introducing faith/religion to kids

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.

Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person? It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article , toto says...

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.

Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person? It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.



:::clapping and cheering::

And nobody's talking about "crying foul". It's only about how to teach little
kids to be civil about religion.

Banty

toto wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.

Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person?

Didn't say there was.

It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.

There's either proof or there isn't. If you haven't
got proof for your position, you should adopt a little humility
about it. If you haven't got proof against the other guy's
position, you should perhaps adopt a little humility there too.
As far as I'm concerned, that holds regardless of whether the
ideas are religious or secular.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

toto wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.

Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person?

Didn't say there was.

It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.

There's either proof or there isn't. If you haven't
got proof for your position, you should adopt a little humility
about it. If you haven't got proof against the other guy's
position, you should perhaps adopt a little humility there too.
As far as I'm concerned, that holds regardless of whether the
ideas are religious or secular.

This is where Bertrand Russell proposed his teapot.

It's the religious ideas that postulate things beyond proof. The burden isn't
on others to be humble about that.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
toto wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.
Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person?
Didn't say there was.

It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.
There's either proof or there isn't. If you haven't
got proof for your position, you should adopt a little humility
about it. If you haven't got proof against the other guy's
position, you should perhaps adopt a little humility there too.
As far as I'm concerned, that holds regardless of whether the
ideas are religious or secular.

This is where Bertrand Russell proposed his teapot.

It's the religious ideas that postulate things beyond proof. The burden isn't
on others to be humble about that.

I think there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which are (for all practical
intents and purposes) beyond proof. I think that's a part
of everyday life. How often do people make assumptions about
other people's intentions?

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
toto wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.
Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person?
Didn't say there was.

It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.
There's either proof or there isn't. If you haven't
got proof for your position, you should adopt a little humility
about it. If you haven't got proof against the other guy's
position, you should perhaps adopt a little humility there too.
As far as I'm concerned, that holds regardless of whether the
ideas are religious or secular.

This is where Bertrand Russell proposed his teapot.

It's the religious ideas that postulate things beyond proof. The burden isn't
on others to be humble about that.

I think there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which are (for all practical
intents and purposes) beyond proof. I think that's a part
of everyday life. How often do people make assumptions about
other people's intentions?

In that case, what's postulated is at least reasonable, and accords with
experience, although in any particular instance it can be worng. Then I can
describe that doubt. There are many times an intention was later verified by
statements and/or actions, and many times an intention was disproven by
statements and/or actions. And of course many many that either never come to
verification one way or the other or that result is ambiguous.

That's quite different from the problem of dealing with postulates like Russels
teapot.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
toto wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.
Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person?
Didn't say there was.

It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.
There's either proof or there isn't. If you haven't
got proof for your position, you should adopt a little humility
about it. If you haven't got proof against the other guy's
position, you should perhaps adopt a little humility there too.
As far as I'm concerned, that holds regardless of whether the
ideas are religious or secular.
This is where Bertrand Russell proposed his teapot.

It's the religious ideas that postulate things beyond proof. The burden isn't
on others to be humble about that.
I think there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which are (for all practical
intents and purposes) beyond proof. I think that's a part
of everyday life. How often do people make assumptions about
other people's intentions?

In that case, what's postulated is at least reasonable, and accords with
experience, although in any particular instance it can be worng.

The things that seem reasonable but are false are some
of the most insidious.

Then I can describe that doubt.

And yet many people don't...partly, I would suggest, because
they are not in the habit of leaving any room for self-doubt.

There are many times an intention was later verified by
statements and/or actions, and many times an intention was disproven by
statements and/or actions. And of course many many that either never come to
verification one way or the other or that result is ambiguous.

That's quite different from the problem of dealing with postulates like Russels
teapot.

You were the one who brought up Russel's teapot ;-)
It's quite in line with the sorts of issues I have been
concerned with in this thread.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
toto wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:55:21 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

But I think the relevant point in terms of co-existing
in a world in which people have many different beliefs is that
humility and tolerance are essential. Toward that end, before
one goes and cries foul at someone else's religious beliefs,
there's a pretty high burden of proof required. If you can't
meet that burden of proof, then a wee bit of humility seems
a beneficial way to get along in the world.
Why is there any higher burden of proof for the non-religious person,
than for the religious person?
Didn't say there was.

It seems to me that the religious
person would bear a higher burden of proof, since s/he clearly has
faith in something for which there is no evidence other than circular
reasoning from holy books.
There's either proof or there isn't. If you haven't
got proof for your position, you should adopt a little humility
about it. If you haven't got proof against the other guy's
position, you should perhaps adopt a little humility there too.
As far as I'm concerned, that holds regardless of whether the
ideas are religious or secular.
This is where Bertrand Russell proposed his teapot.

It's the religious ideas that postulate things beyond proof. The burden isn't
on others to be humble about that.
I think there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which are (for all practical
intents and purposes) beyond proof. I think that's a part
of everyday life. How often do people make assumptions about
other people's intentions?

In that case, what's postulated is at least reasonable, and accords with
experience, although in any particular instance it can be worng.

The things that seem reasonable but are false are some
of the most insidious.

Then I can describe that doubt.

And yet many people don't...partly, I would suggest, because
they are not in the habit of leaving any room for self-doubt.

There are many times an intention was later verified by
statements and/or actions, and many times an intention was disproven by
statements and/or actions. And of course many many that either never come to
verification one way or the other or that result is ambiguous.

That's quite different from the problem of dealing with postulates like Russels
teapot.

You were the one who brought up Russel's teapot ;-)
It's quite in line with the sorts of issues I have been
concerned with in this thread.

No, it's not. Or tell me how.

Banty

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:31:37 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

It's the religious ideas that postulate things beyond proof. The burden isn't
on others to be humble about that.

I think there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which are (for all practical
intents and purposes) beyond proof. I think that's a part
of everyday life. How often do people make assumptions about
other people's intentions?

Best wishes,
Ericka

Examples?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

The things that seem reasonable but are false are some
of the most insidious.

Then I can describe that doubt.
And yet many people don't...partly, I would suggest, because
they are not in the habit of leaving any room for self-doubt.

There are many times an intention was later verified by
statements and/or actions, and many times an intention was disproven by
statements and/or actions. And of course many many that either never come to
verification one way or the other or that result is ambiguous.

That's quite different from the problem of dealing with postulates like Russels
teapot.
You were the one who brought up Russel's teapot ;-)
It's quite in line with the sorts of issues I have been
concerned with in this thread.

No, it's not. Or tell me how.

I said that there are plenty of secular propositions
offered without proof, some of which we may not be able to
prove one way or another. This is not merely a feature of
religious propositions.
You then made excuses how these non-religious possibly
false statements are less problematic because they at least look
reasonable on the surface, unlike the religious possibly false
statements.
My assertion all along has not been to give religious
ideas special standing, except to the extent that manners says
we should stay out of picking religious fights in polite
company regardless of our beliefs in the hopes of getting along
better. My assertion has been that it is beneficial in general
to think critically (the key component of which is surfacing
one's own assumptions and questioning their validity).
Furthermore, those who think critically and continue their
search for knowledge typically find that the universe admits
more possibilities than they at first imagined. Does that
mean they must believe all things or give equal credence to
all things? --NO!-- (Just making sure you got that, as you
seem to have skipped past that bit several times.) What it
does mean, however, is that one should perhaps temper one's
arrogance in thinking one has all the correct answers with
a bit of humility...and that's whether one is considering
a purely secular issue, whether one is an atheist considering
a religious proposition, a religious person considering a
secular proposition, or a religious person considering a
proposition from another religion. One doesn't have to believe
the proposition on offer, and one shouldn't believe it if there's
good evidence against it, but human fallibility alone should
be enough to get one off one's absolutist high horse to the
extent that one doesn't feel entitled to go after another
person's beliefs unless one has the evidence to do so. And
the more hurtful the attack will be, the higher the burden
of proof one ought to have before setting out on that course
under normal circumstances. If you're in the debate room,
sure, pull out the big guns for effect, but if you're talking
social situations, people's feelings are more important than
scoring debate points.

Best wishes,
Ericka