Apparently, the Victorian Government will soon give the green light for the Humanist Society of Victoria to hold classes in schools, effectively giving them the same rights as religious groups hold.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24797395-29277,00.html

Religious teachers have long been able to give religious instruction in schools, with students being able to opt-out. Now, the humanists will be able to do the same.

I guess under the present system, this is fair enough. If religious groups are allowed to give classes in schools, then surely humanist groups should be allowed the same.

My preference would be to do away with religious instruction in schools altogether (as well as the classes of the humanist group), and focus on things like maths and science. If students wish for religious instruction... well, I thought that's what Sunday schools are for.

However, given that this isn't happening, I guess I support the humanists in their endeavour.

Thoughts?

There's plenty of pro or anti religious threads, but I'm hoping we can discuss what things we believe are necessary for education, and what are the limitations, benefits or problems of teaching theology or philosophy in schools. (So if you're just sinking the boot in, please think twice).
I'm of the view that these discussions are better held in university, where the exercise has more of a give-and-take nature, as opposed to education in younger years, where it often appears to be an attempt to gain converts.

Well it hasnt started yet and Im not greatly worried.

Really...if you fight against GOD you will lose.
The Nazis picking on His chosen people, the Jews, during WW2 is a classic example.

The Humanists trying to corrupt a generation of young children will become another example.

It will only be a matter of time before GOD sorts out the Humanists and the Victorian government.

Weird things have happened down there in 'the darkness that Victoria is becoming' in recent years including the decriminalisation of witchcraft.

All they did was open the doors for the warlocks and witches to do their many abominations.

I agree that it seems a good idea if we're going to be stuck with "religious education" in the curriculum. If a similar policy is instituted in Queensland it would give my youngest child something to do instead of sitting up the back of the classroom facing the back, as she was forced to do this year.

Dear TRTL,

Imagine teaching children that every person has
dignity and worth and therefore should
command the respect of every other person.

Humanistic education centres on the humanities,
which include philosophy, languages, literature,
history and the arts. Together, these subjects
have humanistic ideals at their centre. They
try to interpret the meaning of life, rather
than just describing the physical world of
society.

If humanism will teach young adults how to use
their knowledge and power in a moral, humane way,
I think that would be a plus in their education.
It would balance out the emphasis that is currently
being placed on science and technology.

Surely that wouldn't be a bad thing?

Humanistic philosophy has saturated our universities and school systems for decades. Having it taught as the dogma it is just brings it out in the open. I just hope they are honest enough to teach the fruit of this god denying philosophy however I doubt it. Thankfully it will result in more kids in the private schools as more teens end up with sexually if transmitted diseases, more rebellion takes place in class (if thats possible) and drug taking and violence increases. The Government is showing that it has been hijacked by fools.

Predictable responses from Gibo and runner. Do you guys have autocues that you just read each time one of these topics pops up?
Try varying the script a little huh? I've seen this one already. It has a crappy ending.

Foxy, from a theoretical standpoint I agree, however from a practical standpoint I don't. Whilst I think teaching these things is a good thing, the end result tends to be changed a little along the way.
Ideally, yes, teaching that each person has worth sounds good. In practice, it ends up being another feel-good exercise that quickly grows stale as the students get bored.
Ultimately, teaching needs to be about challenging the mind - however it takes rare talent to teach truly philosophical matters in an enlightening way. I think if you attempt to mass-produce it for all schools via a mandate for the curriculum, it will inevitably end up doing the opposite.

Another problem is that philosophical topics tend to be hijacked by those with a cause.
Gibo and runner provide a fine example of why such things should stay out of the classroom, as they can't seem to empathise on any level with those who feel it's inappropriate to give religious teaching for those who don't wish for it.

Guys, I have no problem with religious instruction being offered to those who seek it out. I have a very big problem with it being presented to young minds in schools who haven't asked for it, especially when it's presented as an absolute truth.

Advertise in the same way everybody else has to. Get billboards and pay for TV ads if you've got a message to get across.

CJ... your youngest can't just opt-out of the religious classes?

I prefer though that all religious, political (and in ways even social) dogma be kept out of schools, including social/politically inclined Humanist lessons… I don’t think even the simple atheistic *there is no god* should be *pushed* either as kids must also be free to believe in a god(s) if they are so inclined. I think it is a personal matter and to be kept out of the curriculum.

I think philosophy/critical thinking could possibly be taught in junior school along with their history and that may be better... with just a very "dry and unbais explanation" of each religion and the other beleifs like humanism and atheisim.

A big lesson on seperation of law and religion is what matters.. that is all that needs to be *instilled*

My main concern is that all are, prone to be used as vehicles to push personal POVs. This is why I prefer to work on getting it ALL out of the curriculum.

I don't want Left wing, Right wing, Islamic Madrasses, Zen Peace, Jesus Saves or God Bashing type schools either.

If a religion wants to fund a school, that is fine but no imputting of their POVs.

Ah runner in my life's role as an Aussie larakin, I love a day at the football, a bar b q, good company over a beer or glass of wine.
And a laugh.
Thanks for your reference to dogma, I leave now chuckling, breaking into full blown laughter.
in fact rolling on the floor, dogma!

For us.... it is great to have an opportunity to share Gods love with young people who might otherwise not have a chance to hear about it at home.

Still... R.E. should not be compulsory, and there will always be a kind of tugging between optional/compulsory camps. It will depend on the area and the ethos/culture of that area.

I imagine that a strongly Christian area would feel quite happy for some extra exposure at school to the Word, but they should be doing that at home and at Sunday meetings anyway.

As for Humanist education? my only question is.. "Can they provide a philosphical basis other than "we should be because... err because.. yeah.. because..."

Religious/Philosophical education at schools is probably best kept at the 'informative' level rather than driving towards commitment, though with the right information, commitment might come anyway.

If the Gospel is 'foolishness to those who are perishing'.... how can a structured class make any difference to this?

I think deep down, no matter how much we believers agree in principle to such things being 'informative' we are really hoping and praying that some will be saved as a result of exposure to the Gospel of Grace.

R.E. Is no substitute for we, the Body of Christ, making the Gospel known at every opportunity and in every available place.

TRTL
This is indeed an interesting subject.
What concerns me though is that most of the commentators thus far with the exception of FOXY (of course) and yourself have little or no idea of what humanism is. PC, runner, Gibo have difficulty with the basic premise that religion isn't the only source of 'goodness’, morality, ethics etc hence the idea that any other form could be useful much less desirable.
Likewise there are many different ideas as to what humanism actually is.
Even though I describe myself as a secular humanist I would be uncomfortable with teaching children the ‘secular’ bit (personal choice).
Having said that It would all depend on how the subject is approached i.e. ‘Aussie’ history as it was taught was hardly accurate or useful. A humanistic bent in that the class discussing how life was and what were the conflicts of the time then juxtaposing it to today’s problems is relevant.

As some one who has spent a lot of time on the front line of crisis management. I think that practical humanism would help in that it gives people worth. This lack of self perceived worth, by the way, is at the base of much of our social problems. Certainly gang mentality, teenage suicide etc. In many cases pushing god on someone in crisis is unhelpful…what they often want is help seeing a way through rather than avoidance.

I can see classes that look at practical real life issues and discussing human based solutions (humanism) i.e. how to improve laws.

Humanism as a principal is no more threatening that the PRE Christian golden rule
‘Do to others as you want then to do to you.’ (PC et al research before you explode). The subjects need not be dogmatic (in fact shouldn’t) but individualistic, positive and by definition empowering.

I raised 3 1/3 children with humanism and all are different save the fact that they all respect others and their opinions/rights. One is very pro law observance, one is environment happy, one is pro down trodden and the 1/3 is a Jewish hippy. Go figure.

A fair bit of what kids learn at school already has a humanist angle. They consider the thinking and attitudes behind literature, think about the attitudes that brought about particular bits of history, get asked 'how would you feel if this was you?' at bully training, that sort of thing.

Humanism classes would just bring that together as a philosophical system. Being thoughtful and mindful of others simply because they're fellow humans, as opposed to having to be nice to avoid nasty consequences.

Even quite young kids enjoy solving ethical problems. If it was done right it could be brilliant. If it's just god bashing it could just add to the problems we already have.

I think this is a major step backwards.

In order to get their message in front of schoolchildren, the Humanist Society of Victoria has dragged it down to the level of a religion, alongside other "approved religions" such as Judaism, Buddhism and Baha'i.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/religion-in-schools-to-go-godfree-20081213-6xxs.html?page=-1

"Accredited volunteers will be able to teach their philosophy in the class time designated for religious instruction. As with lessons delivered by faith groups, parents will be able to request that their children do not participate."

"Class time designated for religious instruction"?

Personally, I have no quarrel with RI in schools, particularly where i) the parent or child can opt out and ii) where there is a choice of topics from which to choose. Learning about the hold that religion has over many people is an important part of a rounded education.

But classifying Humanism in this fashion, in a space normally occupied by religion, seriously degrades the Humanist message to "just another idea".

Humanism is, at heart, about ethics unadorned by slavish devotion to a mythological carer-figure. It stands alone and apart, since it allows the responsibility to be taken by the individual, rather than be subsumed in some - not always particularly savoury - collective consciousness.

"Standalone" ethics may - and should - be taught in any number of non-religious ways. Parking it in a space normally reserved for dogma-driven belief systems can only be damaging in the long term.

The reason is simple. Ethics should not be a voluntary option. By bundling ethics into a religious framework - one which, you can guarantee, every religion enthusiast would insist that their child boycotts - you have turned the entire concept on its head.

As history has amply demonstrated, many times over, ethics and religion do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

They should not be conflated in the minds of our children either.

Belly
'I love a day at the football, a bar b q, good company over a beer or glass of wine.'
You might be surprised that I have more in common with you than you realise. I know that might horrify you.

"Imagine teaching children that every person has dignity and worth and therefore should command the respect of every other person."

Yes, imagine that! To my mind, Foxy, you've captured the essence of this debate perfectly in that one sentence. To me, it's a complete no-brainer. Humanism should permeate the whole curriculum. It shouldn't have to be taught as an add-on.

Ideally, I think philosophy should be taught in all schools, initially as a stand alone, but with the ultimate aim of having philosophical thinking underpin all parts of the curriculum.

I agree with you, Foxy, a renewed humanist emphasis is needed today, more than ever before, to counter the narrow and instrumental emphasis on maths, science, technology and vocational subjects that currently dominates most educational institutions.

"If a religion wants to fund a school, that is fine but no imputting of their POVs."

Ah Meredith, LOL. That's their sole raison d'etre. Why else would they be falling all over themselves to educate our children?

Bronwyn, I meant humanist donations to schools too.

There will be many parents that disagree with humanistic ideals. Just as there are parents against religious ideals. I am not saying humanism is a religion I know it isn’t… but is does function as another belief system along side of religion. Even atheism does

Polycarp wrote:

As for Humanist education? my only question is.. "Can they provide a philosphical basis other than "we should be because... err because.. yeah.. because..."

Dear Polycarp,

Humanism has a philosophic basis which The Council for Secular Humanism states on its web site:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&section=main

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

The above makes much more sense than using a book containing fairy tales about talking snakes, a psychopathic God who subjects his son to torture and other nonsense as a guide to conduct. Humanism encourages critical thinking and ethical conduct.

May you have a good year and an open mind.

Personally I feel that the sooner they stop brainwashing little
kiddies with nonsense about burning in hell forever, the better off
we will all be. Sadly at present religion still claims the upper
moral ground in schools, be that Christianity, Islam or whatever.

School should more be about teaching kids how to think, rather
then what to think.

There have been some amazing results teaching young kids about
the basics of emotional literacy, conflict resolution skills, etc,
through the Resolving Conflict Creatively Programme. The result
is less social violence, less violence in schools, less violence
in their homes. Some kids even went home and taught mommy and
daddy how to resolve things, when they were having a scrap.

Those kinds of fundamental skills, combined with teaching kids
the basics of ethics, morality, philosophy, the different religions
and beliefs etc, would teach them how to think, not what to think.

That would be far more usefull for both the kids and for society.

The old distinction between education and instruction is apposite here.

In my day we called religious instruction 'religious destruction' - and that was pretty accurate given that the Bible bashers couldn't even control the classes. They were intent upon shoving ideas into children's heads instead of challenging them to think.

I think runner and Gibo must have sat there acquiescently during such classes because they model an inability to think clearly about religion.

A humanist course - if well taught - would do what proper religious education - if well taught - would do: encourage young people to think seriously about how religious claims are made and assessed.

CONFESSION TIME...... but it's already provided by.....chainsmoker...

He has wonderfully illustrated that:

"A fair bit of what kids learn at school already has a humanist angle"

No kidding :) I'd go much further.. MOST IF NOT ALL of what kids are taught is within a humanist framework. In fact it is not the lack of evidence about Christ Jesus that persuades many young people to opt out of faith and into hedonistic materialism..but the 'plausability structure' which is contrived by a humanistic education that befouls their impressionable minds.

If we want to sort out what is or isn't taught in schools.. lets immediately do the following:

1/ NO science or other class can make a declaration "the world came into being by chance" ..they may ONLY say "Many but not all,scientists 'believe' that such happened...various theories exist..
a)
b)
c) etc

2/ NO history class can say "Jesus Christ did not exist" or "was a mythological figure/did not rise from the dead"

The most they can say is 'SOME' historians and scholars believe.....such and such and OTHERS believe differently.

-The evidence is as follows:....... a) b) c) d)

In fact...this thread has opened up a great can of worms showing just how much children ARE ALREADY brainwashed by Humanism at level of their education.

NEUTRALITY seldom occurs naturally.

The greatest challenge facing education is 'which set of biases' will our curriculum be based on

It is quite fascinating, Boaz, following your trains of thought..

>>In fact it is not the lack of evidence about Christ Jesus that persuades many young people to opt out of faith and into hedonistic materialism...<<

Hey, I thought we had agreed on this before.

"Opting out of faith" does not automatically lead to opting "into hedonistic materialism".

Any more than becoming a priest automatically entitles you to mess with the choirboys.

But back to your main point.

I don't agree that any amount of "evidence" - either lack of, or superabundance of - is responsible for the individual's decision on whether they will be religious or not.

Religion is fundamentally an emotional decision, and perfectly resistant to any form of logic or intellectual reasoning.

I attended church schools where belief was not simply expected, but assumed. I don't believe that their approach had any significant impact on my eventual determination of what I did or did not believe, any more than if they had avoided the topic entirely.

But I must also take issue with your edict on what can and cannot be taught.

>>NO science or other class can make a declaration "the world came into being by chance"<<

Science classes should restrict themselves to scientific explanations.

To introduce the prospect of a deity creating the world along the lines of Genesis would be totally inappropriate. Examination of the many past, current and evolving scientific theories should, on the other hand, be mandatory.

>>NO history class can say "Jesus Christ did not exist" or "was a mythological figure/did not rise from the dead"<<

History classes should restrict themselves to history. Jesus as a historic figure might qualify as a topic, as might the legends surrounding him, but always within the bounds of normal historical constraints.

Classes on religion, on the other hand, can have free rein to discuss any - in fact preferably all - its variations.

That's their job.

But Humanism is not a religion, and should not be "taught" as such.

Many of its tenets would sit comfortably in an ethics class.

But not Religious Instruction.

Polycarp wrote:

1/ NO science or other class can make a declaration "the world came into being by chance" ..they may ONLY say "Many but not all,scientists 'believe' that such happened...various theories exist..

Dear Polycarp,

I am unaware of any science class in which such a statement has been made. It is the type of nonsense creationists talk in their distortion of science.

Evolution and creation are not matters of chance. They are the results of natural processes. To talk of what scientists 'believe' is more religious nonsense. Scientists look at the evidence and use reason to make the most plausible explanation on the basis of that evidence. If new evidence shows their previous hypothesis wrong they will form new hypotheses.

One of the principles of humanism is:

"Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions."

If people want to believe in nonsense contained in books with talking snakes they have that right, but that nonsense should not be part of science classes.

Dear Gibo,

I think you will find that Hilter was a Catholic and the Germans of the NAZI regime, Catholic or Lutheran:

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." - Hilter (Mein Kampf)

Of the Humanists, from the discipline of Psychology, I admire Carl Rogers, whom claimed words the effect we all should have "unconditional positive regard" for each other.

I think I would prefer Rogers' humanism, over Christians settling 2,000 year old religio-racist scores. Further, I would rather see pupils given the tools to ojectivity assess claims, be the claims religious or non-religious.

*A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.*

Last paragraph of humanist-mission-statement from DavidF. He then expresses hatred, ridiculing theism.

-DavidF: The above makes much more sense than using a book containing fairy tales about talking snakes, a psychopathic God who subjects his son to torture and other nonsense as a guide to conduct. Humanism encourages critical thinking and ethical conduct.-

He's intolerant… Religious parents/kids exist too, no matter what we think of it, they're allowed to be. Humanism is denying their *faith* in god(s) prefering their *conviction* in tolerance.

Also though… I believe that *tolerance for tolerance sake* is a very dangerous thing and DavidF is entitled to his disgust...as I am to mine in stuff.

It’s called discrimination or critical thinking. It's vital for everyone regardless of, stand, ethic or belief or whatever word you are.

-Spikey: A humanist course- if well taught- would do what proper religious education- if well taught- would do: encourage young people to think seriously about how religious claims are made and assessed.-

It’s good to think… people need form opinions about religion/politics… I don't trust *teaching* it to human-nature either.

I wouldn't like kids being taught to hate/write-off religion/god. Or if their *faith* being somehow wrong.

I am atheist too btw, I just don’t automatically hate religion or knock faith for others… There is good and bad in almost everthing.

-Pericles: Many of its tenets would sit comfortably in an ethics class.-
Alot wouldn't too, depending on your ethics, but it's less intrusive to put it in a seperate class.

-Polycarp: The greatest challenge facing education is 'which set of biases' will our curriculum be based on.-

Yes, agreed.

Also it's adults only stuff in a sense, these days these are bleak subjects...

Could these classes be kept until the HSC/University when one is almost an adult with more chance of making *own* decisions?

Which opens up debate of the political hijacking of universities.

Spikey, it works like this:
Teach little kiddies nonsense, if they play up, cane them.

OK on a more serious note, for the most part I agree with Pericles.
When I first read the article, it felt to me as if the humanists were fed left-overs or something. I find it a bit demeaning.

I'd love to have read that the humanists snobbed the opportunity.

Now that humanists have shown they are so eager to grab ANY opportunity to be included, the repercussions are that there will be even less people who oppose religious teaching at public schools.

Critical thinking and philosophy should be taught to ALL children, not just to those who have opted-out of Religious Education.
I dare say that children who come from religious backgrounds need critical thinking skills the most and should not miss out.
Little kids believe anything that adults tell them, that's why religious indoctrination should not happen at all!

I think that IF religions are to be taught at all in primary school, then all children should be taught an overview of world religions and atheism as well.

CJ, I think it's dreadful that your daughter has had to face the wall during RE. It's the school's duty to cater for all children. I've protested quite a lot about the lack of alternatives to religious education during my children's primary school years and solutions have always remained mediocre.

Dear Meredith,

I expressed intolerance toward biblical believers and apologise.

David, Thank you, but I wasn't offended... I was more just trying to point out we all actully need the freedom to not tolerate stuff at times. I find some things utterly intolerable too.

meredith,

"I find some things utterly intolerable too."

If something is utterly intolerable, then it should not be tolerated.

David

There is a place for faith education.I dont mind at all, but just the same ,it should be balanced by humanistic studies as well.Why not offer it as an alternative at the time RE is being taught.See if there are any takers.If not,RE should go ahead because parents and their children want it to.Simple as that!!

socratease

Dear Poly,

I suggest orthodox Western historians of the early centuries would on balance hold that the person Christians call Jesus existed. Where there would be disagreement, perhaps, is a scholar of that period would suggest that Christians relate/project a four century religiousity, to a first century histography.

Jesus seems to have been trying to extend the House of David, via the Gentiles. Also, he seems to have been endeavouring to create a Davianian priest class like the House of Levi. That is, all people would be born without the need of clerical intercession with regard to being righteously justified to God.

Actually, Jesus seems to have been quite smart. His House was given given the dregs (from a Jewish perspective) to teach, yet said dregs commanded the Empire. Something he may have tried to leverage? In 51 CE, under Pauline dogma, and in 325 CE, way after the cricifixion, historial events did turn that way. He was ultimately deified.

I think I may have mentioned this before: Rome appointed the Herodians (later the Annas). The Heriodians delegated the teaching of the Gentiles in the Jewish Diaspora, to the Davids. Jesus was one of two claimants to the House of David, via Joseph and Mary. The other was the fully legitimate son, James. [Jesus was born to a Nun (Virgin) between betrovel ceremonies]. Historians would view, divinity was affixed to Jesus generations later. Of course, Christians hold a different view.

There are humanist teachings from Jesus (parts of the Sermon on the Mount), yet, I think (need to check), these originate from Heli, who was possibly Jesus' grand-father.

Cheers,

Oly, Here endth the lesson :)

The complexity of the subject is the main reason why I think these philosophical matters are best left until university.

At high school, would very quickly become a yawning exercise for most students, due to the 'lowest common denominator' effect.
Some classes would be very good. Most wouldn't.

Pericles, I see your point about humanism being lowered to the standard of religion. That gives me more to think about, and perhaps I'm not as supportive of this move by the Victorian Humanist Society (even though I only support it because we're not removing religious instruction from public schools entirely).

Take a closer look at what forms the basis of humanism - it's not technically even about religion. It's ethics, and in many ways is similar to critical reasoning - something I believe we really SHOULD be teaching, which has the benefit of not being so politically volatile.

Examinator - good points, though they only reinforce my belief that this subject matter is better taught via peer-to-peer interaction, which is better achieved at a university level.

My conclusion would be that critical reasoning should be taught in high school instead.
It would be more easily evaluated, and would give students the foundation skills that they could use to develop a more sophisticated ethics framework in later studies.

Classes could show some more common fallacies. For assessment, students could provide examples of each fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

"Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true."

(For example, pretty much every post by Gibo).

Or, perhaps these two:

"False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several.
If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question "

(See boaz's points about reduced religion apparently leading to hedonism. A double hitter).

Consider how much the quality of debate here would improve if everybody was aware of how to spot and deconstruct these fallacies?

The good news is that more and more people are deserting State schools because the fruit of secular humanism is obvious. Even many politicians who claim to back secular values send their kids to private schools. The fundies among the secular humanist really are an arrogant bunch. One day they will face up to the simple fact that along with everyone else they have an adamic nature. All their self righteous rants and ravings won't change what is obvious.

Oh man, runner, if there were some kind of robot that picked out fallacies in statements, it would malfunction from the sheer number of them you churn out in such concentrated bursts.

Looking at your commentary purely from logic and divorcing it from ideology - it's riddled with fallacies. I mean, absolutely riddled. You start from flawed, unsubstantiated premises then build on them until the resulting argument has no resemblance to anything remotely reasonable.
Lets take this one as an example:

"The good news is that more and more people are deserting State schools because the fruit of secular humanism is obvious. Even many politicians who claim to back secular values send their kids to private schools."

"If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question."
"Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true."

I've lost count of the times I've patiently explained to you the complex issues surrounding private and public schooling, and the fact that government subsidies toward improving the education in church schools are a significant motivator in these matters, but you choose to discard reason and can't even dignify it with a logical response.

You go on to state:

"The fundies among the secular humanist really are an arrogant bunch. One day they will face up to the simple fact that along with everyone else they have an adamic nature. All their self righteous rants and ravings won't change what is obvious."

There's parts of all these fallacies in there:

"Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test." "

Not to mention, quoting out of context, ad-hominem statements (playing the man, not the ball).

I also think you qualify for:

"Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)".

Further proof for my assertion on the previous page, that this education should take the form of critical reasoning classes.

If religion has so much to offer, why doesn't it try to win its battles in the adult arena of ideas, rather than trying to load children up with dogma before they're old enough to discriminate?

I would prefer to see ethical and moral education left to parents, but if they're going to be part of the curriculum, humanism is the most civilised option available

Dear *pat* Pericles.... a-gain....you did your usual..and missed an important word.

I did not say that opting out of faith automatically leads to materialistic hedonism.....

I said it did so for MANY young people..

This is your same-oldx2 "You hate all Muslims" mantra... shabby me boy..shabby.

DAVID F said: (of Humanism)

"Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions."

Dear David..if 'scientific' enquiry begins with a presupposition that snakes can't talk :) even when you meet one you won't believe it.
Same goes for burning bushes which are not consumed.. or dare I say.. men blind from birth who only know one thing "I was blind....but (after Jesus healed him) now...I can see"

It is most unscientific to define it in materialistic terms only. Specially if there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
I include as 'evidence' the personal testimony of real people..including myself.

All I'm saying...is that in your explanation of Humanist belief, you also show us it's biases and assumptions. Any belief system, wether mystical or not.. must exclude at least some other contrary belief systems. It's not something to be upset about..it's just life.

MEREDITH..welcome back mate...hope ur health is good.. this is.. :) "u know who".. we emailed remember.. (just follow Pericles posts and he'll say who I am)

OLY....I'm aware of your view of history :) we disagree but that's ok.
Rock sharpens Rock right?

Just weasel words again, Boaz.

>>I did not say that opting out of faith automatically leads to materialistic hedonism..... I said it did so for MANY young people..<<

But why should it do so for any of them, Boaz?

>>This is your same-oldx2 "You hate all Muslims" mantra... shabby me boy..shabby.<<

Ok, it's showtime. Again.

I have asked you this before, and you have invariably ducked the question.

Whenever the opportunity arises for you to comment upon Islam, you explain to us all how Muslims are driven by bloody surah bloody nine, to wreak unending havoc upon the world.

So please tell me now, in words of one syllable if possible, that you do not ascribe these verses, and their intent, to Muslims as a whole, but only to those few terrorists who choose to act out their violent religious fantasies on others.

Until and unless you do, I shall continue to believe that i) you believe that bloody surah bloody nine is the guiding force of all Muslims and ii) therefore every one of them is a threat to civilization.

Fair?

If you can do this, then I will immediately cease to infer from your clumsy interpretations of a foreign religion that you believe that all Muslims pose a threat, and only bring to your attention those occasions when you repudiate your position.

And I should point out that it is not admissible for you to suggest that anyone who doesn't follow bloody surah bloody nine cannot call themselves Muslim.

That would be a cop-out, wouldn't it?

Polycarp wrote:

Dear David..if 'scientific' enquiry begins with a presupposition that snakes can't talk :) even when you meet one you won't believe it.
Same goes for burning bushes which are not consumed.. or dare I say.. men blind from birth who only know one thing "I was blind....but (after Jesus healed him) now...I can see"

Dear Polycarp,

All scientific knowledge is provisional. Unlike religious verities it can be challenged by the receipt of new evidence. The fact that individuals believe the Bible stories of talking snakes, burning bushes and sight restored is no evidence that these phenomena exist. Aboriginal people have legends of a Rainbow serpent. I have no reason to belive that is other than legend.

I have actually seen a burning bush. Walking in the desert I saw what looked like flames coming out of a bush. Coming closer I saw that it was a whirlwind which carried sand in the air in what certainly looked like burning bush. There is absolutely no reason to believe something is true because it is written in the Bible unless there is evidence to corroborate it. It is superstitious belief.

Polycarp also wrote:

"It is most unscientific to define it in materialistic terms only. Specially if there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
I include as 'evidence' the personal testimony of real people..including myself."

Science deals with the behaviour of matter. One can only define science in materialistic terms. Scientific evidence is not based on testimony. If every person in the world testified that the world was flat it would not make the world flat. Personal testimony can start a scientific inquiry, but if the testimony cannot be verified by actually physical evidence it does not establish fact.

Strong belief is not scientific evidence. Personal testimony is not scientific evidence. I really don't think you know what science is.

Pericles,
I agree with most of your assessments.
My major concern now is that Humanism is seen by many as a formal (dogmatic) one all encompassing definition fits all, rigid template.
To assert that it limits the concept to that equalling a religion and therefore has no place in formal 'religion free' education.

Religion (a belief in a supernatural/absolutist explanation) is in the realms of the rights of the individual and as I said to AFA has no place in public policy.
On the basis that it will be taught by non professional teachers with no set curriculum and may include proselytising/indoctrination both of which are by definition divisive (both are based on concept of separatism and superiority which is clearly counter to critical thinking…they assume an indivisible/indisputable conclusion, a factual nonsense) I too have serious concerns.

Meredith,
I have some difficulty with your ‘public’ right to be intolerant.
Here again I make a clear distinction between “private rights” and “public policy”.
Both by definition have different objectives. This subtle but definite and defining distinction is the sticking point in many debates on OLO and elsewhere.

By denying this we tend to get opinions based on nothing more than personal logically unsupportable prejudices i.e. take the topic ‘Knee-jerk insanity’(pleeese) all of the pro arguments are unsupportable in fact on many levels. Yet a poor generally directed comment inspired two respondents to take a ‘public policy’ debate personal and what followed was a series of immature pointless ad hominem insults.

I put it to you and more specifically others of the fixed opinion set that the above distinction defines the appropriateness of the acceptability of intolerance i.e. if the subject is “public policy” with its specific objectives (best for all people) then “personal” intolerances and seeking personal advantage over the greater good is indefensible and should be avoided. Reasoned debate by definition must be consistent with the objectives of the topic and all contribution that addresses the above criteria are valid. Conversely arguments that inhibit that primary objective are therefore invalid and inappropriate. Comments?

Polycarp

"Any belief system, wether mystical or not.. must exclude at least some other contrary belief systems."

Sounds like a castrated ram argument to me.

I assume you're categorizing humanism as a 'belief system'. Irrespective of whether or not such a categorization is correct or not, it is quite wrong to suggest, as you have, that humanism excludes 'other contrary belief systems'.

As stated in the principles linked to by david f, secular humanism rests on a "A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith."

Humanism, unlike your brand of Christianity, does not demand the exclusion of other belief systems. It sees a place in society for a diversity of cultural and spiritual belief. It allows for individuals to choose whichever personal belief system satisfies them, provided it is practised at an individual level and not rammed down others' throats.

What secular humanism does exclude, and quite rightly, is the attempted indoctrination of faith-based dogma by any one particular group onto other members of the community.

david f

Thank you for the link to that website. I love those secular humanist principles. I've bookmarked them - they could well become my new 'bible'!

BRONWYN SAID:

<<Humanism, unlike your brand of Christianity,..... provided it is practised at an individual level and not rammed down others' throats.>>

Bron (and David f)... u mean.. like ur trying to do to me now ? :)

David.. there are 2 types of evidence:

1/ Scientific.
2/ Legal.

The 2nd involves personal testimony.
"Scientific" cannot be used on matters of history... (other than the obvious.. archeological and that kind of thing)

Bron..the only thing more curious than the emptiness and inconstency of Humanism is it's adherents belief that they are 'open minded'.

"My" brand of Christianity is the Biblical one. (now that should just about destroy 50 keyboards in one go:) In as much as:..... I present the words of the Lord, rightly interpreted in terms of accepted principles of documentary hermeneutic. This is something I can argue on a case by case basis for particular portions of scripture.... For example... when the Lord says "No one shall see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" there is not a lot of room for 'interpretation' other than.. the clear intent of his words.

We might argue a bit on what he means by 'see'....and that is fair enough. But the context makes it clear that Nicodemus 'got it' and was only wondering about what Jesus mean't by 'born again' not 'see'.

Your quote used the words 'provided'...... 'individual'..... sorry..but that is 'ramming down the throat'.... But your use of that terminology seems to suggest that you regard R.E. as ramming unwanted ideas into children?

How does that connect with 'non compulsory' ?

Dear Polycarp,

We weren't discussing legal evidence. We were discussing scientific evidence so personal testimony is not relevant.

My people wrote the Bible and incorporated our tribal legends such as stories about Eden, the flood and Babel.

The Rainbow Serpent is in the Aboriginal creation myth. Thinking Jews and Aborigines do not confuse tribal legends with the word of God even if they believe in God. Thinking Christians can accept the message of Jesus without believing in the miracles.

I think many thoughtful believers in God think that God has set up the world so well that miracles involving suspension of natural laws are unnecessary. A miracle means God didn't foresee what was going to happen.

FYI the following describes the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Polycarp
No one is trying to ram anything down your throat unless its an echidna on heat .:-)

In truth your argument as alway has two fatal flaws
- Religion isn't essential to a sense of morals
- That you and those who preach dogma fail to understand the issue that there is a fundamental difference between private rights and public policy .i.e. you have the right to believe what ever suits your needs however you don't have the right to enforce your views on public policy. They have two DIFFERENT, separate and conflicting OBJECTIVES.
N.B. there is difference between supporting a religious ideology that imposes both on public policy and private rights (your stance). (Judgemental)
Supporting none (in public policy) accepting individuals rights in private (my stance). (non judgemental)
Enforcing anti god (AFA Inc stance) on the individual. (Judgemental)
Note I told Pericles that although I class myself as a secular humanist I:
- objected to the secular mantra (there is no supernatural god) being forced on any public policy. Rather paraphrase the biblical quote ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to the individual (god) what is the individual’s (god’s).’
- am concerned that dogmatised humanism is being taught by untrained unprofessional teachers without an agreed curriculum.

Dear David...nothing quite warms my heart than when you make stuch beautiful statements as :

"My people wrote the Bible"

Indeed they did. But when you say they incorporated 'tribal legends'...well we diverge there. I tried to raise a thread on "The Covenant" but it was rejected. I'll have a little dabble here on what I was saying because it relates to your statement above:

DEUTERONOMY 1:1-

<<1 These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. 2 (It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.)>>

Clearly the insertion of an editor (probably one of the Cohens :)

<<3 In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the LORD had commanded him concerning them. 4 This was after he had defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, and at Edrei had defeated Og king of Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth.
5 East of the Jordan in the territory of Moab, Moses began to expound this law, saying: >>

Then it shifts to Moses himself speaking. Most probably this refers to a record they had in the community.

MOSES: 6 "The LORD our God said to us at Horeb", .... and so it goes on.

NOTICE PLEASE the connection to:

-Real events/battles/named kings-people groups.
-Places.
-Journey times.
-Times/months etc.

ABsolutely fascinating!

EXAMY...I've never said "Religion is needed for a sense of morals"
What I DO say is: "Without Religion, the morality can be as varied as there are people" kind of thing. *slap* :)

Boaz J *hugs*! I’m good yes. I saw R0bert still comments too. Hoping you & he are well and defending your home-stones… Looks like you are. Now please excuse me as I toss yours back into the ring for anther kick around in the name of what ever it is this time. Lol.

Examinator, Ok, yes, I read the thread… I read you basically mean keep it civil and that my condoning of DavidFs right to express his disgust is encouraging his personal issues with Christianity into a public stand on it? A bit like how getting overly emotional over something can dull ones stand and/or take the vigour from debate in general? Is that correct? If so I agree.

If it is any more complex it’s to much for me to bother to take in, or adjust too.. same with TRTL‘s preferences for a certain style of communication… I’m just here to talk, swap ideas. I loath jargon and modes. I like laymen terms as much as possible. It’s like the painters painting, only other painters get it. It’s abstraction and subtlety while maybe glorious is lost on everyone else… In a sense it’s elitist or so remote that it is intellectual masturbation and always meaningless to the majority.

However I do agree with keeping it civil and I didn’t mean to seem to support DavidF’s right to be *abusive* to Christians. I don’t support abuse. I’m more against suppression.

I believe for DavidF to have to suppress such obvious disgust is a violation of free speech. I actually believe we all need the right we have to stand up and say “I think this or that is utterly vile” protected.

I get to see what is under the façade of the ideal the person is offering, be it humanist Christian, which ever. Ex: If I had to choose out of everyone here to baby-sit my kid or run my lobby group… I want to know what in the person inspires their stand on life and less censorship lets me see this information.

Polycarp wrote:

Dear David...nothing quite warms my heart than when you make stuch beautiful statements as :

"My people wrote the Bible"

Indeed they did. But when you say they incorporated 'tribal legends'...well we diverge there.

Dear Polycarp,

Maybe you're right. We got Saul Bellow, Franz Kafka, Isaac Azimov and a lot of other imaginative writers. Maybe the stories in the Bible aren't tribal legends. Maybe those Jews way back then could write science fiction and fantasy as skillfully as they can today.

Meredith,
I find your comments intelligent and have something of value to say. Like you I like to read and swap ideas, I tend to favour conversations that have a basis in fact/logic and some direction (real meat.)
You are right in your interpretation of my post.
I was indeed saying play nice but also to say that if the topic is on public policy then personal biases have no place in the debate for all the reasons you listed.
I was giving my basis for that position. Some times the conclusion is meaningless without the reasoning that formed it.
Other wise it is a bit like I say my piece you say yours and neither of us have advanced understanding or had worthwhile dialogue.
I am not intending to be in it for intellectual gymnastics but for genuine understanding. I am like ‘Johnny 5’ in short circuit …input more input.
I am a predigious and eclectic reader for that purpose.

Dear Examinator,

Thanks very much. I really appreciate that… You kinda *kept calm* I noticed in a recent firey thread we both were in and I liked that about you.

What I find interesting (in genuine people) is that such opposite POV’s, opposite results etc, often have sprung from the same decent intention…

I'm still thinking Poly Carp hit it on head for this string when he asked *which set of biases do we give our kids minds too

"OLY....I'm aware of your view of history :) we disagree but that's ok. Rock sharpens Rock right?" - Polycarp

Dear Poly,

Yes, I believe the exchange of ideas and interpretations is valuable.

Herein, I have read the Bible. Just the same, the Dead Sea Scrolls, writers in the early centuries, later general historians (Gibbon), Toynbee, Wells & Quigley) and more specialists writers, such as Theiring, Mack and Armstong, present intersting plausible alternatives, surely. I don't think I am misinterpreting these historians visa~a~vis the theologian's posit. What do you see as flawed in history's history?

What concerns me is that Chistrian theists often appear at to focus on the Bible at the excusion of many seemingly valid sources. Yet, is there common ground for instance that Heli (Jacob in the Bible) is the grandfather of Jesus and that Jesus was trying extend OT teachings to the Gentiles, without the Gentiles having to adopt Jewish rites?

Would you consider as an alternaive Bible, the just the Septugint and the Gospels of Mark & Thomas only? This case would reflect the mission on selected OT teaching to the (lower ranked) Gentiles, and reflect the earliest gospels, albeit Thomas is not a true narrative. Catch is for theiests, inclusion of Thomas, would have the reader question the divinity of Jesus. Relatedly, Christ, means appointed to a royal house.

Hope else can I say it? Let try this approach: Remember, Water (Hydrogen & Oxygen) and electrolysis? I am trying to suggest Christian theists need to separate the first century CE and the events leading to the fourth century CE. Its all been heaped together.

Cheers,

Ol

Poly,

-Above-

1. Annointed, of course, not appointed :). But guest one can follow the other.

2. In recent weeks, I heard Cardinal Pell speak. What he had to say was interesting and highly relevant and excellent advice on how to live a good life. However, the humanism/morality of the Cardinal's message, I thought, stood alone, without the need of a God.

Oly.

Hi Oly..... thanx for your interaction.

Regarding:

<What concerns me is that Chistrian theists often appear at to focus on the Bible at the excusion of many seemingly valid sources.>

Aahh.. key word in that sentence of yours is "seemingly" :)
They might "seem" valid to the non Christian...or the secularist, but I don't find them attractive. Obviously I have a faith bias on this.

But more than that. I've read some of these exotic theories and I find they all fall down on one or more crucial issues. Thering for example just seems in a twilight zone of scholarly self indulgence.

Can I draw your attention to the beginning of Deuteronomy... have a close look at it (chapter 1) and as I posted above.. does it not seem to have the ring of truth about it?

cheers

Exammy.. keep away from Meredith.. SHE'S MINE hahaha :) just kidding.

Polycarp wrote:

"Can I draw your attention to the beginning of Deuteronomy... have a close look at it (chapter 1) and as I posted above.. does it not seem to have the ring of truth about it?"

Dear Polycarp,

I don't think anybody seriously contends that none of the Bible is valid. So you have set up what is called a straw man. Sure, some of the Bible is valid. That does not mean that it is entirely valid.

You mentioned legal standards of evidence. We cannot make conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt in legal proceedings. Therefore we make findings as to validity beyond a reasonable doubt. Which account seems more plausible is generally the standard by which we reach conclusions.

Is it more plausible that there actually was a talking snake or that one of the people who wrote the Bible made up or repeated a story with one of the characters in the person of a talking snake?

The latter is far more plausible.

Poly,

1. I will check-out Deuteronomy.

2. Just to show I can see both sides of an argument:

" A Little girl was talking to her teacher about whales.
The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a
human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small.

The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
Irritated, the teacher iterated that a whale could not swallow a
human; it was physically impossible.

The little girl said, 'When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah'.
The teacher asked, 'What if Jonah went to hell?'
The little girl replied, 'Then you ask him'!"

3. Are you saying that documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls are fake? That the Jews were not exciled to Pella and Chtistianity didn't start as a Jewish sect breaking from the mother religion under Hadrian? That the Annas didn't replace the Herods under Augustus? That Jesus wasn't born of a Nun (Virgin)? That Jesus could carry a 150 Kg cross?

4. When I say "seemingly" and the like, I am trying to avoid sounding too categorical. Herein,I would also say that the Christian Gospels seem to have been selected and substantially finialised by the fourth century CE.

5. Last night on the History Channel, it was demonstrated that some medicants in antiquity would induce an ailment via food/dring and then provide the cure, to the astonshment of the onlookers. Also, Greek theists (Zeus worships) were tricked by temples having opening doors (as if by magic) feigned by priests using water-suction systems. Theism was about, power, wealth and/or influence, then, as it too often can be, today.

'Is it more plausible that there actually was a talking snake or that one of the people who wrote the Bible made up or repeated a story with one of the characters in the person of a talking snake?'

Or even that hallucinogenic drugs were being used?

Poly,

Deuteronomy 1:

Reads well, as a land grab. Even if the land was their's by divine order, why exterminate the Amorites, who are humans made in the image of God? Also, notice the reference to Joshua being born of a Nun.

Dear Houellebecq,

Talking snakes? I don't think Poly is that fundamentalist. Albeit, some Christians believe in vegetarian lions on Noah's ark and dinosaurs co-existing with humans. It was only 1992, when Vatican recognized the Sun was indeed at the centre of the Solar System. Something that not only Galilleo, but also the Chinese astronomers of centuries past, tried to unsuccessfully to explain to Christians (to the Jesuits).

O.

p.s. Do you recall the snake in the Seven Faces of Dr Lao? Great Speech!

Oly....

"The teacher asked, 'What if Jonah went to hell?'
The little girl replied, 'Then you ask him'!"

I luv that :)

David F..

The issue of 'talking snakes' is one of 'plausability structure'... from ours..it seems ludicrous, granted.
Perhaps it was in a dream ? :)
But the idea that 'snakes can't talk' is a true to me as "broken bones cannot be healed in seconds" :) which as you know was my own experience. In short.. if the Almighty can create the universe and world and mankind.. it would be but a small thing for a snake to verbalize something if God so enabled it.

I honestly don't know the degree of 'anthropomorphism' in some of the early Genesis stories.... I do however accept them as truth.
But "scientific truth" in a stiched up, stacked away, tidy, no-hypothesy-related-loose-ends? of course it is not that kind of document.
Perhaps part of modern scientific mans problem with understanding the Bible is his desire to impose such a view on it?

Back to Oly

Dead Sea Scrolls Fake? No of course not..why would I? They are crucial in understanding many Old Testament documents. In particular the Isaiah Scroll.
I just don't inject into them the kind of Christology preferred by pagan scholars :) (Such as Thering?)

Hi Poly,

I have read translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What is interesting those documents provide insights into the religiosity of the period and the behaviour of religious groups, especially the Essenes. For example, the Sabbath would seem to have been Saturday with a slowing down on Friday pm.

I have read some Theiring, mainly on calendars and the Apocalypse. I have not read her extensively. Some things she does say overlap with other scholars, say regading the general transition from Christian Judaism to Christianity. Some matters, built on Pesher interpretation would to be less mainstream, say, Jesus II and Jesus III, as (two) generational offspring of Jesus I. On the Otyher hand,I think secular scholars would "generally" hold that the Apocalyse referred to the circa the fist century, that for a period Christianity was a banch of Judaism and that the case of the history and selection of the gospels is not as clear cut (Nicaea), as the theistic scholars posit.

In the time of Constantine that era was farther away from Jesus that we are from Captain Cook when a new religion from as it was would have helped consolidate failing Roman Empire after several nut-case emperors. What is curious, though, is today, we would understand the languages and have docucments hided from the Romans. Herein, the academic scholar often has a strong posit.

Polycarp wrote:

"But the idea that 'snakes can't talk' is a true to me as "broken bones cannot be healed in seconds" :) which as you know was my own experience.

Dear Polycarp,

I also think that "broken bones cannot be healed in seconds"

You believe you had such an experience. Do you have any clinical evidence such as x-rays of a healed fracture to support your belief? You probably are certain that it happened, but I don't think it did. I am willing to examine evidence that would support your belief.

The ability to speak requires not only vocal cords and associatedphysical equipment but also a cerebral capacity which a snake does not have.

I think you are unwilling to recognise a tribal legend or fiction when you see it.

William of Ockham (c. 1300-1349), a medieval philosopher, had a profound influence on later philosophers and scientific thought. Scientifically, his claim to fame rests on his enunciation of 'Ockham's razor', according to which entities ought not to be multiplied except of necessity. Translated into modern terminology this dictum asserts that when a phenomenon can be interpreted in several ways the preferred explanation is that involving the fewest assumptions.

To assume the infallibility of any book is an unnecessary assumption. We can look at the Bible and see that it is a patchwork of stories, eg. the two accounts of the creation of man and woman in Genesis.

The first account has God creating man and woman together.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Later woman is a separate creation.

2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The simplest explanation for two separate stories is that two separate stories were put together. Contradictory tribal legends were merged.

Dear david f,

There are philosphical objections to humans being made in the image of Man or gods becoming human. God has to be God in all ways/manners of self and effect, and, humanity is imperfect. A God can even approximate the imperfect.

Hi Poly,

If there is only "One" God, does that mean that at God is governed by the Law of the Integer? Can God not be One God, if said God chooses? If, yes, does God now have the "potential" to be gods, should It choose? Thus, polythesistic divine entities subsist, within your existant monotheist divine entity?

david f

Oops.

A God canNOT even approximate the imperfect. That is, cannot be human and God.

Oly.

Dear Oliver,

Since God is a human invention the only limits on what God can do are the limits of the human imagination.

Polycarp wrote: “...if the Almighty can create the universe and world and mankind.. it would be but a small thing for a snake to verbalize something if God so enabled it.”

Why would god endow a snake with speech in order to trick his beloved creations into doing something wrong that he already knew they were going to do? In fact, why would a god be doing any of this if he already knew the outcome?

Polycarp wrote: “...the idea that 'snakes can't talk' is a true to me as "broken bones cannot be healed in seconds" :) which as you know was my own experience.”

Had Polycarp’s arm been severed, would god still heal the wound and make his arm grow back?

Think about it...

David f wrote: “Since God is a human invention the only limits on what God can do are the limits of the human imagination.”

Quite so. But not even humans can come to a consensus as to what those limits are. Many Christians claim that god cannot do the impossible, and give an example by stating that god cannot make a square triangle. But that would mean that god's power is not unlimited, and thus he is not a god.

Such a paradox.

God cannot make a square triangle as it is impossible for a square to be a triangle.
But god’s power is unlimited; therefore, god can make a square triangle.
But a square triangle is a physical impossibility; therefore, god cannot make a square triangle.
But god’s power is unlimited; therefore, god can make a square triangle.
But a square triangle is a physical impossibility; therefore, god cannot make a square triangle.
But god’s power is unlimited; therefore, god can make a square triangle.

...Ad infinitum.

This never-ending loop, as well as the severed-limb-scenario, can only be broken by either stating that god works in mysterious ways, or conceding that he actually may not exist.

It’s unfortunate that the majority of the religious find it impossible to accept the logical latter, and go for the uncritical former.

Religious thought certainly is messy.

Hi there Adam D...welcome to the discussion.

You said:

"Why would god endow a snake with speech in order to trick his beloved creations into doing something wrong that he already knew they were going to do? In fact, why would a god be doing any of this if he already knew the outcome?"

Aahh...the old 'unfathomable question trick' :) There is an answer.. but it is one you may not like.

Human arrogance is one of those qualities we don't like the Almighty to mess with.. It's precious to us..right?

The answer is found in the Bible... and it is complete (the answer)

Romans chapter 9

That's it. Have a read and see if you can tweak to what I mean here.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31

Verse 19 might help.

It does not matter which religion one looks at..they all face the same question. "If God knew the end from the beginning....." and so it goes.

I urge you to consider one thing though. Paul, the author of Romans, (probably the most profound book ever written in all history).. spoke from a very special perspective.. that of an encounter with the risen Christ.

blessings.

Polycarp wrote:

Paul, the author of Romans, (probably the most profound book ever written in all history).. spoke from a very special perspective.. that of an encounter with the risen Christ.

Dear Polycarp,

On what basis do you make the statement that Romans is ‘probably the most profound book ever written in all history.’? I think that is merely another statement of belief. I doubt that you have knowledge of the many books that have been written in all history.

As far as the risen Christ I think Swinburne said it well:

That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

The risen Christ is another fairy tale.

A long time ago, in the town where Peter Beattie grew up, history was accurately taught from Primary School through to Scholarship. It was a Labor Government then in Queensland. In 1957, a split between the Anglican Laborites, and the Roman Catholic Laborites, allowed a sectarian government to creep into power. The Labor Party did not get back into power for forty two years.

The history taught was that the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights, were achieved by the English, and that no Policeman, or other Public Servant could molest or shoot you, without having to answer to a jury. What was left out was the fact that these Statutes are sourced in Christianity, and it was the independent minded English, who rejected the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and required universal allegiance to the King, as God’s representative. The State and Church were merged, and have remained merged ever since. In Victoria, these principles are still in force, but a New Sectarian Government, driven by half educated lawyers and barristers, treats these principles as non core law.

Just teaching the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic) as history, would change the whole way Victoria is governed. S 8 of the Act may be found here.
http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=189

When Sectarianism became the State Religion, it had to have Priests and these priests are lawyers, solicitors and barristers, and they have taken over the State Church of Victoria, and made Victoria their own private resource, where they can steal just like Robert Mugabe, and Stalin did. They had to have Gods, and these Gods are Judges and Magistrates. History shows that this way of being governed never worked, and never will. The Great God Brumby, does not like competition.

It is time the people of Australia woke up to the fact that religion is central to government. You either have the Christian principles applied and all other Law is void, as is provided by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic) or you have a dogs dinner of conflicting laws, making lawyers rich. History, just history, is enough

Hello Peter,

The Vatican quashed the Magna Carta. Please check your history book.

O.

Poly,

If God gave the power of speech to a snake to bring down Humanity, it follows, that God would have aided your Devil by providing said Devil the necessary conduit of communication.

All,

Bst wishes for the festive season. Off-line for a week.

O.

Dear Oly.... 'quite right' :) Romans 9:14

I trust and hope that you, yours, and everyone's enjoy a time of refreshment.. physically, emotionally..and of course spiritually.

Perhaps this time of historic remembrance will in time bring a greater closeness to Him who came

"and the Word became flesh..and dwelt among us...We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14

Felicitations Earthlings

This interstellar wish is to hope that you care for your small world as it is the only one you have.

The rest belong to others.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/147004main_image_feature_550_ys_4.jpg

In reply to; Gibo, Sunday, 14 December 2008 8:27:22 PM

The Nazi era was not a pick against the Jews. Stop watching all the Jewish run movies and their books and you might learn that not only Jews were picked on. Other groups include; homosexuals, Masons, Jehova Witnesses, Lutherans, Gypsies, etc. Or, are Jews the only people who matter?

Spider -

Yeah - I just saw on the Teev yesterday that, finally in Germany, a monument is being erected to commemorate the Gypsies who were almost exclusively wiped from the face of Europe in WWII.

It has therefore taken about 60 years for my relatives to get a mention - how long, one wonders, before the homosexuals, mixed race, handicapped etc. get a look in. The Holocaust was mind-blowingly terrible, but it seems a some people are unaware or forget that the Final Solution was not exclusively aimed at Jewish people, doesn't it?

Peter -

Your view of history doesn't seem to take into account poor old Charles I losing his head or the Glorious Revolution, either?

Dear Polycarp,

I don’t believe it is arrogant to ask valid questions of a god who would so easily condemn us to an eternity of torture for not believing. Particularly when that god hides his/her/its existence so well. If the penalty for unbelief is so horrendous, then that god has a moral obligation to unquestionably prove their existence.

What I do think is arrogant though, is when religious people believe that their god has performed a special miracle to heal them, when there are millions of starving children around the world - one would think they deserve at least a minute of this apparently loving god’s time.

Dear Adam....

I can identify with your point about my 'arrogance' comment, but I maintain that at the root of such questions to the Almighty "why this..why that" is the issue of "I think I know better than you" otherwise..why question?

The challenge for us is this: We have the powers of reason to ask many such questions...but most of us don't have the humility to accept that God does things which we will never understand because of our human limitations.

On the healing, yes.. that must stand out like a sore thumb to some folks. But again.. you are asking that question from some very definite assumptions about God.

At the root of that question is "God SHOULD do this and that.. and make every one well"

The problem with that is that even during Pauls time..and that of the early church.. God allowed in his own eternal purposes for James the brother of Jesus do be killed during persecution, while he miraculously freed Peter from jail.....

Paul who met the risen Lord, also had a 'thorn in the side'.. some phycial problem which bothered him... it wasn't healed...but Paul was used to heal others....

I offer you the same verse I offered to Oly "Romans 9:14-17"

Dear Polycarp,

I have read the bible several times before - many years ago - but have re-read the versus you suggested to see where exactly you are coming from here. For myself though, without the wearing the same “Biblical glasses” I used to wear, those versus don’t mean very much.

But it’s almost Christmas, so let’s just call it a day for now and perhaps we can discuss this further another time.

A merry Christmas to you.

Polycarp,

I'm signing off for Christmas a bit saddened by your comment to Adam: "... I maintain that at the root of such questions to the Almighty "why this..why that" is the issue of "I think I know better than you" otherwise..why question?"

This is a very limited and limiting view of the world and our place in it. If God is perfect and made man and women in his image, I can only assume he would want us to strive for perfection too. And it follows that he would expect us to ask questions in order to better understand his will and our place in the world and to make the world a better place.

Your view is essentially passive and submissive, leading people to be unwilling to ask the important questions about the meaning of life. How sad!

My only comfort from your authoritarian position is that it's never too late to come to a better appreciation that you care enough about human life to want to know more and to seek meaning in tough questions.

I wish you well.

Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 14 December 2008 8:34:04 PM

Morgan

One thing jumps out at me in this thread and thats your comment about your child sitting looking at the back wall instead of listening - I assume.
Care to explain why it would hurt anybody to learn about all types of others peoples faith.
How else does one judge. We must teach our kids tolerance if nothing else.

If I had a child facing the back wall ignoring my class i would ask that child to do some odd jobs or step outside.

Perhaps however I have misunderstood your meaning?

PALE&IF - you clearly have no knowledge or experience of "Religious Education" classes in Queensland State schools. Further, you've never displayed anything like tolerance for other people's faiths.

Exactly how many children have you had and raised?

I suggest you stick to topics that you know something about.