Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Is being pubicly atheist a recent thing, especially re. collective worship?

691 replies

wanderings · 01/10/2015 15:34

Firstly, I'm taking no sides - I had strong atheist views when I was younger, but gradually changed my mind.

There are many threads on MN about this, especially annoyance by atheist parents about collective worship in schools, and I have been wondering if it's recent that people have felt so strongly about it. I find it hard to imagine buses in the 1980s and 90s saying "there probably is no God", or parents taking their children out of assembly, or people muttering and sneering in the back row when attending baptisms (under duress): if it happened I was blissfully ignorant.

Speaking for myself, I rebelled with my heart and soul when my parents suddenly dragged me to catholic church every Sunday when I was 9. I saw the whole thing as utter nonsense, and a waste of valuable weekend time. However, I gradually changed my mind as an adult, but went CofE rather than catholic. I took the view that you did not have to take a literal view of the Bible and the church's teachings; as a child I was very literal-minded. I also love the sense of community in church.

Does anyone think it is because a generation of young adults are remembering being forced to obediently sing hymns, hear prayers from their school days, had to learn "impossibilities" such as the great flood, and are now making sure their children won't have to do the same, now that they have the right to say something which they didn't as a child?

OP posts:
Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 17:26

In other words it's the same as 'testable'. Which is what you meant by 'verifiable'.

Forgive me if this doesn't sound terribly well thought out.

AbeSaidYes · 06/10/2015 17:31

Why should people need convincing?

I, and others, would just like to be religion free. Like we were the second we were born.
You know, not have it put into our lives by someone else who is convinced of it's worth, truth or goodness. let us be free from religion - take it out of schools for a start.

I don't need or want to be convinced.

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 17:35

Testable and verifiable are broadly similar. Falsifiable is slightly different.

Anyway- have you got anything? Grin

BigDorrit · 06/10/2015 17:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EdithSimcox · 06/10/2015 18:25

niminy no, evidence in a court of law is usually just what someone says happened. Person A tells the story as they remember it, and Person B gives their version. It is unusual for 'successful' evidence not to be corroborated by some other evidence - a third person's account, say, or a video clip. But testifiable, verifiable etc have no relevance to the rules of evidence in court. Though what is or is not admissible as evidence depends on what type of court you are in and in what jurisdiction.
So the kinds of evidence Jelly refers to above might well be accepted in court even though they don't meet bertrand's definition.

BrendaFlange · 06/10/2015 18:35

Evidence of a deity I might accept would be a manifestation that is detectable by one of our senses or through some man made machinery, and engages in spontaneous two way communication that can be recorded and played back, and witnessed by several people. And that they can then explain the origins of the Universe and Life.

A bit like the ETs in the Jodie Foster film Contact.

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 18:36

Testable and verifiable are broadly similar. Falsifiable is slightly different.

In what way?

what you state there is not evidence, merely people making unsubstantiated claims.

According to your idea of evidence, perhaps. Not according to everyone's.

BigDorrit · 06/10/2015 18:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BrendaFlange · 06/10/2015 18:45

The definition of Scientific evidence, within the empirical model, is a defined framework. It isn't a matter of opinion.

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 19:07

"According to your idea of evidence, perhaps. Not according to everyone's."
There is only one idea of "evidence". You can't have your own definitions of things.
I've explained the meaning of falsifiable, by the way. Not going to be drawn down sidelines!

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 19:17

I've explained the meaning of falsifiable

Yes, but you haven't explained how it differs from 'testable'.

The definition of Scientific evidence, within the empirical model, is a defined framework.

I've read this sentence a number of times now and I can't make any sense of it, sorry. What do you mean?

There is only one idea of "evidence".

This is clearly false. Even on this thread we've seen several different ideas of evidence.

More importantly, there is as far as I know no widespread agreement among philosophers or scientists as to what 'evidence' is.

BigDorrit · 06/10/2015 19:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BrendaFlange · 06/10/2015 19:44

There is a common understanding / definition of what evidence is in scientific terms.
BertrandRussell has explained to you what that is. Evidence in scientific terms is material in support of a theory which is verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable .

Opinion is not evidence, belief is not evidence, and what constitutes evidence is not a matter of opinion.

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 19:50

And the difference between people of faith and rationalists is that rationalists get to the very edge of the available evidence then stop and wait there for more evidence to come along and the people of faith close their eyes and jump.

AlanPacino · 06/10/2015 20:53

are not willing to count...the experience of prayer

It's not that we don't count it, it's that it can't be considered as evidence when the same things are happening to those who have and haven't prayed to any God or no God and that the gods are exclusive and contradictory, even within the same religion the God is saying different things 'I hate homosexuality' and 'I'm all for homosexuality'. It seems logical that no God is actually communicating and that it is one part of people's brain talking to another.

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 21:06

There is a common understanding / definition of what evidence is in scientific terms.

Really? Says who?

BertrandRussell has explained to you what that is. Evidence in scientific terms is material in support of a theory which is verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable.

But as we've just seen, BertrandRussell doesn't seem able or willing to explain the difference between verifiable and falsifiable.

(Incidentally, the idea of falsification was introduced by Karl Popper precisely because he thought was no such thing as evidence in support of a theory.)

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 21:31

So. No evidence then.

Mind you- of course there isn't. Faith by definition cannot be evidence based, otherwise no faith would be necessary. If religious people said "No, there's no evidence- it's just what I believe" that would be fine. But some people insist on saying that there is evidence, that there is more evidence for the existence of God than for the non existence, and even that science points to the existence of God. Which is patently absurd.

BrendaFlange · 06/10/2015 21:32

A theist would argue that the evidence for God's existence is all around us, and that God is encountered directly in religious activities
Would a theist argue this? As evidence? I thought that they believed this as a matter of faith, the whole point of faith being that it does not require evidence. A theist believes that All Things Bright and Beautiful are a demonstration of God's work, but that isn't evidence.

You on the other hand are not willing to count the organisation of the universe, or the experience of prayer, as evidence of the existence of God How is the organisation of the Universe evidence of God? God is a suggested solution to our lack of knowledge about the universe, but god is not testable. How is the experience of prayer 'evidence'. It i a feeling, an individual feeling based on faith. That might depend on the definition of God.
So you clearly do have preconceptions about what evidence would convince you
A statement about what does NOT convince someone does not also suffice as a statement about what does. But presumably evidence that was testable, replicable etc, would convince BertrandRussel? (and me!).

You and the theist have different assumptions about what sort of evidence can support a belief Theists don't need or want evidence, do they? They have faith!. Theists are not engaged in a scientific exploration of god. Religion and science are different disciplines.

The question is, do your assumptions actually leave open the possibility that there could ever be evidence for the existence of God? Surely anyone who accepts empirical evidence is open to the conclusions that it leads to - including a deity. Dawkins says the same. Give him proof, he will be the first to accept that there is a god.

(David Hume argued there can never be convincing evidence for a miracle's having taken place, because we would require such high standards of evidence for something so unlikely that those standards could never be met.) (yes, but that was before anyone had the capacity to imagine that we could discover the Higgs Boson...maybe particle physics could have easily explained Loaves and Fishes had it actually happened).

What do YOU think and or believe, Jelly?

HermioneWeasley · 06/10/2015 22:03

What do you mean by "the experience of prayer"

I believe the act of prayer exists. It believe it may bring psychological comfort and stress reduction.

I do not believe prayers are answered by an all knowing super being. There is no evidence for the efficacy of prayer

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 22:22

A Mumsnetter once explained to me that she had been desperate-completely broke-no money at all. She had prayed and then found a sum of money on the ground which kept her going, and she felt this was an answered prayer. All I could think was that somebody had lost that money and might have been just as desperate, but no answered prayer for them. I can't remember now whether I actually said that- I do hope I didn't.

niminypiminy · 06/10/2015 22:35

To judge the efficacy of prayer we first have to ask what prayer is for.

What is the purpose of prayer?

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 22:37

I don't know. I don't believe in it. You tell me. I do know what Jesus said it was for, though because I had a very old fashioned education.

niminypiminy · 06/10/2015 22:40

You mean, you don't believe that prayer exists?

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 22:46

Can we assume that we all have basic intelligence and knowledge? Please?

niminypiminy · 06/10/2015 22:55

Before we can discuss the efficacy of prayer we need to have some idea of what prayer for, and what would count as efficacious.

And what does it mean to believe in prayer? Does it mean that you think it exists (one common understanding of 'believe in')? Does it mean that you agree with it (another meaning of 'believe in')? Does it mean that you trust it (a third meaning of 'believe in')?