What to say to a young child?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by AmandaM

Honestly, I see a huge difference in believing in a god, versus believing in homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot.

There is an equal amount of objective support for each. In that regard, no difference at all.

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

There is an equal amount of objective support for each. In that regard, no difference at all.

To be fair, people believe a billion different things about gods, one of which is that they're imaginary, whereas for homeopathy, psychics, and bigfoot, people have a much narrower set of beliefs, one of which, of course, is that they are also imaginary.

"Bigfoot is everything, man."

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

You forgot to add the sarcasm smiley in your post. I hope.

Originally Posted by calebprime

Oh, good.

Yeah, that makes more sense -- it's sarcasm.

Deadpan irony, actually.

I don't believe in smilies.

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by norrie

I have done, she thinks it's true, or rather likes the idea of it being true. I'm looking for something to say to her that will get her thinking I suppose. Probably over reacting as well a bit, I doubt she's gonna run off and join the nuns, although we do live in Ireland

I would lay out the god concept as it applies to all peoples of the earth. As best she is able to understand with her little mind, I would also tell her that everybody asks that question but no one knows the answer for sure.

I remember when I was that age and started asking about god. My mom pumped me full of helium about Jesus and took me to a church. I ran in excited and saw a picture of Jesus and thought he was god. My mom told me, no, and it disappointed to say the least. She then went on to tell me how god was invisible but everywhere, etc. Fortunately, my father, who had fought in WWII, was cynical and thought that there couldn't be a kind god who would let all that bad he had witness exist.

I had those two perspectives growing up and I did just fine. I had a solid perspective on believing and one on questioning said beliefs.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't believe in smilies.

What if you live your whole life like that and when you die you find out that they're real?

[Ausmerican]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Deadpan irony, actually.

I don't believe in smilies.

It doesn't matter. Because smilies believe in YOU!

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by AmandaM

Honestly, I see a huge difference in believing in a god, versus believing in homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot.

Why?

[Hershele Ostropoler]

Originally Posted by AmandaM

Honestly, I see a huge difference in believing in a god, versus believing in homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot.

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Why?

Presumably because one is socially rewarded.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Hershele Ostropoler

Presumably because one is socially rewarded.

Actually they all are to some degree in some sections of society and circumstances.

I'd just be interested to know why she thinks it's different. 'Why' is a powerful word, which is presumably the reason children use it so much.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Why?

Because there's a difference between believing in something for which there is no scientific evidence, and believing in something that has been scientifically disproven.

How about atheists who believe in objective right and wrong? Are they equally deluded? If a grandmother tells a child that it's wrong to hit his sister, would it be correct to tell the child that objective right and wrong don't exist?

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by westprog

Because there's a difference between believing in something for which there is no scientific evidence, and believing in something that has been scientifically disproven.

Oh great, do you have a definition of God so we can see if it's been disproven or not? We wouldn't want it to be vague and unfalsifiable like a disappearing bigfoot or homeopathy that doesn't work under double blind conditions would we?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Oh great, do you have a definition of God so we can see if it's been disproven or not? We wouldn't want it to be vague and unfalsifiable like a disappearing bigfoot or homeopathy that doesn't work under double blind conditions would we?

Are you claiming that only things with a precise definition can exist?

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by norrie

I have done, she thinks it's true, or rather likes the idea of it being true. I'm looking for something to say to her that will get her thinking I suppose. Probably over reacting as well a bit, I doubt she's gonna run off and join the nuns, although we do live in Ireland

I've got good news for you. 35 years ago my Dad had the exact same problem. Dealt with it in the exact same way as you have and waited.

Here I am without an ounce of belief.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

Are you claiming that only things with a precise definition can exist?

So it was Bigfoot that was scientifically disproven? Your statement only works if either god or sasquatch sports evidence of absence, and the other absence of evidence. Near as I can tell they're the same brand of unfalsifiable: wherever you look bigfoot isn't, whatever we do god doesn't.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by westprog

Are you claiming that only things with a precise definition can exist?

Are you claiming that we can assess the likelyhood whether something exists (or has been disproven) or not without a description of what it is and it's supposed properties? (Even if incomplete, I never said a precise definition).

Oh and incidentally, science hasn't 'disproven' bigfoot, it has shown it to be so unlikely that most people treat it as proven in practice, but if someone was to turn up with compelling evidence of an actual bigfoot, science would deal with it. That's how science works. Exactly the same applies to gods, homeopathic effects, psychics etc, etc, etc.

[laca]

Originally Posted by westprog

Are you claiming that only things with a precise definition can exist?

You got hung up on the wrong word. I think it's more like unfalsifiable "things" don't matter. At all. Otherwise they would be falsifiable.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by norrie

It's not that simple. She goes to a Catholic school (no choice in this country) and I don't want her to be alienated, she's only 5 after all. I'd prefer to take a softer approach.

Some great advice there. Unfortunately I don't have contact with that grandmother so there's little to nothing I can do there. Myself and the child's mother are no longer together.

Clearly this complicates things, assuming mom is a believer and you are not. Even more important for honesty.

You need honestly and to consider your child's level of understanding.

"Your Mom and I don't believe the same things. When you are older you'll have to decide for yourself."

That's how I'd approach it if I'm reading the situation correctly.

Catholicism is one of those religions heavy in rituals. It helps to start calling them rituals.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Are you claiming that we can assess the likelyhood whether something exists (or has been disproven) or not without a description of what it is and it's supposed properties? (Even if incomplete, I never said a precise definition).

Quote:

Oh and incidentally, science hasn't 'disproven' bigfoot, it has shown it to be so unlikely that most people treat it as proven in practice, but if someone was to turn up with compelling evidence of an actual bigfoot, science would deal with it. That's how science works. Exactly the same applies to gods, homeopathic effects, psychics etc, etc, etc.

Yes, that's how science "disproves" things. The word "disprove" is considered equivalent to "show that the chances of this being true is vanishingly small".

In the case of bigfoot, the scientists consider the likely effects of a large primate living in the area, and what the chances are that it should not be observed or leave any traces. They form hypotheses and make observations. There's a pretence, usually though not exclusively among non-scientists, that they can follow a similar process to demonstrate the non-existence of god. There is no such scientific process, and in spite of the many discussions that have taken place, on this forum or elsewhere, nobody has given any indication of such a process.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by AmandaM

Honestly, I see a huge difference in believing in a god, versus believing in homeopathy, psychics, or bigfoot.

Really? Explain?

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, that's how science "disproves" things. The word "disprove" is considered equivalent to "show that the chances of this being true is vanishingly small".

In the case of bigfoot, the scientists consider the likely effects of a large primate living in the area, and what the chances are that it should not be observed or leave any traces. They form hypotheses and make observations. There's a pretence, usually though not exclusively among non-scientists, that they can follow a similar process to demonstrate the non-existence of god. There is no such scientific process, and in spite of the many discussions that have taken place, on this forum or elsewhere, nobody has given any indication of such a process.

Bigfoot- no evidence, no traces=Disproved
God- no evidence, no traces=Special pleading

And you completely ignored my first point that if you're unwilling ascribe any (even partial) definition to your god it is impossible to assess if it exists or not.

[Hershele Ostropoler]

"Bigfoot" is better defined than "god." We can say "if there were a god who $FOO we would expect to see $BAR" but then the response is "god exists but isn't $FOO." That option isn't available with Bigfoot.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Bigfoot- no evidence, no traces=Disproved
God- no evidence, no traces=Special pleading

And you completely ignored my first point that if you're unwilling ascribe any (even partial) definition to your god it is impossible to assess if it exists or not.

So you simultaneously claim that you can disprove god, and at the same time you can't?

The reason that Bigfoot can be rejected is precisely because he has a precise definition - or at least precise enough (large mammal) that we can tell the kind of traces that he would leave - by applying science. When people claim that they can disprove god, it's usually by applying little logic games, or metaphysical speculation - or often, an insistence that if it's not properly defined, that means that it provably doesn't exist.

When a scientific disproof of god is presented in the same terms as a scientific disproof of Bigfoot, it should be accepted on the same terms. At the moment, that doesn't apply. That's why there are plenty of scientists who believe in god, but very few who think that Bigfoot exists.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

So you simultaneously claim that you can disprove god, and at the same time you can't?

Sure. Same with Bigfoot.

You can disprove claims that Bigfoot exists in a particular area - no spoor, etc. But you can't disprove Bigfoot's existence altogether. He could always be where you haven't looked.

You can disprove claims that a god affects reality in particular ways - intercessory prayer, causing lightning, etc. But you can't disprove gods' existence altogether. They could always be in the gaps.

The problem (in both cases) comes when believers take the unfalsifiability of the latter to support the credibility of the former. "God has not been shown not to exist, therefore he must exist," as Zhakarov will say.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Sure. Same with Bigfoot.

You can disprove claims that Bigfoot exists in a particular area - no spoor, etc. But you can't disprove Bigfoot's existence altogether. He could always be where you haven't looked.

You can disprove claims that a god affects reality in particular ways - intercessory prayer, causing lightning, etc. But you can't disprove gods' existence altogether. They could always be in the gaps.

The problem (in both cases) comes when believers take the unfalsifiability of the latter to support the credibility of the former. "God has not been shown not to exist, therefore he must exist," as Zhakarov will say.

That's in the nature of a scientific proof. The claim is always about whether something exists under well defined conditions. When something is considered scientifically disproven, it's always with certain provisos. In the case of Bigfoot, the presumption is that it's a natural creature, with properties like other natural creatures. In those terms, it can be disproven. (And to scientifically disprove something means that there is a vast probability that it exists as defined).

It's quite possible to disprove the claims of homeopathy, say, because those claims are scientific and testable. However, when something is not well-defined scientifically, when there is no test for its existence, then science has nothing to say.

Some people like to think that when science makes a presumption of non-existence, that's the same as a disproof. That's a mistake, of course. If scientists were asked, prior to the discovery of the Platypus, whether a venemous, egg-laying mammal existed, they would have quite rightly said that the presumption was that it didn't. This presumption would have held until the Platypus was discovered. This doesn't mean that the presumption was wrong - because it was a presumption, not a belief. Beliefs are outside science.

I know that many atheists think it's unfair that god should be defined in a way that stops science from disproving it. I don't know what to do about that.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

That's in the nature of a scientific proof. The claim is always about whether something exists under well defined conditions. When something is considered scientifically disproven, it's always with certain provisos. In the case of Bigfoot, the presumption is that it's a natural creature, with properties like other natural creatures. In those terms, it can be disproven. (And to scientifically disprove something means that there is a vast probability that it exists as defined).

It's quite possible to disprove the claims of homeopathy, say, because those claims are scientific and testable. However, when something is not well-defined scientifically, when there is no test for its existence, then science has nothing to say.

Some people like to think that when science makes a presumption of non-existence, that's the same as a disproof. That's a mistake, of course. If scientists were asked, prior to the discovery of the Platypus, whether a venemous, egg-laying mammal existed, they would have quite rightly said that the presumption was that it didn't. This presumption would have held until the Platypus was discovered. This doesn't mean that the presumption was wrong - because it was a presumption, not a belief. Beliefs are outside science.

I know that many atheists think it's unfair that god should be defined in a way that stops science from disproving it. I don't know what to do about that.

Uh, okay? You can also define bigfoot and homeopathy in a way that stops science from disproving them.

[deaman]

"There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it begins.

Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of thewatch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night, waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can'thave any one of these without the other, because you wouldn't be able to know what black is unless you had seen it side-by-side with white, orwhite unless side-by-side with black.

"In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when it isn't, for if the world went on and on without rest for ever and ever, itwould get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it;now you don't.
So because it doesn't get tired of itself, it always comes back again after it disappears.

It's like your breath: it goes in and out, inand out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible.

It's also like the game of hide-and-seek, because it's always fun to find new ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn't always hide in the same place.

"God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams,for when he wakes up they will disappear.

"Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it—just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself.

But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self—the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.

"Of course, you must remember that God isn't shaped like a person. People have skins and there is always something outside our skins. If there weren't, we wouldn't know the difference between what is inside and outside our bodies. But God has no skin and no shape because there isn't any outside to him. [With a sufficiently intelligent child, I illustratethis with a Möbius strip—a ring of paper tape twisted once in such away that it has only one side and one edge.] The inside and the outsideof God are the same.

And though I have been talking about God as 'he' and not 'she,' God isn't a man or a woman. I didn't say 'it' because we usually say 'it' for things that aren't alive.

"God is the Self of the world, but you can't see God for the same reason that, without a mirror, you can't see your own eyes, and you certainly can't bite your own teeth or look inside your head. Your self isthat cleverly hidden because it is God hiding.

"You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that he isn't really doing this to anyone but himself. Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad.

It's the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world."

[deaman]

...while what i previously posted is charming. To my own children, I would rather just tell them the truth, as far as I understood it, whatever that might be.

For me, that would be:

There are no gods, child.

The closest thing to a god is you.

In you, is contained all the magic that ever will be.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Sure. Same with Bigfoot.

You can disprove claims that Bigfoot exists in a particular area - no spoor, etc. But you can't disprove Bigfoot's existence altogether. He could always be where you haven't looked.

You can disprove claims that a god affects reality in particular ways - intercessory prayer, causing lightning, etc. But you can't disprove gods' existence altogether. They could always be in the gaps.

The problem (in both cases) comes when believers take the unfalsifiability of the latter to support the credibility of the former. "God has not been shown not to exist, therefore he must exist," as Zhakarov will say.

Precisely BB, I have seen people opinion that bigfoot is actually some kind of nature spirit, hence no evidence, so presumably that's now not disproved by science either. Of course if Westprog defines his god in such a way that it precludes evidence the question then becomes, why believe in it in the first place?

Of course the scientific position on gods is the same as it is on bigfoot. There is no good evidence either exists, there are no facts that require them to explain our observations and the 'gaps' (geographical or phenomonal) that they are claimed to inhabit are being gradually encrouched on. So Occams razor applies. But, however unlikely it may be, if someone did come up with evidence that could change. Perhaps believers should spend more time looking for evidence rather than arguing about the semantics of 'disproven'

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Uh, okay? You can also define bigfoot and homeopathy in a way that stops science from disproving them.

Yes. In which case, science couldn't disprove them. However, Bigfoot is not claimed to be an undetectable spiritual presence. It's claimed to be a big mammal. Homeopathy doesn't claim to have spiritual cleansing effects. It's claimed to have objective effects on the body. Hence science can adjudicate.

Obviously you can redefine anything to be anything. In the meantime, definitions (or lack of) should be taken as they are, not as they hypothetically might be.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Precisely BB, I have seen people opinion that bigfoot is actually some kind of nature spirit, hence no evidence, so presumably that's now not disproved by science either. Of course if Westprog defines his god in such a way that it precludes evidence the question then becomes, why believe in it in the first place?

If you consider that a definition of god that can't be addressed by science is unsatisfactory, then perhaps you should become an atheist. Many do.

Quote:

Of course the scientific position on gods is the same as it is on bigfoot. There is no good evidence either exists, there are no facts that require them to explain our observations and the 'gaps' (geographical or phenomonal) that they are claimed to inhabit are being gradually encrouched on. So Occams razor applies. But, however unlikely it may be, if someone did come up with evidence that could change. Perhaps believers should spend more time looking for evidence rather than arguing about the semantics of 'disproven'

As I've pointed out, this is not the case. The evidence against Bigfoot is substantial. The evidence against god is absent. What has been disproved is a primitive concept of god. The kind of god being considered by philosophers over the last two or three thousand years hasn't been impacted by science at all. Trying to prove the non-existence of that kind of god by disproving something entirely different is like trying to prove that oxygen doesn't exist by disproving phlogiston.

The gaps reasoning is also not scientific. A biologist might have said "We've explored Europe, Asia, much of Africa and the Americas. Therefore we can confidently say that when we've explored everywhere, our experience will be that no Venemous Egg-laying Mammal will exist." That's not scientific thinking, and scientists don't use it. It tends to be used by philosophers trying to piggy-back on science. (Often amateur philosophers). When a scientist (such as Dawkins) uses similar reasoning, he's usually careful to ring-fence it from his scientific work.

[JoeBentley]

The problem with the "But it's outside the realm of science!" copout, other then it's inherent and base intellectual uselessness, is that it almost without fail will begin to breed a very specific mentality... the "Argument Through Vagueness." and the "Foot in the Door" tactic.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes. In which case, science couldn't disprove them. However, Bigfoot is not claimed to be an undetectable spiritual presence. It's claimed to be a big mammal. Homeopathy doesn't claim to have spiritual cleansing effects. It's claimed to have objective effects on the body. Hence science can adjudicate.

Bigfoot doesn't need to be spiritual. It could just be somewhere else. There's lots of the world that we haven't definitively searched for Bigfoot yet.

Homeopathy does make spiritual claims ("increases wellness," for example), but it doesn't need to, it just needs to have effects science hasn't tested for yet, or too subtle to be significant in current tests.

Similarly, religions often make specific claims about their gods which can be falsified, and in practice always have been. Creation. Answering of prayers. The existence of the soul. All of these can be studied, have been studied, and have never produced a shred of evidence that they're true. But they don't need to. God can always be somewhere else at the time, or bring "increased wellness" rather than anything measurable.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Bigfoot doesn't need to be spiritual. It could just be somewhere else. There's lots of the world that we haven't definitively searched for Bigfoot yet.

Homeopathy does make spiritual claims ("increases wellness," for example), but it doesn't need to, it just needs to have effects science hasn't tested for yet, or too subtle to be significant in current tests.

Similarly, religions often make specific claims about their gods which can be falsified, and in practice always have been. Creation. Answering of prayers. The existence of the soul. All of these can be studied, have been studied, and have never produced a shred of evidence that they're true. But they don't need to. God can always be somewhere else at the time, or bring "increased wellness" rather than anything measurable.

I notice that in this discussion, the leap between "falsified" and "no evidence" is often made back and forth as if they were the same thing. They are not, not in general discussion, and especially not in scientific research.

If religions make specific claims which are contrary to science, then science should say "No, the Earth is demonstrably not six thousand years old. That is incorrect." Science does precisely that, and some fundamentalists make the incorrect claim that science is against religion - a claim for which they find unlikely support in the atheist community.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

I notice that in this discussion, the leap between "falsified" and "no evidence" is often made back and forth as if they were the same thing. They are not, not in general discussion, and especially not in scientific research.

They're not the same thing, but they are related. A falsifiable hypothesis is falsified when it fails to disprove the null. It's technically inaccurate but close enough for general discussion to say the hypothesis is disproved at this point.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

They're not the same thing, but they are related. A falsifiable hypothesis is falsified when it fails to disprove the null. It's technically inaccurate but close enough for general discussion to say the hypothesis is disproved at this point.

No, failing to prove the hypothesis is not the same as proving the null. If it was, then every single major scientific discovery would have been disproved before it started. The null hypothesis has been generally wrong. Everything from continental drift to relativity was unproven and contrary to the null hypothesis, until it was proven. I gave the example of the Platypus as something that was entirely unexpected - but never disproven.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by norrie

It's not that simple. She goes to a Catholic school (no choice in this country) and I don't want her to be alienated, she's only 5 after all. I'd prefer to take a softer approach.

Some great advice there. Unfortunately I don't have contact with that grandmother so there's little to nothing I can do there. Myself and the child's mother are no longer together.

Wow, definitely a problem, but honesty is generally invincible.

[deaman]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Honesty is generally invincible.

Perfect quote!

[Caper]

Originally Posted by norrie

I have done, she thinks it's true, or rather likes the idea of it being true. I'm looking for something to say to her that will get her thinking I suppose. Probably over reacting as well a bit, I doubt she's gonna run off and join the nuns, although we do live in Ireland

Tell her they may be true... and then start sending her to church 3 times a week.... before she goes...as she is walking out the door, pull out a big tub of ice cream and say "see you after church". She'll stop asking questions after a while.

[Caper]

But in all seriousness. She's 5. What are you scared of? Is she going to run off be a nun? You're not religious, I will assume your wife is not religious....... Your daughter is not going to be religious. Regardless of what Nana says. Honestly, this is much ado about noting.


... or just killl grandma.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by westprog

No, failing to prove the hypothesis is not the same as proving the null. If it was, then every single major scientific discovery would have been disproved before it started. The null hypothesis has been generally wrong. Everything from continental drift to relativity was unproven and contrary to the null hypothesis, until it was proven. I gave the example of the Platypus as something that was entirely unexpected - but never disproven.

Now you're negating the terms to cause confusion. You made a stink about a surprisingly fine hair to split just a few posts ago, surely you must know that science never proves hypotheses.