Tuesday 19 July 2011

Having at Efrique (2)

So here is the second part of Efrique's questions:
If you have some evidence, I'd like to know about it.
I think there is plenty of evidence if you are prepared to look. I've already mentioned some of the areas that I think theism makes more sense than atheism. I wouldn't claim any sort of proof, but I certainly think it is more reasonable to believe God exists than that he doesn't.
Do you have a stronger basis for it than liking to think so?
I don't think that wanting or liking was ever really a factor - more the difficulties that I had holding disbelief together. I constantly felt like the assumption of atheism painted me into a corner which would be more reasonably solved if I allowed for God - and that happening in a whole series of different areas. It was only later that I realized that it had any relevance to me personally.
I use those figures in the plot specifically because more countries are present in the Gallup data than for any other I have found.
Gallup is certainly a better source than Zuckermann (who seems distinctly dodgy to me - for example look at his Chinese numbers)...
I am guessing your parents aren't 60%-70% unbelievers.
No. My dad is an atheist, and my mother is Christian. 
I will note that we still have weekly religious classes in government primary school and the early years of secondary school.
I didn't have religious classes in primary school, and the early years of my high school were spent in an International School. I am actually disappointed that I didn't have these classes. I would have understood the literally thousands of references in our society a lot better.

 We now have chaplains in primary schools paid for by our taxes (yes, my taxes pay for a chaplain to proselytize to my children, any time they're vulnerable enough to need help. How this fits with sec. 116 of the Constitution is beyond my understanding). 
Chaplains are explicitly not allowed to proselytlize (point 9 of the code of conduct) and have to respect your wishes as a parent (point 2). I humbly suggest that attempting to isolate your children from people with beliefs different from your own is unrealistic. Most likely they will come into contact with lots of different beliefs, whether you like it or not.

I was a theist for quite a few years before I was an atheist, so quite possibly the same would have happened.
Tell me more. Any particular religion or denomination? Why did you stop?

I know numerous atheists of Indian origin, some I have met in person, a few via the Internet, so it seems like it's probably no harder, ceteris paribus to become skeptical of Hinduism than of Christianity, even if one is a believer in it originally.
Right. Christianity is growing in both Nepal and India too. And of course, if we want to compare with an atheist country, in China Christianity is exploding (to the point where there is a shortage of Bibles). So I'd say the attraction of Christianity is widespread as well.
Presumably you invited conversation because you have something further to say after the point at which conversation starts.
I've enjoyed it so far. I hope you have too!

1 comment:

  1. > I think there is plenty of evidence if you are prepared to look. I've already mentioned some of the areas that I think theism makes more sense than atheism. I wouldn't claim any sort of proof, but I certainly think it is more reasonable to believe God exists than that he doesn't.

    If 'I don't think this makes as much sense' constituted evidence against something, or 'I think this makes more sense' eveidence for something, Quantum Mechanics would be doomed.

    Yet it stays around because of evidence.

    It appears you have a standard of what constitutes evidence that I cannot agree with. Is that a standard for what constitutes evidence you apply outside of the arens of religious belief?

    > I constantly felt like the assumption of atheism

    are you casting all of atheism as strong atheism here? I don't see how 'I am not convinced by these claims' can even be remotely be cast as an assumption.

    > Chaplains are explicitly not allowed to proselytlize (point 9 of the code of conduct)

    I am aware of the words in the code of conduct. I am also aware that (i) Access Ministries - who were important in the campaign to bring this in and get its funding increased - has talked of using the program to 'make disciples' of students; and (ii) several of those school chaplains have clearly been proselytizing. Further, in the past I've seen documents on r/atheism (things sent home with students) that are impossible for me to interpret in any other way than proselytizing

    see also

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-13/chaplains-investigated-over-student-disciples/2710158

    http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/gengreens/schools-deserve-their-say-on-chaplains-20110516-1epju.html

    I've just downloaded a document from Access ministries website that calls on God to challenge them to become 'fishers of people'. They also provide 97% (!) of the religious instruction in schools in Victoria.

    If it honestly fitted under section 116, they wouldn't be specifically religious (i.e. 'chaplains' at all).

    Indeed, if they really don't bring their religion into it (and I don't see how most could honestly manage to do that), counselling would be better undertaken by trained psychological professionals. A program for such trained professionals already exists, but it's hugely underfunded and one psychologist will generally deal with many thousands of students across numerous schools. Why can't that money be put to a use that doesn't bring religion into it at all?

    At the same time, their close friends at the ACL has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the introduction of ethics classes as an alternative to religious instruction in NSW.

    Not only are these groups heavily proselytizing, they don't want any kind of alternative.

    ReplyDelete