How can I help religious DD?

[IsabellaofFrance]

My DD is 6.

She has become increasingly more religious in the last year. She attends Rainbows and Sunday School (at her request) and she loves both.

I think she understands that beliefs are individual and that not everyone believes the things she does, and she is happy to share her own beliefs. She has started to get interested in Dinosaurs and Space, and became really upset when learning about the creation of the universe as it doesn't fit with what she believes.

DH is Atheist, I am Christian but only attend Church semi-regularly and I just don't know how to handle it. I can't answer the questions she has without upsetting her. She is bright and articulate so its not explaining it on a level that is the problem, its knowing what to say.

Even if he did exist, that's beside the point – I don't have a problem with a normal human being having existed. it's the unrealistic, magical parts that are suspect (the miracles, the all-powerful deity, the heaven, etc etc and the idea that if you don't do what this god tells you, you'll go to hell)

I'd never really thought about it before niminy - I'd just assumed that documents/records written by contemporaries existed and were available to view (if you're an academic or similar, obv).

By the plural 'books' I meant that there are a lot of books that have been written with Jesus as their topic - admittedly not by contemporaries but it leant him a sort of credence in my eyes IF SUPPORTED by historical evidence, which I presumed was in existence.

I might need to look at volunteering - not sure when I'd fit it in though!

We had a big debate about this a few years ago on here: link to thread. I don't think anyone involved changed their minds. Nevertheless it is clear that the case for Jesus not having existed is not academically respectable - there is a list of sources in that thread, and the ones denying the existence of Jesus are notable for not being peer-reviewed or published by a respectable academic press.

The integrity of scientific research is guaranteed by peer review, no?

Likewise the integrity of academic research. I simply don't buy the 'people are scared of their family and career being destroyed by the church' line since actually the church has no influence on academic careers.

The internet's full of people spouting nonsense, and it's full of people without a rigorous historical training, access to the most up-to-date sources and methodologies, and without the accountability of peer review, who pursue all kinds of fanciful, far-fetched theories. And the 'Jesus didn't exist' theory is one them.

I would not say 'it's indisputable that Jesus existed', since it clearly has been disputed. However, on balance of probability which is all you can ever say in history I think there is enough evidence to infer his existence.

It's not all about you, you know .

I was referring, actually, to the list of sources given by the person on that thread who was arguing the 'Jesus was a myth' line, and they were all internet sources, or self-published. The only one I remember from a respectable press was Bart Ehrman.

Just as an aside: I'm a professional writer for a technical topic and ALL of my research is internet-based. It's where all the information is, in web-based journals and scanned books etc.

Carry on!

Absolutely Contessa, same here. The internet can give you books and all the latest papers and access to the people who work at the coal face of any particular discipline, and audio, videos and cams so you can see/check things at first hand.

Yes the internet is full of rubbish, so are many books (which is worse, because people think books are true). You need to be able to sort out reliable and useful sources from terrible ones, but that's possible.

It's not the publishing medium that matters so much as how you can know that something is authoritative.

The best mechanism for that is blind peer review. Blind peer reviewed research can be published on the internet, normally in a peer-reviewed academic journal; or it can be published electronically by a reputable publisher who uses a peer review system. Just pasting stuff up on the internet, not so much.

History is my hobby horse and I use the internet to view copies of primary sources, not all internet research is Wikipedia.

The Big Bang theory of the expanding universe was first proposed by a Catholic Priest who was a physics professor, Fr. Georges Lemaitre.

Catholics at least enjoy a long intellectual history and search for truth, which naturally includes science.

However, I don't think religion is only focused on the "how" of scientific truth but more "why"?

That's your opinion Frances but it isn't one that should be taught in schools.

It's my opinion that Georges Lemaitre proposed the theory of the expanding universe from a "cosmic egg" (Big Bang) which his good friend Eienstein initially rejected?

Forgive my typo for Albert's last name : )

That's your opinion Frances but it isn't one that should be taught in schools.

Why not? It's history, encourages debate and intellectual enquiry.

Or should kids be indoctrinated in science, denied all avenues that don't correlate.

indoctrinated in science

What a strange concept. How can a child be "indoctrinated" in science? Are you assuming that science is a fath?

indoctrinate
??n??d??ktr??ne??t
verb
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

The antithesis of scientific principle.

teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

Precisely.

To withold teaching different theories is denying critical thought.

all avenues that don't correlate

Keep the myths out of science lessons, science is about what we can show to be real through verification, there's no room for religion in a science class if you're doing it right. The stuff people believe without evidence belongs in RE lessons.

Religion is not scientific theory.

So scientific theory is where it's at, nothing else gets a look in. When science regularly revises its conclusions as more info and advance comes to light. Do you honestly honestly think we've arrived at all there is to know.

I think to assume we've arrived is rather arrogant.

And, anyway, religion is not scientific theory? What kind of statement is that? It makes no sense.

You clearly know little about science.

Science is again the antithesis of the attitude of "we've arrived".

Scientific rigour is all about challenging assumptions, of testing views, looking for flaws in theories- that is how science progresses.

Quite different from the arrogance of religion - which never doubts, just blindly accepts.