HELLO TO ALL!

[hippypagan89]

Hello everyone
I'm Amy and found this site accidentally through Facebook. I love philosophy/theology and love a good ol' debate, so thought I'd join to fulfil these two passions of mine.
I'm 19 and hope to train to become an RE teacher. I'm currently studying a Foundation Degree, and are volunteering in a primary school (currently nursery and recpetion), and will soon be starting my volunteering in a secondary school too.
I do believe in God (not sure what God is though; person/thing/mother nature) but don't label myself as any particular denomination. I'm more of a Pagan if anything and don't go to Church
I love reading (anything from classic novels to modern fantasy), watching films and writing poetry. I watch very little TV, but I do love the Inbetweeners, Merlin and period dramas/fantasy and adventure programmes.
I can't wait to hear everyone's thoughts and have a bit of banter.

[Richard Baron]

Hello Amy, and welcome to the forum.

I do not believe in any sort of god, but it is very refreshing to meet believers who do not feel that they have to fit into one of the traditional boxes, but who can build their own concepts of god.

[hippypagan89]

Hi Richard,

Thanks very much
I am a believer (as I've said ) However, I don't feel the need to label myself. My approach to God is very different from many religious people's I suppose. But I'm my own person and simply believe what I do. I don't really feel an urgency to go to Church to confirm my beliefs with others around me. I believe that God is everywhere and you don't have to express your belief through actions or words. I think you can believe without labelling; you don't need to define your beliefs to know you have them, just as an athiest doesn't need to define why they don't believe really If that makes sense hehe

Amy xxxx

[Aetixintro]

Hi hippypagan89

I'm a Deist and we're really a diverse bunch of people. With your belief intact you should check out Deism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism.

Cheers!

[hippypagan89]

Hello there Aetixintro,

Thanks so much for posting that link The description sounds very much like how I concieve of God and my beliefs. I never knew before that such people are known as deists, but it sounds very much like I am a deist (I've never known before how others would describe my belief system).
Infact, many people I speak to are really shocked that I am an open-minded person. The minute most people hear that I believe in a God, they assume I am a Christian who is going to Bible bash them with tales about how abortion and homosexuality is wrong and how the Bible is gospel truth. When they find I do not believe these things as some others may do they are very surprised
I suppose I am more spiritual than anything else

Amy xxx

[ray]

welcome miss hippy.

Im Ray, the resident muslim nut on this forum.

You will be beheaded soon on this forum. Jester is sharpening the knife.

A new head is being ordered for you.

No more tree hugging.

[tbieter]

Hello Amy, and welcome to the forum.

I do not believe in any sort of god, but it is very refreshing to meet believers who do not feel that they have to fit into one of the traditional boxes, but who can build their own concepts of god.

_______________________________

What a fascinating comment! Atheist to theist: "You can build your own concepts in theology!"

But I ask: Only in theology? How about in science? Or in ethics? Or in all subjects of inquiry?

Amy, don't worry about grounding your thinking in truth, in reality, in things, in what is ; just ground your thinking in your own will.

Ignore all the traditional teachings on the vice of pride. After all, man is the measure of all things.

No, Amy, verily I say to thee:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15 (NKJV)
http://bible.cc/matthew/7-15.htm

And, Richard, let Amy be as she is!

Be warned:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." http://bible.cc/matthew/18-6.htm

Let Amy be!

[Richard Baron]

Hello Amy, and welcome to the forum.

I do not believe in any sort of god, but it is very refreshing to meet believers who do not feel that they have to fit into one of the traditional boxes, but who can build their own concepts of god.

_______________________________

What a fascinating comment! Atheist to theist: "You can build your own concepts in theology!"

But I ask: Only in theology? How about in science? Or in ethics? Or in all subjects of inquiry?

No Tom, only in theology. But not necessarily for the reason you might expect me to put forward, that in fiction, anything goes. A firm believer could say that it was acceptable to build your own concept, on the ground that all of our concepts are likely to be hopelessly inadequate to the reality of God. A personal concept would in that respect be no worse off than a concept that had been built up over centuries of careful theological thought.

[tbieter]

Good answer. I agree.

[Psychonaut]

Richard, you deny that a personal concept can be built in the inquiry of science, ethics etc.?

Such is done, regardless of whether you consider it valid.

To deny it is kin to outlawing drugs. It will be done anyway, but in a more dangerous manner.

[Richard Baron]

Hi Psychonaut

Of cousre it can be done in science and in ethics. The question is whether the result would have much validity.

In the natural sciences, I suggest that it would not. Of course new theories start off as ideas in the heads of people who are not satisfied with the prevailing orthodoxy, but one then expects good new theories to be adopted more widely and to become the new orthodoxy. The process may take years, and may make mistakes, but someone who has a great new theory to which no expert pays any attention should be regarded with the gravest suspicion. As we move on to the social sciences and the humanities, things get a bit less rigid. A question in such a subject may be regarded as having a wide range of plausible answers. But there will still be a wider range of implausible answers, and the consensus of experts is a reasonable, but not an infallible, guide to the boundary between the plausible and the implausible.

I think we could make a case for seeing practical ethics in the same way. You can take any one of many positions, and your position may be yours alone. But some positions are beyond the pale, and an awareness of the tradition helps you to avoid such extremes.

[Psychonaut]

I was talking of people at large and not the informed elite.

People form their personal notions of what has been produced by science, and their source of information may never be anything better than the Sun. They have many misconceptions about the nature of science and its conclusions.

These people have not been engaged by science-proper and quite often their opinion of science is to be suspicious of it, sometimes even hostile to it. Why? Quite often because they have, from quite an early age, been told not to form their own personal opinions through genuine inquiry, but to instead accept an orthodoxy or an authority which informs them that they are too stupid to question it. Science education is often founded on a system somewhat like a mystery cult or masonic lodge, in which you have to work your way through various layers of lies with the assumption that at the core is the kernel of truth. For most, compulsory education ends at a point in which there are still many layers of lies, and only a vanishingly small elite is ever equipped with the skills necessary to personally evaluate scientific claims. The papers never bother to publish a study's structure alongside its findings in order to clarify the exact nature of the findings, why? Because such information is totally useless to its readership.

Why are people hostile to science? Because science (in terms of the edifice currently standing within our society) is hostile to them and is hostile to their personal development and growth.

[hippypagan89]

Hi all

Aww Ray hehe.
Oh, I'm staying well away from Jester then
Can I have Kristen Stewart's head please; snogging Robert Pattinson would make the beheading worth while I reckon
Ray, I need to tree hug; it makes me feel wanted

Amy, don't worry about grounding your thinking in truth, in reality, in things, in what is ; just ground your thinking in your own will.

I agree with you there tbieter. I think if you follow your heart and do what you think of as right, you'll be ok

I think it is possible to build your own concepts in ethics. Everyone has different thoughts on what it is ethically wrong/right. Ethics aren’t really grounded in truth, they are grounded in feeling, and feeling is open to interpretation by everyone. Although, there are some things which can be seen as ethically abhorrent or good.

A personal concept would in that respect be no worse off than a concept that had been built up over centuries of careful theological thought.

I agree. I don’t see my concept as of any less value than say, the Catholic theological thought; it is just I am probably far more open-minded and tolerant than many would expect.
I was on another website a few weeks ago and someone on there, who was a theist, was moaning about close-minded Christians. Then when I put forward my more open-minded approach to belief e.g. how I'm perfectly ok with my beliefs in conjunction with homosexuality, free love, abortion etc, this person claimed he hated 'my sort' more than the die-hard Christians, as at least they know there beliefs whilst 'my sort' have a pick and choose religion. But my being open to modern life doesn't make my belief 'pick and choose' or invalid, I just follow a different train of thought, which is just as valid a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, atheist thought
Luckily, me and this person have put this behind us

I think we could make a case for seeing practical ethics in the same way. You can take any one of many positions, and your position may be yours alone. But some positions are beyond the pale, and an awareness of the tradition helps you to avoid such extremes.

Do you mean for example, paedophilia? I may believe it is wrong, some right, but we judge our thoughts by the thoughts of those who are knowledgeable in the subject (say a psychologist) who is expert in their field (criminal psychology) and thereby can determine which answer is most appropriate. In this case, paedophilia being wrong.

Why are people hostile to science? Because science (in terms of the edifice currently standing within our society) is hostile to them and is hostile to their personal development and growth.

I would agree there somewhat. Take for example, Dr Richard Dawkins. He is a brilliant man who can easily explain complex philosophical/theological/scientific ideas to those who may not be able to grasp them otherwise. But he also accuses religion of being small minded, and then is so himself. He accuses religion of thinking it is right, and then tells religious people they are wrong, which negates that he is right; so he is infact doing what he accuses others of doing.
A teacher at my college actually said he has met him, and whilst he said Mr Dawkins is a very intelligent man within his field, he also said he is quite rude and abrupt in his approcah to people (especially in they have a different opinion to him which are not grounded in scientific truths).
It's a bit of a double-edged sword unfortunately.
Amy

[Richard Baron]

I think we could make a case for seeing practical ethics in the same way. You can take any one of many positions, and your position may be yours alone. But some positions are beyond the pale, and an awareness of the tradition helps you to avoid such extremes.

Do you mean for example, paedophilia? I may believe it is wrong, some right, but we judge our thoughts by the thoughts of those who are knowledgeable in the subject (say a psychologist) who is expert in their field (criminal psychology) and thereby can determine which answer is most appropriate. In this case, paedophilia being wrong.

Hello Amy

I had in mind any position which says that it is fine to impose suffering on people, or to limit their freedom, without very good reason. We need to be informed both by the work of psychologists and other experts, and by our general understanding of humanity. We can develop that understanding in ourselves by reference to ethical traditions and by reading novels. But I think that we still need to judge for ourselves whether to take the advice of the experts. They may have narrow perspectives and be too focused on the goals that arise from their own specialist studies.

[hippypagan89]

Hi Richard,

Yep I agree with your point. I was in college last Tuesday and we were discussing how policies can place limitations on how you work with children. We were discussing how in nursery, children who are 3 years old having to leave their parents for the first time can be harrowing. To us it’s only 2 or 3 hours, but to them it’s a lifetime. When I was in my placement the week before last, a little girl was breaking her heart because the kid’s parents had been brought in for Harvest Festival activities, and when they went to the hall for a presentation the kids had to stay in the class. This little girl got really upset and the teachers just told her to be quiet and ignored her. So I asked her to come and sit next to me and was talking to her, trying to reassure her until she calmed down. I’d only been there for a week and I think the teachers suddenly realised that I was new and they were making quite a bad impression, so they finally came over and helped to make sure the girl was ok, because she was due to go into assembly soon too.
When discussing it in college, we talked about how policies had sort of conditioned people to take a more clinical approach to teaching, whereas it is natural instinct as human beings to want to comfort the child by giving them a hug (which is what another teacher did instantly to another child who was upset in the playground; she came over picked him up and gave him a hug until he was ok and went off to play).
We know in our hearts that the child needs a bit of love and attention when they are new and upset, but listening to so-called ‘professionals’ with there ‘narrow perspectives and goal focus’ stunts our natural instincts.
Fair enough, I know in today’s day and age you have to be careful, but the majority of teachers just have a natural instinct to comfort a crying child because it’s what human nature tells them to do. This human nature comes from the teaching of family, friends, experience, what we’ve read, seen and just our natural instinct and understanding of humanity. I suppose you're right that it rarely comes from an

expert with narrow perspectives who be too focused on the goals that arise from their own specialist studies.