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
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:
BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

capsium · 07/10/2015 14:11

BigDorrit I have no problem with people's faith being evidence for the spiritual realm, which is not seen. I do not 'believe in', as in agree with, or think is right, any other spiritual presence other than that which if of (the Christian) God but that does not mean I do not believe there are no spiritual presences apart from God.

capsium · 07/10/2015 14:12

Is of not if of. Typo.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 14:15

"The position as it stands is that in order to take a full part in the life of any state, tax payer funded school in England, you have at least to be a nominal Christian.

Nobody with any sense of justice could think this anything but outrageous.

Just to remind people what we're talking about here.

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Jellytussle · 07/10/2015 14:23

And exactly where did I claim to be a scientist?

My mistake, you seemed so confident about what science is and what scientists do and believe that I assumed you must be one.

I'm still curious to know your answers to some of the questions raised earlier.

If 'verifiable' is the same as 'testable', how is it different from 'falsifiable'?

Do historians operate with a different idea of evidence from scientists?

If you agree that religious questions are not scientific ones, why are you insisting that only scientific evidence can decide them?

capsium · 07/10/2015 14:23

Bertrand it is a straw man argument since no body, Christian or not can take a full part in life in the state, in this sense, because unless they were nominally lots of things, I'd nominally stand for all the beliefs implicit within state intervention, they cannot fully take part.

BigDorrit no I did not say that. I talked about faith being evidence of things not seen, no more, no less (in terms of evidence).

capsium · 07/10/2015 14:25

i.e. not I'd. Typo.

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 14:26

"Bertrand it is a straw man argument since no body, Christian or not can take a full part in life in the state, in this sense, because unless they were nominally lots of things, I'd nominally stand for all the beliefs implicit within state intervention, they cannot fully take part"

OK. What other purely faith based things do you have to nominally believe in in order to take part fully in a state funded institution?

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 14:32

"f you agree that religious questions are not scientific ones, why are you insisting that only scientific evidence can decide them?"

Nobody said this. You asked what evidence would convince people of the existence of God. Some of us said proper scientific evidence. That's what would convince us. You can carry on believing whatever you want. But you asked what other people thought and you were told.

The history question is interesting. Historical evidence is always falsifiable- that is. New documents might emerge which discounts all previous theories. So yes, historical evidence is subject to scientific principles. It may well have been tested against all available sources, but is always falsifiable if a new document emerges.

capsium · 07/10/2015 14:33

Various non religious faith based things Bertrand, empiricism, associated guilt, early intervention are some examples.

Why do you, as an atheist, differentiate between religious and non religious faith?

capsium · 07/10/2015 14:35

BigDorrit I never said faith was evidence of (any particular religious) faith but of things not seen!

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 14:36

"Various non religious faith based things Bertrand, empiricism, associated guilt, early intervention are some examples."

I really don't understand. All of those, while you may not agree with them have evidence to support them. Under whT circumstances do you have to pretend to believe in something which has no evidence in order to take a full part in the life of a state funded institution? Please could you answer clearly and in full.

redstrawberry10 · 07/10/2015 14:36

If things were as you wanted I would not expect you to support me to change them.

your position is unjust, however. I don't want you to support my position because I like it. I want you to support it because it is the just position.

Jellytussle · 07/10/2015 14:40

BigDorrit

You're quite right, I was mixing you up with BertrandRussell, sorry.

Nobody said this. You asked what evidence would convince people of the existence of God. Some of us said proper scientific evidence. That's what would convince us.

So you did say that questions of religion can only be decided by scientific evidence, at least as far as you are concerned. In that case I repeat the question: if you accept that these questions are not part of science, why are you demanding scientific evidence to decide them? Why isn't that simply a category error?

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 14:50

"o you did say that questions of religion can only be decided by scientific evidence, at least as far as you are concerned. In that case I repeat the question: if you accept that these questions are not part of science, why are you demanding scientific evidence to decide them? Why isn't that simply a category error?"

I'm not sure how often I can say this. I was asked what would make me believe that there was a God. I said some sort of proper evidence. You are welcome to believe anything you like without evidence. I don't do that. I am only demanding scientific evidence for myself. I am perfectly happy in the knowledge that there will never be any proper scientific evidence- or indeed evidence of any sort apart from personal feelings and anecdotes, and so I am perfectly happy with the non existence of God. It means I can get on with my life "making ethical choices based on the general desire to do the most possible good"

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

capsium · 07/10/2015 14:54

red why is it more justified to remove provision for Christian worship, which parents can opt their children out of? What we have is provision which parents do not have to take up on behalf of their child? Just as the NHS provides treatment which we can choose to receive or not. Taking away provision is taking something away from those that benefit from it.

BigDorrit it is not meaningless, it speaks of things being present which we cannot see, which affect our lives. Epistemic humility. Because we do not know, or cannot appreciate, everything there is to know or appreciate, it follows that in life our decisions will inevitably involve faith or assumptions. Otherwise we could never plan for the future...

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Jellytussle · 07/10/2015 14:57

I'm not sure how often I can say this.

You are repeating yourself, but you are not answering the question. The question was why you are demanding scientific evidence to settle a question which would appear to be outside the remit of science.

I agree that "there will never be any proper scientific evidence" for the existence of God. It might even be an a priori truth. The question is why you are unwilling to even entertain the idea that there might be other kinds of evidence which are more appropriate in theological debates.

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 14:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

capsium · 07/10/2015 15:03

There is, BigDorrit, but it is not fully appreciated. Since God is a spirit, when He manifests into physical matter, what you have is physical matter. A person who does not believe in anything spiritual would only appreciate the physical matter...not the spiritual element. Physical evidence for spiritual matter is impossible since spiritual matter is not physical, although it can change the state of physical matter, if you do not appreciate the spiritual you would see this change as 'spontaneous'.