physical pain centre of our brains light up. It really is pain - and we really can feel another person's pain.
It is normal and part of nature to become unselfish. My son worships me, but is incapable of seeing that I'd like a lie in because his theory of mind/empathy isn't physically developed yet. One day - I dearly hope - he will make that giant leap and I can lie in bed undisturbed!

What I mean is, you said there wouldn't be a 'vision' or a definite answer when I ask Jesus to come in. It must be subtle then, mustn't it? On the one hand, you are saying - a bomb is going off make your way to the exit NOW. On the other hand, the exit is barely visible and you're not supposed to see it. Huh?

And I know you're going to say the exit is in dayglo pink, and I'm telling you, I can't see the bugger anywhere! (sorry)

btw, I think you're coping with all this admirably and singlehandedly. I'm not trying to be perverse, I just don't understand these few points.

I suppose when it comes down to it, I believe some of it but by NO means all of it. But most christians tell me I have to believe all or nothing. But I can't! So what then?

well you wouuld upset Richard Dawkins there Aloha- talking about groups We function well in groups because it is in our own individual interests to do so. Recommended reading: The Selfish Gene. A good look at altruism.

And yes I hope you get your lie in I'm hoping ds1 will develop theory of mind. It makes life much easier and more comprehensible.

"For what it's worth to you now, I sincerely believe that if you ask God to come into your life, and truly mean it, that he will".

Amazingly I'm going to agree with Bloss here. But it doesn't mean any of it is true. I'm absolutely sure that if I decided to be Christian I could be, I could allow myself to swept along and be caught up in the whole thing...in exactly the same way that David Icke believes he is the Son of the Godhead and the world is run by lizards, in the same way the crazy misguided fools ploughed planes into buildings so that they could shag their 42 virgins (what's in it for female suicide bombers btw?). But it doesn't make any of it true, it doesn't mean that there is a god because I decide to believe in one, it's simply a state of mind.

Another quote I spotted - "That said, I do think I have a much more active conscience now as Christian than I did in my non-Christian days - and most Christians I know report the same". I think that is such a sad thing to read. I am completely the opposite - since I became an adult I've realised that I and I alone am responsible for my own actions and, as such, need to examine my conscience far more now. I'm not, as a I did as a child, thinking "Will I have to confess this at confession?", "Will god go off me?" I'm thinking that this will affect me in some way and it may not make me feel good.

Message withdrawn

Our moral instincts are also about SELF protection. I would feel pretty shitty if I killed someone for pleasure - in fact that would a contradiction in terms.

I think you misunderstand me Bloss - yes, there are some people who do not have the same instincts and that is why the majority who do have made laws and organised systems to ensure they do conform to the norms of morality in their society (even animals police each other). It is for our individual and herd benefit. Plus, of course as Tinker says, and I tried to explain earlier, there are good brain chemical reasons why killing and hurting are not pleasurable for the vast majority of humans so we tend to police ourselves fairly effectively. I do think the combination of intelligence, empathy and the way our bodies work are effective in our construction of morality.

Out of interest, how do YOU think non-religious people develop conscience, morality and caring, and if God is the way to morality, why do so many Christians disagree so fiercely about what is good and what is bad?

'But many more in the darkness will be fooled into thinking that they are living up to God's standards when they are not'. What about these 'fooled' individuals?
You say that the lifeboat will be made quite clear to them. But then you say it won't be a vision or a voice - so it's not clear at all, is it?
I think that if it was as vital as the bomb and lifeboat analogies suggest, then it would all be much more blatant. You can only be saved if you believe ABC. You can only believe ABC if you have faith. You can only have faith if you......have faith? The argument becomes tautologous. It may well be true, none of us know (except a small number of theoretical physicists, and they're not sure) but I don't think it's true for the reasons christians put forward.

Message withdrawn

Bloss, I thought you were going to bed.

(I have decided to comply with the mumsnet commandments - Thou shall not get involved in religious discussions....At least not untill I've finished my marking )

Thanks Bloss, I do have christian friends but we get nowhere because they can't answer my points! I hope you'll come back and try when you've had a kip. You can imagine how popular I was at Alpha, can't you?! I do think these things need thrashing out though. It's a very strong assertion (Do this or THAT will happen) so it does need to be deconstructed. If correct, it should stand up to analysis, especially when put fairly simply. Is it blatant or subtle? If subtle, as in my experience, then I can't, no matter how hard I try, be anything except subtle in return. If there's a fire, you should at least be able to smell a bit of smoke.

sorry sorry evolutionary biologist has to get pedantic here. Bloss you said "that these are protective mechanisms that have developed to protect the species as whole ". Sorry evolution doen't work like that. It can't work at a species level (except in very sepcial cases) it can only work at an indivual level. So people are kind to each other/ altruistic/ generally nice because it pays them biologically to be co-operative.

Droile you're like my Dad. He was invited along to some "discussion groups" held by our local church- after his visit they were changed to prayer meetings :0 (He questioned whether Jesus was the son of God, was asked to name someone with as many followers as Jesus Christ, and said "mohammed".)

Droile, that's my view. God loves us (right Bloss?) He loves us more than anything with a fierce passion. He very much wants us to be saved and for him to save us from the 'bomb in the room". But his attempts to make himself known and save us are so utterly feeble! They are so feeble that despite this great and mighty deity trying with all his might (?) to rescue his 'children' - there are lots and lots of him who don't believe in him, see no evidence for him, don't hear a voice or see a vision or experience a God in any way. Now, come on, if my son was in danger from a bomb in a room, I think I'd make my presence felt in a rather more tangible, human-friendly way than cryptic verses in an old book, and some dubious, long-ago miracles!

Jimjams, but isn't the fact that cooperation benefits the individual means that we are designed to function as a group. Maybe not a species group but a group nevetherless. And the survival of the group is necessary for the survival of the individual, so how do you separate the two?

Ooh aloha you really need to read the selfish gene (I think you would enjoy it- its easy reading- I remember being gobsmacked when I read it). The individual will do anything to survive and have offspring, if that means cooperating with a group then great, so be it, but if you could leave more offspring by behving selfishly then you will.

Dawkins (can't stand the man - but he's a very good communicator) takes it further than that and looks at individual genes, and the circumstances under which genes for altruism will be able to evolve.

IN the Blind Watchmaker he tackles religion (well evolution of life), but I think its worth reading The Selfish Gene first.

message withdrawn

JimJams, at last count mohammed was still some way behind Jesus, and couldn't we count muslims as "followers" of Christ too since they acknowledge him as a prophet, but not the messiah?

Jimjams - Richard Dawkins has a letter in teh Indie today about MMR - think you'll still dislike him after reading it.

Re. being harmed by evangelicals. . .I was in a bus not long ago & 2 young evangelicals approached a poor old pensioner who looked about on his last legs. As they attempted to strike up "conversation," insidiously unveiling the purpose of their friendliness, the man looked filled with fear, pushed the button & got out at the next stop. I sometimes wonder if that wasn't just the push he needed for a heart attack, and how far he had to walk to his real stop, or how long he had to wait for the next safe bus.

I believe that people have a right to be left in peace on public transportation or anywhere else.

Probably Tinker- he's incredibly arrogant. I doubt he has much respect for mothers- (although he's made plenty of women mothers)

Probably Tinker- he's incredibly arrogant. I doubt he has much respect for mothers- (although he's made plenty of women mothers)

Has he? Hmm, he is quite dishy

Yes I suppose he is. The rumours go that he rather spread himself around.

Spreading his selfish genes?