Thank you very much for untangling the post. I see that I seem to have missed answering the lastpart of Fine Line's post, but think I'd better leave well alone! If FineLine would like me to respond, perhaps she will be kind enough to just post that part.
I think you just got your coding wrong, SusanDoris. Did you see that Curiosity killed reposted it correctly? (Thanks for that, CK.)
Anyway, thanks for your reply, SusanDoris. I had initially understood you to be talking about casual conversation with Christians, who were telling you they didn't need evidence as they had faith. But it seems, if I am understanding you correctly, you are talking about radio programmes.
I don't know about what radio prograames were around when you were a kid, as you are older than me, but I would agree in general that Christianity used to be seen more as a default than it is now. Though equally people were challenging Christianity before you were born, and there were Christians writing apologetics, as I've mentioned before.
Also, even today, there are plenty of radio programmes where Christians talk about religion/church related things without being requested to defend the existence of God. Such as the radio programme I linked to a while back looking at disability and accessibility in churches. The person interviewing Justin Welby and his daughters wasn't saying 'But what evidence do you have that God exists and isn't a figment of your imagination?' It was taken as given that they believed in God's existence and could talk about God as a real being in the context of disability issues. I am not sure if you'd see that as a 'free pass'.
I'm not sure what SD means by free pass, but it is often used to refer to clergymen being on radio and TV, as if they have a special insight into current affairs, morality, etc. They have no particular qualification, but I suppose they are still seen as representative of something, middle England, dunno.
I think you just got your coding wrong, SusanDoris. Did you see that Curiosity killed reposted it correctly? (Thanks for that, CK.)
Anyway, thanks for your reply, SusanDoris. I had initially understood you to be talking about casual conversation with Christians, who were telling you they didn't need evidence as they had faith. But it seems, if I am understanding you correctly, you are talking about radio programmes.
It's more a case of how broadcast media - they didn't call it social media then as they do now, did they?! - behaved very deferentially, and I think the assumption that religions, specifically the CofE, were right and automatically privileged could be called a free pass.
I don't know about what radio prograames were around when you were a kid, as you are older than me, but I would agree in general that Christianity used to be seen more as a default than it is now. Though equally people were challenging Christianity before you were born, and there were Christians writing apologetics, as I've mentioned before.
Yes, and I wish I had known of them, but I cannot think of a way I would have encountered them.
Also, even today, there are plenty of radio programmes where Christians talk about religion/church related things without being requested to defend the existence of God. Such as the radio programme I linked to a while back looking at disability and accessibility in churches. The person interviewing Justin Welby and his daughters wasn't saying 'But what evidence do you have that God exists and isn't a figment of your imagination?' It was taken as given that they believed in God's existence and could talk about God as a real being in the context of disability issues. I am not sure if you'd see that as a 'free pass'.
I did see part of the video but there were a few points there where I would have liked to have a chat with Justin Welby away from the daughters.
There are documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc. Do the faith believers come along and counter these with better objective evidence? No.
Speaking as a “faith believer” (though one who does not take Scripture literally, which perhaps has some bearing here), I am not at all sure what you think I or other “faith believers” need or ought to be countering. I don’t know why any of the examples you give would need countering from a faith perspective, much less why they would need to be countered with “better objective evidence.” Evidence of what exactly? Why would “faith believers” feel that new discoveries in medicine, for example, need to be countered from a faith perspective?
I’m afraid, SusanDoris, that your asking this question makes me think that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you really have not understood what many people in this thread have been trying to tell you about faith and objective evidence. It also makes me wonder if you are working from a limited or even caricatured framework concerning those whom you call “faith believers.”
There are documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc. Do the faith believers come along and counter these with better objective evidence? No.
Speaking as a “faith believer” (though one who does not take Scripture literally, which perhaps has some bearing here), I am not at all sure what you think I or other “faith believers” need or ought to be countering. I don’t know why any of the examples you give would need countering from a faith perspective, much less why they would need to be countered with “better objective evidence.” Evidence of what exactly? Why would “faith believers” feel that new discoveries in medicine, for example, need to be countered from a faith perspective?
I’m afraid, SusanDoris, that your asking this question makes me think that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you really have not understood what many people in this thread have been trying to tell you about faith and objective evidence. It also makes me wonder if you are working from a limited or even caricatured framework concerning those whom you call “faith believers.”
Well, apart from the fact that we're still in Hell, and I thought it would be obvious that I meant 'countering with better and objective evidence for god, please note that I am posting hardly anything in Purgatory at the moment! Can I not say mor or less what I like here in Hell?!
SusanDoris, it's not that you can't say what you like here. It's more that people are trying to communicate with you (here in Hell, even!), so if you say something that doesn't make sense or seems to misunderstand what people are saying, people will say so. Not to be mean (at least, in general, I don't think most people want to be mean to you) but in order to aid communication. Because the purpose of forums is to communicate, and that involves trying to understand each other. We're trying to understand where you're coming from and what assumptions (as we all have assumptions) you are bringing to the discussion.
First of all, it is NOT obvious that "countering" means "countering with better and objective evidence for God." I was wholly confused by your "countering" too. Why do new medical or archaeological discoveries need countering by anybody? What do they have to do with God? Unless, of course, you mean that we should be giving thanks to God for the wonderful cool things that are coming to light in our day. But that is not countering.
I don't see why you think that these good things are somehow injurious to Christianity. I think they rock. Why should they threaten anybody's faith?
documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc.
I rarely see something like that which requires countering or represents any significant challenge to faith. Occasionally with this kind of thing people say such-and-such disproves Christianity. Usually what is at issue is not the evidence, but how it is being interpreted and/or the assumptions being made about Christian faith. What is needed is not better evidence, but better analysis and interpretation.
Sometimes all the countering that is required is to ask why the person thinks that finding a cure for some disease says anything at all about faith. Then let them make idiots of themselves trying to connect two dots that aren't on the same paper.
Any archaeological site is interpreted - all we have are the archaeologists on site's best guesses as to what is happening there from the evidence they have found, which will be incomplete and without much corroborative evidence. So in those programmes you are talking about there has been a tendency to explain behaviours in terms of ritual, but that is an interpretation from what has been found. (I have visions of time travellers going back in time and asking those people what they were doing in whichever situation and getting a perfectly reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with ritual for some of these finds.)
I don't think many take a whole lot of notice [to "grave of Jesus" documentaries] - other than those trying to use it as ammunition against Christianity.
That gets so tedious. Don't these people have lives?
I was guessing that the Orkney programmes were being categorised as part of the "abundance of evidence for beliefs".
Well of course there is evidence for beliefs, in the sense of evidence that people believed thus-and-such. But that's not evidence that thus-and-such is true.
There are documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc. Do the faith believers come along and counter these with better objective evidence? No.
Speaking as a “faith believer” (though one who does not take Scripture literally, which perhaps has some bearing here), I am not at all sure what you think I or other “faith believers” need or ought to be countering. I don’t know why any of the examples you give would need countering from a faith perspective, much less why they would need to be countered with “better objective evidence.” Evidence of what exactly? Why would “faith believers” feel that new discoveries in medicine, for example, need to be countered from a faith perspective?
I’m afraid, SusanDoris, that your asking this question makes me think that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you really have not understood what many people in this thread have been trying to tell you about faith and objective evidence. It also makes me wonder if you are working from a limited or even caricatured framework concerning those whom you call “faith believers.”
Well, apart from the fact that we're still in Hell, and I thought it would be obvious that I meant 'countering with better and objective evidence for god.
Yes, that was obvious to me, at least. But I’d echo what others have said in response. Your question seems to include an implicit assumption. That implicit assumption is that these “documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc.,” somehow threaten or undermine the beliefs of believers. That’s a false assumption.
What people have been trying to tell you throughout this thread is that, in general, these things don’t challenge or threaten or undermine beliefs, at least the beliefs of most Christians. They don’t threaten or undermine those beliefs because they are in no way inconsistent with those beliefs. As @mousethief says, you seem to be surprised that people aren’t trying to connect dots that aren’t on the same paper to start with.
Again, the fact that you could make this statement on page 17 of this thread suggests to me that you really haven’t understood what many, many people have said on this thread. It also suggests to me that you really don’t understand what you’re talking about and are tilting at windmills, or at least at straw men.
Well yes, I think that was apparent well before page 17 ...
It was. But by page 17 she was saying she understood where others were coming from and what they were saying, and that her future posts would reflect that understanding. Would that had proven to be true.
Whatever the reason for it, there surely comes a point of realising this is how it is, and would probably be the same with 17 more pages. Don't we all have friends/colleagues/relatives who just don't grasp some things the way we want them to, and after attempts at explaining, there comes a point where we just say 'Oh, well' and move on? And they probably do the same with us too.
Indeed. SD doesn't irritate or annoy me, though. I've long since given up on her having anything interesting or original to say, but then, originality is often over-rated they say.
I daresay Shippies have come to similar conclusions about me.
What I notice about SD is that she posts about the CofE being a 'religion' as if it's a faith in its own right rather than a subset of one in rather the same way as my old Gran' used to - and she died a few years ago at the age of 96.
SD is doing well to communicate as well as she is doing here given all the technological constraints and her most recent thread in Purgatory makes more sense than this one does.
You know, if i were SD I'd be quite offended by having my posting behavior explained away by old age or disabilities. Allow her the dignity of being a responsible adult human being.
She mildly annoys me sometimes (as do some other shipmates, and I'm sure I annoy people myself) but nothing like to the extent some have expressed here. I can't really work out if people are laying it on thick because it's Hell and they can, and they maybe feel like expressing anger in general because of other things in their lives, or if people genuinely feel fury and intense irritation over a woman they've never met, who happens to repeat herself and who seems not to really grasp the nuances of forum interaction or the subtleties that religious beliefs can take.
You know, if i were SD I'd be quite offended by having my posting behavior explained away by old age or disabilities. Allow her the dignity of being a responsible adult human being.
I think I have allowed her that dignity. Time and again.
However, it does strike me that her views of what is likely to shake the faith of religious believers represents a throwback to an earlier era, if I can put it that way.
We are all products of our backgrounds and environment. You could probably 'date' me - in terms of slotting me into a particular chronological period - from reading my posts too.
I don't think it's necessarily about age. It could be, but we don't know. Everyone is different, with their own experiences and personalities and strengths and limitations. I do agree with LC here - I think I'd find it patronising if I were older and relying on assistive technology, and people were saying 'I think fineline is doing jolly well considering...'
I dunno. Plenty of other people get called idiots or synonyms of this - it seems to be the default way to express frustration with people here. I find it a bit of a meaningless insult myself - if you think someone genuinely has lower intelligence than you (generic you), then it seems to be a bit unfair to rub it in their face. Kind of like mocking someone for being less physically attractive than you, or financially poorer than you. But it is the most common kind of insult in general, and so you're not set aside as different if people call you an idiot.
I'm trying to think of an example. Let's see. Not sure if this works, but would you rather people say 'Gamma, you blithering idiot, you just don't get how liturgy works!' or 'Aw, I think Gamma's doing jolly well at trying to understand liturgy considering he's an ex-evangelical, and still sees things in an evangelical way at heart.'
Sure, but I think there's a generational thing going on. SD is remembering the 1940s.
There was logic and rationality before the 60s. I'm told that some of the ancient Greeks were logical and rational and one of them even gave names to many of the logical fallacies that are still being made today.
Being told you're an idiot at least admits the possibility of change; having your faults attributed to age or disability does not, and is therefore a way of lessening the person so treated.
Being told you're an idiot at least admits the possibility of change; having your faults attributed to age or disability does not, and is therefore a way of lessening the person so treated.
Amen.
The fact that I find SD infinitely repetitive, tedious, and condescending (not to mention thread-wrecking) has nothing to do with her age or disability. It has to do with her being infinitely repetitive, tedious, and condescending.
Being told you're an idiot at least admits the possibility of change; having your faults attributed to age or disability does not, and is therefore a way of lessening the person so treated.
No, I challenge this notion; I'm getting old myself; I also have a disability (lifelong hearing impairment; age-acquired circulation issues). I have slowed down some (OK, quite a lot). Does this mean I can't change? No; it does mean that it may take me longer to do so. (It also sometimes means, "Fuck it; I've got about all I can handle already; I'm not even gonna try this.") I often mishear things (or fail to hear them altogether) due to reduced hearing. Does this mean I'm doomed to constant miscommunication? No; it means I have to check my perceptions more often than most folks before proceeding on the assumption that I've heard right.
Having also spent some time working with people who used to get labeled "idiots," the same possibilities hold for them. Change is possible where there's willingness to change and where support and patience are available to facilitate the change. Neither age nor disability render change impossible; only death does.
I'm not sure what SD means by free pass, but it is often used to refer to clergymen being on radio and TV, as if they have a special insight into current affairs, morality, etc. They have no particular qualification, but I suppose they are still seen as representative of something, middle England, dunno.
I think it is, but nowadays becoming far less so, more of an assumed privileged position. Challenges, from the NSS for instance, are more strongly voiced, and rightly so, in my opinion.
All fair points, fineline, Rossweisse, Ohher and Mousethief.
FWIW I don't think SD is stupid nor am I saying, 'Aw, bless, she's an ickle old lady ... bless her heart.'
Trouble is, Hell polarises things. So we either end up being offensive to people and treating them with contempt if we disagree with them or we patronise them.
It's a fineline. Literally.
FWIW I tend to think that fineline strikes a good balance and tends not to be either offensive nor patronising.
There are documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc. Do the faith believers come along and counter these with better objective evidence? No.
Speaking as a “faith believer” (though one who does not take Scripture literally, which perhaps has some bearing here), I am not at all sure what you think I or other “faith believers” need or ought to be countering. I don’t know why any of the examples you give would need countering from a faith perspective, much less why they would need to be countered with “better objective evidence.” Evidence of what exactly? Why would “faith believers” feel that new discoveries in medicine, for example, need to be countered from a faith perspective?
It just goes to show how much more particular one must be on a message board to phrase things really clearly! When I used the word 'countering', I meant that the explanations given by the various experts, or presenters, or those examining a topic from a non-religious point of view and trying to present the best evidence available, do not conclude that any of it was done by or ordered by a god, whether they believe in one or not, but if religious faith leaders or 'experts' believe that God said this should be done , then that is where they need the 'better' and more objective evidence.
And that, of course, probably makes for more confusion and misunderstanding!! If I think of a better way of saying that, I will do so.
I’m afraid, SusanDoris, that your asking this question makes me think that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you really have not understood what many people in this thread have been trying to tell you about faith and objective evidence. It also makes me wonder if you are working from a limited or even caricatured framework concerning those whom you call “faith believers.”
No, you are not correct on either of those points.
First of all, it is NOT obvious that "countering" means "countering with better and objective evidence for God." I was wholly confused by your "countering" too. Why do new medical or archaeological discoveries need countering by anybody? What do they have to do with God? Unless, of course, you mean that we should be giving thanks to God for the wonderful cool things that are coming to light in our day. But that is not countering.
Yes, I have to agree! I will have a try at putting into clear wording what my intended meaning was, but it will need a bit of thinking!
I don't see why you think that these good things are somehow injurious to Christianity. I think they rock. Why should they threaten anybody's faith?
Not injurious, no, but perhaps pointing out more often that many things which were said to be 'done by' or 'the work of' God were not and objective evidence has taken their place.
documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc.
I rarely see something like that which requires countering or represents any significant challenge to faith. Occasionally with this kind of thing people say such-and-such disproves Christianity. Usually what is at issue is not the evidence, but how it is being interpreted and/or the assumptions being made about Christian faith. What is needed is not better evidence, but better analysis and interpretation.
Definitely agree there. Where do you think -such analysis and interpretation would lead - more towards *proof* of God, or the opposite?
I was thinking something like the recent histories of Orkney, looking at the earliest stone rings and discussions about the communities there.
They are so interesting, aren't they? I am so glad I was able to visit Orkney while I could get a much better impression than I would today. It was such a fascinating experience to stand looking down into one of those round houses, with the links to others.
Well yes, I think that was apparent well before page 17 ...
It was. But by page 17 she was saying she understood where others were coming from and what they were saying, and that her future posts would reflect that understanding. Would that had proven to be true.
Hang on a minute! Is Hell supposed to be the place for that?!
You know, if i were SD I'd be quite offended by having my posting behavior explained away by old age or disabilities. Allow her the dignity of being a responsible adult human being.
Thank you. However, I do not expend energy on feeling offended, but I have read all the posts in this thread with interest and, I hope, understanding!
Comments
I mean, don't think I haven't thought about it, but apparently adhering to Ship's Regs trumps my will to live.
Maybe it was something to do with the nested quotes, but I'd be interested to know.
Thank you very much for untangling the post. I see that I seem to have missed answering the lastpart of Fine Line's post, but think I'd better leave well alone! If FineLine would like me to respond, perhaps she will be kind enough to just post that part.
Anyway, thanks for your reply, SusanDoris. I had initially understood you to be talking about casual conversation with Christians, who were telling you they didn't need evidence as they had faith. But it seems, if I am understanding you correctly, you are talking about radio programmes.
I don't know about what radio prograames were around when you were a kid, as you are older than me, but I would agree in general that Christianity used to be seen more as a default than it is now. Though equally people were challenging Christianity before you were born, and there were Christians writing apologetics, as I've mentioned before.
Also, even today, there are plenty of radio programmes where Christians talk about religion/church related things without being requested to defend the existence of God. Such as the radio programme I linked to a while back looking at disability and accessibility in churches. The person interviewing Justin Welby and his daughters wasn't saying 'But what evidence do you have that God exists and isn't a figment of your imagination?' It was taken as given that they believed in God's existence and could talk about God as a real being in the context of disability issues. I am not sure if you'd see that as a 'free pass'.
Yes, I know....
IJ
I’m afraid, SusanDoris, that your asking this question makes me think that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you really have not understood what many people in this thread have been trying to tell you about faith and objective evidence. It also makes me wonder if you are working from a limited or even caricatured framework concerning those whom you call “faith believers.”
I don't see why you think that these good things are somehow injurious to Christianity. I think they rock. Why should they threaten anybody's faith?
Susan Doris, you said there are
I rarely see something like that which requires countering or represents any significant challenge to faith. Occasionally with this kind of thing people say such-and-such disproves Christianity. Usually what is at issue is not the evidence, but how it is being interpreted and/or the assumptions being made about Christian faith. What is needed is not better evidence, but better analysis and interpretation.
I don't think many take a whole lot of notice - other than those trying to use it as ammunition against Christianity.
What people have been trying to tell you throughout this thread is that, in general, these things don’t challenge or threaten or undermine beliefs, at least the beliefs of most Christians. They don’t threaten or undermine those beliefs because they are in no way inconsistent with those beliefs. As @mousethief says, you seem to be surprised that people aren’t trying to connect dots that aren’t on the same paper to start with.
Again, the fact that you could make this statement on page 17 of this thread suggests to me that you really haven’t understood what many, many people have said on this thread. It also suggests to me that you really don’t understand what you’re talking about and are tilting at windmills, or at least at straw men.
I daresay Shippies have come to similar conclusions about me.
What I notice about SD is that she posts about the CofE being a 'religion' as if it's a faith in its own right rather than a subset of one in rather the same way as my old Gran' used to - and she died a few years ago at the age of 96.
SD is doing well to communicate as well as she is doing here given all the technological constraints and her most recent thread in Purgatory makes more sense than this one does.
I think I have allowed her that dignity. Time and again.
However, it does strike me that her views of what is likely to shake the faith of religious believers represents a throwback to an earlier era, if I can put it that way.
We are all products of our backgrounds and environment. You could probably 'date' me - in terms of slotting me into a particular chronological period - from reading my posts too.
(I don't think she is an idiot, by the way).
I'm trying to think of an example. Let's see. Not sure if this works, but would you rather people say 'Gamma, you blithering idiot, you just don't get how liturgy works!' or 'Aw, I think Gamma's doing jolly well at trying to understand liturgy considering he's an ex-evangelical, and still sees things in an evangelical way at heart.'
Amen.
The fact that I find SD infinitely repetitive, tedious, and condescending (not to mention thread-wrecking) has nothing to do with her age or disability. It has to do with her being infinitely repetitive, tedious, and condescending.
No, I challenge this notion; I'm getting old myself; I also have a disability (lifelong hearing impairment; age-acquired circulation issues). I have slowed down some (OK, quite a lot). Does this mean I can't change? No; it does mean that it may take me longer to do so. (It also sometimes means, "Fuck it; I've got about all I can handle already; I'm not even gonna try this.") I often mishear things (or fail to hear them altogether) due to reduced hearing. Does this mean I'm doomed to constant miscommunication? No; it means I have to check my perceptions more often than most folks before proceeding on the assumption that I've heard right.
Having also spent some time working with people who used to get labeled "idiots," the same possibilities hold for them. Change is possible where there's willingness to change and where support and patience are available to facilitate the change. Neither age nor disability render change impossible; only death does.
FWIW I don't think SD is stupid nor am I saying, 'Aw, bless, she's an ickle old lady ... bless her heart.'
Trouble is, Hell polarises things. So we either end up being offensive to people and treating them with contempt if we disagree with them or we patronise them.
It's a fineline. Literally.
FWIW I tend to think that fineline strikes a good balance and tends not to be either offensive nor patronising.
Rossweisse the same, mostly.
I must learn from your good example.
And that, of course, probably makes for more confusion and misunderstanding!! If I think of a better way of saying that, I will do so. No, you are not correct on either of those points.