2601. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152065 by Bonzai on March 30, 2008 at 4:23 am

Hobbit

I really don't want to get into this argument, simply because Bonsai is a bore who is like a dog with a bone when he gets into an argument.

Are you sure you are not talking about steve z? Whose picture do you see all over the site?

Sorry steve, I just can't resist this. :-)

Rape is almost never about sex or sexual fantasies. I t is almost always about power.

Sexual fantasies can be about power too,

2602. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152059 by Bonzai on March 30, 2008 at 4:15 am

As you are the one making the distinction, perhaps you could tell us, along with
the "proper" use of faith and prayer?

All reasonable people would make the distinction.


Your big pharm analogy doesn't work unless, you believe prayers actually have active ingredients,

Many more people die of causes induced by eating junk food and fat,--heart diseases, diabetes etc,-- in the U.S than prayers. Food doesn't come with safe use manuals.

Most things in life don't come with instruction manuals and people get along fine, except for a few robotic individuals or so called rationalists who want to pretend that everyone else is a robot.

It encourages permanent delusion - it is not switched on and off within relatively safe bounds, and if someone wanders around all day in a dress and claims they hear God we call them Bishop, and invite them on government committees.

You keep harping on this and it has been dealt with many times. When Bishops got invited to committees they were invited by your secular government which does so for political reasons,-- rational calculations. They could have miscalculated but it has nothing to do with "faith".

It is not he Bishops' fault to accept the invitation. If you are given a podium for free wouldn't you use it?

2603. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152049 by Bonzai on March 30, 2008 at 3:55 am

irate,

So, has your dentist not heard of modern anaesthetics? You need to get new dentist.

In order to apply local anesthetics they need to stick a needle in your gum first, that is scary and painful. Secondly, you are conscious when the dentist does his thing because the anesthetic is local. You may not feel much pain but you can hear all the drilling and pulling. I have had a dentist who felt inclined to do a play by play update when my tooth was being pulled. "Oh.. oh.. it is coming off, oh shit, get to pull harder,,,"

2604. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152033 by Bonzai on March 30, 2008 at 3:38 am

As you are making the distinction between proper and improper use (I'm not - I think it is all silly), then presumably you have some way to make the distiction. I am asking what it is.

So what is the "proper use" of sexual fantasies? We all have them but some do go out and rape. Do we need an algorithm to determine what is a proper fantasy ? The answer is obvious to most people with common sense except for idiots who wouldn't pass the Turing test. The answer is just as obvious to your rhetorical question.

This is an appropriate analogy as some here are behaving like Puritans for "reason".

2605. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152023 by Bonzai on March 30, 2008 at 3:13 am

How do we know for a particular believer whether or faith and prayers aren't precluding common sense? How do we know they are being used "safely"?

What are you, the thought police? How do we know you won't go out and rape people because you have sexual fantasies?

How do we know that a committed environmentalist wouldn't turn into an eco-terrorist? How do we know "science" is safe? It is used in the creation of weapons of mass destruction, including so many nuclear bombs that would blow us up ten times over.

I think this is a silly question.

2606. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #152012 by Bonzai on March 30, 2008 at 2:50 am

Steve,

Someone is harmed in a car crash. They were driving too fast. They weren't wearing a seat belt. Were they harmed because they were driving too fast? Were they harmed because they weren't wearing a seat belt? Both reasons are true. Without either factor, there may have been no harm.

No, this is not the right analogy, Your argument would be like saying they get hurt because they drive.

I was interested in your responses to the questions I put. If you claim that faith and prayer are safe for those who use them appropriately, then it is reasonable to ask you how we can determine they are being used appropriately.

Faith and prayers don't preclude common sense, this is the way practiced by many believers.

There seems to be an unspoken,--sometimes even spoken,--assumption that religious people either inhabit a different universe where they are completely immune from non religious considerations, or that they are required by their religion to so segregate themselves. This is as valid as the mad scientist stereotype.

2607. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151959 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm

The "implication" wouldn't be weird if you quote the whole paragraph instead of just a snippet out of context so you can't see what is the point being made. It doesn't "imply" anything of the sort you think it does,

2608. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151954 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 6:29 pm

newskin

Her parents knew she was ill, as they were praying for her recovery. You may have skipped what the parents said in the article:

I know that, but that is their particular take on "faith"and prayers. When posters challenge other Christians to comment, the assumption is that somehow this is integral to any belief in God, or at least Christianity. That is plainly not true. So, it was not the belief in God, or even the belief in Christianity, that killed the girl, it was the parents' peculiar way of believing.

. It's a real stretch to assert that a non-religious person would have acted in the same way,

Well the South African President believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.Their health department insists that a combination of herbs, organic food, chicken soup and garlic is a more effective treatment for AIDs than modern medicine. They are not motivated by religion to my best knowledge, pesudoscience is the culprit.

Merely believing in some God is not the most irrational thing humans can do. In some cases it may be drastic, in others it is pretty tame on the scale of irrationality, it depends on the specific contents of the beliefs,

2609. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151948 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 5:53 pm

newskin

The doctrine of prayer. As already stated but I am beggining to understand you are have selective vision.

Again, the passage cited by mmurry doesn't say blessings would just happen. You may still have to buy the lottery ticket instead of waiting for money to fall from the sky even if the prayer is answered. I don't see how this is a "selective" version

Popes do see doctors when they are sick and that is not just in modern times.

Finally, as again you have not grasped it, I am saying that modern christians go to the doctor (as you have), so why bother with prayer? I am also saying that god made them ill in the first place.

That is an entirely different argument, I would agree with you on this.

But the original accusation you made was the little girl died "because the parents believe in God", that would imply the belief in God and prayers prevented them from seeking medical help. Where is the evidence of that?

To illustrate the point, I used the example of Jehova Witnesses, for whom there is a doctrine against transfusions so it would be valid to say the parents' belief caused the daugther's death if she needed a transfusion but was denied,

2610. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151945 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 5:43 pm

newskin

Bonzai, Im afraid i cannot help but raise a smile whenever the religious get so up tight about evidence. It seems you are happy to base your whole philosophy, and life, on something that you take on faith but require detailed evidence for anything else!

You are so wrong about this. I am an atheist, never been religious.

However, I do abhor simple minded thinking, wherever it comes from.

I have no problem criticizing religion and I have done so often, but I don't like to caricature all religious people with one broad brush and I happen to think that there are intelligent believers with whom we can have a conversation instead of using bully tactics to "challenge" them, most notably by putting words in their mouths and attributing to them idiotic beliefs that they don't hold.

"Not my religion" often is not an excuse, but a valid response to strawman arguments,

2611. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151940 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 5:24 pm

newskin

You did not argue, you merely asserted that with some weak anecdote.

You claim there is a Christian reason to not see doctor, give me one. The onus is on you,

You have adressed no points from any of the contributers and have meerly seemed to suggest that modern christians accept that prayer is a load of boloney and seek help from doctors.

The contributors here don't make much a point except trying to use this tragedy to implicate all Christians. It is not a valid point and I have addressed it by showing how an intelligent Christian would have refuted it easily,

You are saying that the modern Christians are somehow perverting the religion while these idiots who expect magic healing to fall from the sky are not, Where is your evidence?

2612. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151933 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Richard M.

So many different types of Christianity. But the common factor is Christianity... and magic prayers.

When you claim "there is no "Christian" reason that prevents them from seeing a doctors", I do hope you are not setting yourself up as the ultimate decider of Christian doctrine. That would be a little ironic in the context, don't you think?

Well many Christians do believe in the magic prayers, but other than a few isolated cases like this I have never heard that the magic will just fall from the sky and you don't need to do anything for it. If you pray and hope to get rich, at least you should buy the lottery ticket instead of sitting to wait for a bag of money to fall from the sky.

You may know otherwise, but I don't know of any Christian school that says that believing in prayer means you have to wait for the money bag to drop from the sky (after a hurricane perhaps?)

2613. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151925 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 5:02 pm

That's not MY Christianity

Your point being?

Well maybe indeed that is not,

I certainly wouldn't think for a moment that this kind of idiocy is flying goose's Christianity, for example, and likely not Robertson's or McGrath's either,

A soundbite is just that, it is not an argument,

EDIT When this soundbites is invoked, it is usually an expression of frustration because of the failure to set up strawman arguments.

2614. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151920 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm

This tragedy was the result of many causes - the illness, the idiocy of the parents, their religious beliefs. Just because the parents were idots does not in any way justify dismissing the religious factor.

If there are many factors why say she died because her parents believed in God?

newskin is at least honest in stating his assumption, but you seem to shift all over the places,

When being called out for simplicity by pinning everything on the general belief in God, you would say, no, no. It is complex,you never said religion is the only factor. but then you would turn around and argue exactly as if you think religion is the only factor,

Are you using techniques you attribute to religious moderates in your own debates?

Religion enabled their idiotic behaviour

I don't agree with such a blanket statement.

As I argued, there is no "Christian" reason that prevents them from seeing a doctors.So if they are "just" Christians she might very well still be alive. They have their own weird interpretations of prayers that is clearly not shared by most Christians,

Now Jehovah Witnesses do have a specific dogma against transfusion, if the girl were a JW and she died because her parents denied her a transfusion than you can say religion was an enable factor,

2615. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151905 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Praying is good. Trusting God is good. Listening to preachers is good. God moves in mysterious ways. He answers your prayers. Listen hard enough and you can hear his voice. But, he doesn't answer all the time. You may need to have more faith, and repent your sins. Suffering is God's way of cleansing.

Maybe that is your understanding, along with some fundamentalists such as the unfortunate girl's parents. I have never heard from any Christian I know that "God answers prayers' means you should just sit on your arse and wait for blessings to fall from heaven.

It seems that you have again just quoted one or two sentences from my post and ignoring the rest.

2616. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151903 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm

There are no cheap points being scored here, this girl died because her parents believed in god.

No, believing in God doesn't mean they have to deny her medication. Many people believe in God and they do go to the doctors when they or their families get sick,

The little girl died because these people are idiots,

2617. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151894 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm

I am not sure why so many here seem to think that all Christians should somehow apologize for or excuse for such behaviour. The assumption is that somehow these crazy parents are doing what good Christians are supposed to do

I don't quite see the logic here.

An intelligent Christian would simply tell you that God would have answered their prayers through the doctor but they have to get off their arses and do their part of the job. No apology, no excuse, no evasive mental gymnastics, There is no need for all that, the answer is too easy.

It reminds me of a joke a Jewish friend told me. He said this poor Jew was praying to God everyday begging for God to send him a fortune, But his prayers were not answered and he died poor. When he met God in heaven he demanded, "God, I prayed to you days and nights, why did you ignore my prayers?" God answered, "I didn't, but you've got to spend the two dollars to buy the bloody lottery ticket yourself!"

I don't think this is a "gotcha" moment for the moderate Christians and I find it kind of crass to try to exploit this tragedy as ammunition to score cheap debating points with theists.

2618. Beware the Believers

Comment #151825 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I don't think it is pro-ID, but it is not a ringing endorsement of RD and gang either.

I agree with Janus that

If I had to guess, I'd say this was made by a theistic evolutionist, or an atheist who "believes in belief".

Like devolve, I love South Park.

2619. Beware the Believers

Comment #151727 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 9:01 am

Cartomancer,

I guess I must put my hand up and say that I burst out laughing uncontrollably at this too. I couldn't work out which side it was satirizing either, but I don't think that matters because the humour here is not primarily in the satirical content. It comes from the burlesque - the incongruous juxtaposition of radically different style and content.

Well said, you have a way with words that makes me envy. I wish I could have expressed it so well and elegantly.

2620. Beware the Believers

Comment #151719 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 8:50 am

Brian,

You'll grant this episode is pretty interesting at least?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I actually like it a lot.

2621. Beware the Believers

Comment #151711 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 8:41 am

Richard,

You mean you don't understand it well enough to know which side it is satirizing,, yet you still consider it well made, clever and very funny?

Sometimes art is not meant to be "understood" (I am making a general point here, not to this video in particular). Do you understand Dylan's lyrics?

Sometimes the purpose may be just to convey a whimsical image, an attitude or some vague allusions and let the viewers reach their conclusions.

Good art, in my view, is always a little ambiguous so that the artist doesn't appear to shove a message down your throat and it leaves room for the imagination. There is more to an artist work that the "message"

"Post Modernism" is disastrous for science, but it does make sense in the arts,

I think Mark Smith hit the nail on the head in message #52

2622. Beware the Believers

Comment #151700 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 8:23 am

--but one of the things that convinced me was the "machine" which is, as others have already pointed out, nothing but the wonderful, incredible, ever-moving, and awe-inspiring Scientific Method.

I don't know. I think the image of the machine is ominous, sinister and foreboding and it has a money sign hanging on it. It tramples everything ruthlessly under its feet, flatten everything wherever it goes.

I wouldn't find it a very flattering representation of the scientific method, let alone "wonderful".

Remember in the beginning the guy was saying to his colleague he saw something other than natural selection,--no mention of ID,-- the colleague reported him in the secretive way that people turn in their friends to secrete police in totalitarian countries, The machine showed up and "expelled" the victim. I don't think that conveys the scientific method at work, but rather the impression of a dark enforcer.

2623. Beware the Believers

Comment #151687 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 7:54 am

Richard Dawkins,

If anyone can understand a single word of this, don't bother to translate, just tell me whose side it's on. I get the feeling (same with South Park) that there are people out there who assume that something that is obviously MEANT to be funny therefore must BE funny, and they immediately shower it with accolades such as "Wow", "Hilarious", "Awesome" and, most side-splitting of all, "LOL".

Sorry to say this, Richard, stop being so puffed up and taking yourself so seriously. Having a little fun won't hurt. :)

Whichever side it is on, it is well made, clever and very funny.

2624. Beware the Believers

Comment #151668 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 7:01 am

Who cares whether it is "pro science"? It is fun and ingenious.


P.S. But I don't think it is on "our side" though, seriously, I don't know how some of you could think it is.

2625. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151540 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 12:32 am

So no dealing with schoolchildren, which is the issue here. Well, I have friends who DO teach kids at school, and I know what they achieve.

I have a friend who is an award winning highschool teacher,--in fact a friend of my highschool teacher,--he said very much the same thing about curricula, it is bull shit. He also said teacher's
college is a waste of time, Teacher's colleges are designed by the same arm chair "experts" in "education".

I have another friend who worked with very young children,--primary school students in the U.K system. He teachs them sophisticated mathematics using a novel, conceptual approach that he develops. He says the same thing about the factory schools that I said, only he is a polite sort of guy and doesn't use swear words. Why does he work with young children instead of highschoolers? He said, to work with them before they got ruined by the system.

Well, we just going to have to disagree about what teachers aims are and what they achieve

Well teachers don't call the shot. They get their orders from the ministry of education and they work under a lot of constraints, It is a wonder that some teachers can actually achieve what they do under the rigid restrictions imposed by the system. In Ontario, I was told by a teacher friend, a teacher spends the bulk of his time not on teaching, but doing paper work.

2626. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151532 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 12:14 am

Are you a course designer?

Do you mean am I an arm chair general? No, I loath the education consultants. I have been a student and I am a university instructor so I would know first hand what teaching and learning mean.

I should add that while the factory approach doesn't make educational sense it makes complete economical sense. Its goal is to produce a technically competent work force which on the other hand is docile enough not to ask too many questions. "Critical thinking" is not a primary goal for a system whose main function is to produce workers and consumers. Too much "critical thinking" is bad for the economy, you need just enough.

2627. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151524 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:55 pm

I am beginning to lose track of what your point is. You started by claiming that children couldn't be taught "critical thinking". Then you moved to claiming that they weren't being taught critical thinking. Now you seem to be saying that they musn't be taught critical thinking!

You lost track because you didn't read my first post where I stated what I meant by it cannot be "taught" and how a genuine education should "nurture" children to develop those skills.

I am sorry, it seems that you do have the habit of cutting and pasting randomly from a post and ignoring the rest. Just an observation.

Socrates didn't "teach" critical thinking, he motivated people to ask questions, provoked them to think for themselves.

The reason you suddenly need "thinking skill development" is that the entire factory system is based on the "filling up vessels" approach, teaching answers rather than motivating questions. It is based on evaluation and testing, which is a game of meeting quotas based on the false premise that learning can be precisely quantified,--a prime example of modern numerology and pesudoscience.

To do more of the same, making students to take more exams and to undergo more evaluations are not going to get you critical thinking. Richard Morgan's description of the French system actually makes a lot of sense, that would be exactly what I would have expected.

2628. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151519 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Teaching children according to a curriculum is not a factory approach.

Of course it is, with all the rigid prescriptions, goal setting and outcome evaluation spelt out as if it is a production plan.

My evidence is that this fellow taught me, and many others, about how to be critical and think for ourselves, illustrating that you were wrong to declare that this can't be taught.

You didn't answer my question, was he just a good teacher having something to share, or was he teaching according to some prescribed curriculum drawn up by some one else and test you and grade you in the end?

Are you seriously trying to say that the national curriculum of the UK is just a "mission statement"? Do you know anything about how this works? That critical thinking and reasoning ability are actually required in coursework, and are assessed?

Of course I know how it works. I didn't say it was a mission statement. I said it was a bureaucratic document with a mission statement. But how is that an evidence of anything?

Is critical thinking not required in doing course work before? Then what were they doing?

2629. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151517 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:28 pm

The most basic premise in the current thinking skills movement is the notion that students CAN learn to think better if schools concentrate on teaching them HOW to do so

The "thinking skill movement"? My bull shit detector is in full alert mode whenever I hear buzz words like this, I can't help but think it is yet another atrocious invention of the consulting industry. Now think skill is a new "movement", you wonder what they have been doing all the while.

It is a sad testimony of the state of education if you need a separate course to teach "critical thinking". One wonders what the hell are people doing in other subjects.

2630. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151513 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm

When I say that my memories of my childhood were clear, and I was indeed taught critical thinking, you declare, based on no evidence, that this must have been some kind of fluke.

Was he following some curriculum? Were you tested on that material? If not, then it is not any evidence for the factory approach that you are endorsing here.

Your opinion about what is and isn't taught in schools seems to be irrelevant when we can actually look at the evidence - the UK teaching guidelines snd curriculum.

How is a bureaucratic document with what amount to a mission statement an evidence of anything?

It is evidence that U.K's students would be writing one more exam, as if it is not enough already to have to do all the subjects already on O and A level.

Where does it stop? Do we need to teach common sense in school and test students on it?

2631. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151494 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Frankus,

Sounds like you are a good teacher. There is a saying, I don't remember by whom (Yeats?) and the exact words, which basically says that teaching is not filling a vessel, but to light a fire. I am sure a good mentor, who takes an interest in the subject and the student, would be a great source of inspiration for young people. But I don't believe in syllabus with well set out goals, evaluations and expected outcome, this is bureaucratic bull shit. Teaching is not a factory operation.

Now it is all about teaching answers without the students even knowing what the questions are, like filling of the vessel and there is a huge obsession over grades and exams.

I taught mathematics (calculus) briefly in Ontario (a few years ago), It was painful to have to teach according to the curriculum, which was clearly drawn up by idiots. The is no internal cohesion, no central narrative, no clue. The material is chopped up into units to be covered according to a specific schedule so that students can be tested and evaluated.

It is no wonder Mitchell Gilks says he can't learn mathematics. Any intelligent student would be bored out of his skull and would ask the obvious question, "what is the fucking point?"

2632. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151485 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Besides, social Darwinism "selects" the guy who makes most money, not the person who have most kids, There you go, it is not natural selection.

2633. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151479 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Steve,

I do remember being a child, and I remember a particular teacher, indeed a particular lesson that had a dramatic impact on me. When I was a young teenager an English teacher showed us a documentary that turned out to be an advert. We were introduced to the idea of being suspicious of things presented in easy soundbites, and of carefully packaged views. We were taught to think critically.

Well good for you. But I bet that was his special treat. He was not following some syllabus developed by the bureaucrats from the ministry of education so that you could be graded and tested on the material,

I can't say I remember any teacher or figure of authority who had "taught" me how to think critically and be an argumentative asshole,

As a child I always had a lot of questions. Adults usually ignored me so I was left thinking on my own. My mother told me that when I was 6 or 7, we went to Church and after the sermon, I asked, "how did the guy know all these stuffs, was he there with God?" Now after having lived in a house with small children I don't think I was that unique. Children question, they don't need to be "taught".

My parents' attitude towards my mental development was benign neglect. All they cared about was that I did well in school, other than that I was free to read whatever I could get my hands on, I never expected or received any advice from them, but they didn't force me to believe or think in any set way either. I was free to explore, more or less on my own. In retrospect they were very young and inexperienced and always too busy for work. But actually I am quite thankful for that.

When I went to highschool, I met some like minded friends, we greedily devoured books on philosophy, history and literature and would spend long hours on discussions and debates. We did that all by ourselves without any advice or guidance from adults.

What could the teachers have taught us anyway? They were all burnt out, comfortable with their habits and conventions. We were only too happy to be left alone. I would have hated it if we had to take courses on "critical thinking" and be graded by people who weren't that good in that themselves!

2634. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151468 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Steve,

This goes against all the evidence that there is a trend of less religiousness with increasing education.

Just because things aren't 100% correlated does not mean there isn't a definite trend.

Do you have any evidence that formal education corresponds to originality of thought, capacity for critical thinking , independence of the mind and intellectual curiosity? If you do I would like to see it because it is quite at odd with my anecdotal experience.

2635. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151451 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Steve,

Is this an argument from experience of being an educator, or is it an argument from personal incredulity?

As some one who has been a child, perhaps you have forgotten about that.

2636. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151436 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Eight-year-old: "I Like To Think Freely…

Somehow I feel sick reading this. An eight year old who thinks freely would just do this instinctively. She wouldn't say, " I am a free thinker".

And what is with the "discuss not their faith, but the opposite of faith -- the idea that truth arises from reason, from science, from free thought." For eight years old?!

These kids all sound like tiny adults. Sorry, this sounds definitely like indoctrination. Not only do they copy all the Church trappings, they actually fashion themselves after some Puritan cult by the look of it.

2637. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151432 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Having or not having religious belief is not a good yard stick to measure critical thinking skills and independent thinking.

There are highly original and critical thinkers who are religious and I have met enough atheists who are unreflective, unquestioning and just simply dull people.

2638. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151428 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Teaching critical thinking is an important part of the National Curriculum in the UK. Good thing too, because kids may start off thinking freely, but soon find pressure from parents and peer groups.

It is like asking people to study from a manual to learn to be spontaneous.

Critical thinking skill cannot be "taught", it has to be nurtured.

You don't have a nurturing environment when "education" as a whole is like a fucking factory which follows charts and plans at every turn. Pupils are fed enough facts and answers so that they can write exams and get penalized if they don't meet some artificial standard. It is like quality control.

Answers are meaningless if you don't even care for or know the questions.

What is the point of "teaching" students to be independent thinkers while the message of the system is TO CONFORM?

Let kids be kids.

2639. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151420 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Nail

Kids think freely anyway, so let them be kids.

Beautifully stated.

I always find the idea to "teach" critical thinking in the regimented, factory school setting ridiculous. This is especially true with the British system where students will just be burdened by another fucking exam. It will go a long way to encourage critical thinking if the schools are not so obsessed with evaluation, exams and grades, allow students to make mistakes, encourage them to ask questions instead of just force feeding them answers,

2640. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151255 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:36 am

The problem is not just that the "moderates" give cover for the "fundamentalists", it is that so many give cover for the "moderates", by assuming that "moderates" tend to have safe, nice views, because... well, they are "moderates

If you cannot show why opposition to ssm, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell etc cannot be raised in a secular context,--indeed they have,-- then you are just shooting blank.You are just highlighting one aspect of the opposition, namely religion and ignoring everything else to argue your pre reached conclusion. I ask you again, do you think atheist China would allow same sex marriage?

These issues should be controversial in any society because they are challenging in some fundamental ways. A society that allows cloning and stem cell without any proper debate would probably not mind harvesting organs from executed prisoners or aborting gay fetuses either (if they can screen them)

So it is natural for a reflective society to have these debates. As long as the moderates can contribute meaningfully in a secular discourse I don't mind that at all, and many are actually doing that. Just because you disagree with their position it doesn't mean it is illegitimate to raise their concerns, as long as they can frame it in secular terms.,

It is only the fundamentalists who "argue" by quoting the Bible. That is not legitimate.

Shit, must go.

2641. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151249 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

Ok, so I will step out of my mental prison, and realise that when a "moderate" campaigns strongly against gay rights, or stem cell research, they are actually only against "gay rights" and "stem cell research", which are part of a different reality.

Can't resist one more parting shot.

Which moderate strongly camgaign against gay rights and the reasons, rightly or wrongly, cannot be translated into secular terms? I am thinking of Margret Somerville who argued against Same sex marriage, I disagree with her but her arguments are secular ones, Stem cell research would be controversial even to many secular people who see it as going down a slippery slope, it has the same flavour as debate over euthanasia, I think their arguments against both stem cells and euthanasia are invalid but these arguments can be and has been made without resort to religion.

Religion may articulate some of the anxieties when societies undergo changes. It may not be the source of it,

Do you think atheist China would allow same sex marriage?

You are pushing hot buttons here and I don't think it is honest,

2642. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151245 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:01 am

You are trying to understand people here, people aren't machines, if they don't conform to what your linear models consider "reasonable' too bloody bad, It is not "scientific "to try to truncate reality to fit your preconceived idea of what religious people believe and what the nature of their beliefs are like.

I think Scott Atran was right on when he told Harris and Denette they had no idea what they were talking about when it came to religionand they demonstrated a complete disregard for science even when they were preaching it like some fundi evangelicals (OK, the last part are my words)

I'm out of here. Have a good weekend

2643. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151241 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:52 am

Start fudging the meaning of words and you cksh us aiish ammcss.

Well for someone who has studied Buddhism you should know better. :) Words are not reality, you put yourself in a mental prison if you confuse the two.

2644. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151235 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

epeeist,

You shouldn't be too literal in reading my posts. I am not a fundamentalist.

2645. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151231 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:44 am

I have to agree with Dr Benway A belief is just a claim about reality

Why am I not surprised. Ahhh,, the woman in a white coat, everything is so cut and dry and linear. You would find only fundamentalists characterize their beliefs as a "claim" in any definitive way. So there is a God, that is the extent to the claim. Everything else can be negotiable,

But the notion of God can be fluid, to some like Chris Hedges it is almost just a literary short hand,.

You understand "belief" too literally, perhaps there is no better word in English,

2646. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151227 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:33 am

The Solipsim label would apply only to fundamentalists.

You keep asking for corroborating evidence, but this is a meaningless question unless you agree on what should be considered admissible evidence, Most evidence that the religious people consider as admissible would not be admissible in science, it can be because it is too vague or not easily interpreted in a straight forward, third person way. But it is a kind of evidence nonetheless, for the person who see meanings in it, and is relevant to questions relating to first person experience to which science has no answer,

Whatever your criticism to this approach, it is methodical, it does seek to incorporate "evidence" and it is not solipsism .

2647. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151222 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

Let's just say that holding any belief strongly based on personal intiution and without corroboration in ways that we would expect for most things in life is a bad idea,

Holding a belief strongly doesn't mean you can't revise it. You have to first understand what a "belief" means to many moderates. You are using a fundamentalist mindset to understand moderates, so you are confused, no doubt.

2648. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151215 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

They are different problems but in some way the "methods" are similar, only in the religious case you
define "evidence" differently.

Riley summarized it better than I can. The moderates are Bayesians.

2649. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151211 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:15 am

Riley,

Of course there is more than one method that allows for uncertainty! Francis Collins (I would guess) is neither 100% certain of his beliefs derived the moderate Christian approach to faith nor his beliefs derived from the scientific approach. In both cases his methods allow for adaptation upon new evidence.

Good point.

The moderate believer is a Bayesian! Thomas Bayes was a minister, what a coincident.

2650. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151206 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:11 am

Unless you are saying that religious methods of acquiring "certainties" are the same as scientific methods of acquiring "certainties", then you are making my point.

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently. these are two different classes of questions and not surprisingly would have different standards for answers (to my mind religious questions are not questions but you're asking about Collins)