Thoughts and questions from God Delusion

[jacklegger]

Hello fellow thinkers,

I'm new; I posted an intro in that section, read that if you want to know my deal. Hi and thanks again for the welcome messages.

So, I'm a Christian reading The God Delusion with an open mind and considering the rational merit of atheism. My experience with "out" atheists is limited, and Dawkins is a refreshing surprise. I'm sure there are more like him out there, I just haven't met you yet. (I hope to).

Most atheists I've met are either over-compensating intellectuals with attitudes like, "I'm smarter than you, just look at my dynamic vocabulary. Look at it!"; or sci-fi/fantasy fans who actually believe in elves (or klingons or whatever). Not that this is a bad thing necessarily; to each his own has been my approach. And of course my sample is very small; as a Christian most of my friends and family are either theists or agnostics. And I know that some would say that believing in elves is much more sane than believing in Yahweh or Jesus Christ, and frankly I wouldn't argue that point. I would ask though, what experience one has had with elves, not as a way to prove or disprove anything, but to understand the basis for such a belief. And as such I don't think that all beliefs are equally reasonable to hold. For example, if one's experience of elves is limited to reading Tolkien and imagining them - which I love to do - I would posit that this is a less reasonable basis for believing they exist in our universe than say, praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

Of course this is all subjective and will not necessarily convince anyone, but that's my point. In the end we all have to decide this question for ourselves, no?

So here's something from Dawkins: He says raising children in a religion is tantamount to child abuse and possibly worse than sexual abuse. This is shocking to fathom, but he is also surprisingly civil and even charitable, which effectively diffuses the affective sparks that would otherwise fly at such extreme statements. Furthermore, I understand his passion, and if he is right that there is no God, then indeed religious parents like myself are arguably evil - at the very least we are really dissing our kids!

But of course that is the question in the first place (does God exist), and without settling it with certainty (not just some vague probability - how is the probability of God's existence calculated, exactly?), forcing children to be raised by an atheist state is no different than the (apparently powerful and poised to take over the country) American Christian fundamentalists forcing their religion on the kids of atheist parents.

And though this is really a side issue, it elicits the further question of who is going to decide what is best for children, if not their parents? A government panel of expert scientists and psychologists? How will these people be chosen, and by whom? And how will these thought-police enforce their edicts? How will they keep Catholic parents from saying anything at all to their kids that could be construed as religious indoctrination? Must the parents go to mass in secret and tell their kids they're going to a weekly science club instead? In practice wouldn't it really be necessary to take the kids away from the parents completely, and raise them in properly atheistic institutions (or foster homes with atheist parents)? And if so, how is this different from Dawkins' story of the Jewish boy who was taken from his parents because he was baptized by a Catholic nurse, and raised (by people other than his parents) as a Catholic? Dawkins' greatest and most passionate objection to this (rightly so, IMO) was that the boy was taken from his parents, which was a cause of great trauma and suffering to them all. (He of course had no sympathy for the religious freedom of the Jewish parents, who were just as stupid and superstitious as their Catholic counterparts). And, finally, if (a utopian, atheistic) society is not willing to "kidnap" (as Dawkins put it of the Jewish boy) the children of theists of all stripes in order to spare them the abuse of being raised in religious families, why even raise the point that it is an injustice in the first place?

My guess is that it is a rhetorical device, and not a serious proposition. As such it may have some shock value; it may cause some to think more about the nature of religion and the importance of the question of the existence of god(s). This would be good inasmuch as this is a "big question" that fundamentally shapes a society, but that many people are probably content not to consider. Not that they don't have an opinion, it's just unexamined. OTOH, it can be very bad inasmuch as people who aren't too bright start to parrot Dawkins (probably misunderstanding him) and campaign for Social Services to prosecute religious parents for child abuse and take children out of such homes. (Not the least of the issues is where to put them, who would raise them, and who would pay for raising them; and this is before we even get into the severe cruelty of such a thing, especially in the eyes of a young child who knows nothing of philosophy or theology and just wants his or her mommy and daddy.)

I realize that is rambly. I teach for a living; I basically get paid to ramble. Thanks for your patience. For now, I shall relent!

[The Grand Nudger]

Hello fellow thinkers,

I'm new; I posted an intro in that section, read that if you want to know my deal. Hi and thanks again for the welcome messages.

So, I'm a Christian reading The God Delusion with an open mind and considering the rational merit of atheism. My experience with "out" atheists is limited, and Dawkins is a refreshing surprise. I'm sure there are more like him out there, I just haven't met you yet. (I hope to).

Most atheists I've met are either over-compensating intellectuals with attitudes like, "I'm smarter than you, just look at my dynamic vocabulary. Look at it!"; or sci-fi/fantasy fans who actually believe in elves (or klingons or whatever).

Yeah, it's a big tent, atheism doesn't have much to do with elves or klingons. While I suspect that this is a large amount of hyperbole ( I appreciate good hyperbole btw), it isn't really relevant to atheism. Atheists just don't believe in gods, that's all there is to it.

Not that this is a bad thing necessarily; to each his own has been my approach. And of course my sample is very small; as a Christian most of my friends and family are either theists or agnostics.

We have some agnostic atheists here.

And I know that some would say that believing in elves is much more sane than believing in Yahweh or Jesus Christ

LOL, some might, but not this atheist.,

and frankly I wouldn't argue that point. I would ask though, what experience one has had with elves, not as a way to prove or disprove anything, but to understand the basis for such a belief. And as such I don't think that all beliefs are equally reasonable to hold. For example, if one's experience of elves is limited to reading Tolkien and imagining them - which I love to do - I would posit that this is a less reasonable basis for believing they exist in our universe than say, praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

Sorry, gonna have to call bullshit on that. Don't take it personally.

Of course this is all subjective and will not necessarily convince anyone, but that's my point. In the end we all have to decide this question for ourselves, no?

[
Yup.

So here's something from Dawkins: He says raising children in a religion is tantamount to child abuse and possibly worse than sexual abuse. This is shocking to fathom, but he is also surprisingly civil and even charitable, which effectively diffuses the affective sparks that would otherwise fly at such extreme statements. Furthermore, I understand his passion, and if he is right that there is no God, then indeed religious parents like myself are arguably evil - at the very least we are really dissing our kids!

Meh, depends on your definition of evil doesn't it? I agree with Dawkins in this regard (sans sexual abuse tagline) others may not.

But of course that is the question in the first place (does God exist)

Not yours, no.

, and without settling it with certainty (not just some vague probability - how is the probability of God's existence calculated, exactly?), forcing children to be raised by an atheist state is no different than the (apparently powerful and poised to take over the country) American Christian fundamentalists forcing their religion on the kids of atheist parents.

Except in that tiny little detail of peddling superstition as fact capable of influencing public policy....no...no different.

And though this is really a side issue, it elicits the further question of who is going to decide what is best for children, if not their parents?

A tough issue, we have many cases where parents are not deemed fit to decide in the best interests of their children. Is religion one of those? In my honest opinion, depends on the religion.

A government panel of expert scientists and psychologists?

That's how it's usually done, minus the panel.

How will these people be chosen, and by whom? And how will these thought-police enforce their edicts?

Always troubling, once we go down that road.

How will they keep Catholic parents from saying anything at all to their kids that could be construed as religious indoctrination?

I hear threats of burning at the stake have helped in the past.

Must the parents go to mass in secret and tell their kids they're going to a weekly science club instead? In practice wouldn't it really be necessary to take the kids away from the parents completely, and raise them in properly atheistic institutions (or foster homes with atheist parents)? And if so, how is this different from Dawkins' story of the Jewish boy who was taken from his parents because he was baptized by a Catholic nurse, and raised (by people other than his parents) as a Catholic?

This is quote the dystopian fantasy we've started to develop. I like it.

Dawkins' greatest and most passionate objection to this (rightly so, IMO) was that the boy was taken from his parents, which was a cause of great trauma and suffering to them all. (He of course had no sympathy for the religious freedom of the Jewish parents, who were just as stupid and superstitious as their Catholic counterparts). And, finally, if (a utopian, atheistic) society is not willing to "kidnap" (as Dawkins put it of the Jewish boy) the children of theists of all stripes in order to spare them the abuse of being raised in religious families, why even raise the point that it is an injustice in the first place?

So that said religious shit-wits might reconsider whether or not it;'s a good idea to indoctrinate their children.

My guess is that it is a rhetorical device, and not a serious proposition. As such it may have some shock value; it may cause some to think more about the nature of religion and the importance of the question of the existence of god(s). This would be good inasmuch as this is a "big question" that fundamentally shapes a society, but that many people are probably content not to consider. Not that they don't have an opinion, it's just unexamined. OTOH, it can be very bad inasmuch as people who aren't too bright start to parrot Dawkins (probably misunderstanding him) and campaign for Social Services to prosecute religious parents for child abuse and take children out of such homes.

Only in my wildest dreams....

(Not the least of the issues is where to put them, who would raise them, and who would pay for raising them; and this is before we even get into the severe cruelty of such a thing, especially in the eyes of a young child who knows nothing of philosophy or theology and just wants his or her mommy and daddy.)
[quote]
Unfortunately Mommy and Daddy aren't always good people.

[quote]
I realize that is rambly. I teach for a living; I basically get paid to ramble. Thanks for your patience. For now, I shall relent!

What do you teach?

[Cyberman]

I apologise in advance for not having the concentration span right now to read through your entire post, though I did give it as full a consideration as I'm able. I just want to pick up on a couple of points that leaped out at me.

First, while I do happen to have what you generously term a dynamic vocabulary, I would never insist that others treat my words as anything other than what they're worth or that I am smarter than you merely on that basis. If the atheists you describe represent the totality of your experience, you're about to get a pretty comprehensive education here I suspect.

Second, I would love to see how you can justify this without tying yourself in knots:

For example, if one's experience of elves is limited to reading Tolkien and imagining them - which I love to do - I would posit that this is a less reasonable basis for believing they exist in our universe than say, praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

At the risk of over-egging this particular pudding, how do you determine that belief in a god and its alleged actions is more reasonable than belief in elves and other weird and wonderful Tolkien inventions?

Finally, re: Dawkins saying that "raising children in a religion is tantamount to child abuse and possibly worse than sexual abuse." Let's be clear on what he actually said on this point, lest we tilt at men of straw. Let's look at what the Professor actually wrote:

Even without physical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice persists to this day, almost entirely unquestioned.

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents' church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst.

'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.' The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell.

Earlier in our televised conversation, Jill [Mytton] had described this kind of religious upbringing as a form of mental abuse, and I returned to the point, as follows: 'You use the words religious abuse. If you were to compare the abuse of bringing up a child really to believe in hell . . . how do you think that would compare in trauma terms with sexual abuse?' She replied: 'That's a very difficult question . . . I think there are a lot of similarities actually, because it is about abuse of trust; it is about denying the child the right to feel free and open and able to relate to the world in the normal way . . . it's a form of denigration; it's a form of denial of the true self in both cases.'

Those quotes from The God Delusion are, as far as I can determine from my pdf copy which I so happen to keep handy, the sum total of every reference to religious-indoctrination-as-child-abuse. In every instance where he makes the direct comparison - both of them, you'll note - he is referring to the psychological damage of conditioning a child that its only worth is to burn in hellfire forever (or as Colonel Robert Ingersoll, my favourite quotable nonbeliever, put it in 1880: "I would not for my life destroy one star of human hope, but I want it so that when a poor woman rocks the cradle and sings a lullaby to the dimpled darling, she will not be compelled to believe that ninety-nine chances in a hundred she is raising kindling wood for hell"). Even then, Prof Dawkins uses the conditional "arguably".

Then you immediately follow up with the remark that he is a civil and charitable man, thus such shocking opinions are granted a free pass. This is, I have to say, an unwarranted and unfair dismissal, akin to saying "oh, don't pay him any attention; he's old and set in his ways".

[greneknight]

Hello fellow thinkers,

I'm new; I posted an intro in that section, read that if you want to know my deal. Hi and thanks again for the welcome messages.

So, I'm a Christian reading The God Delusion with an open mind and considering the rational merit of atheism. My experience with "out" atheists is limited, and Dawkins is a refreshing surprise. I'm sure there are more like him out there, I just haven't met you yet. (I hope to).

Most atheists I've met are either over-compensating intellectuals with attitudes like, "I'm smarter than you, just look at my dynamic vocabulary. Look at it!"; or sci-fi/fantasy fans who actually believe in elves (or klingons or whatever). Not that this is a bad thing necessarily; to each his own has been my approach. And of course my sample is very small; as a Christian most of my friends and family are either theists or agnostics. And I know that some would say that believing in elves is much more sane than believing in Yahweh or Jesus Christ, and frankly I wouldn't argue that point. I would ask though, what experience one has had with elves, not as a way to prove or disprove anything, but to understand the basis for such a belief. And as such I don't think that all beliefs are equally reasonable to hold. For example, if one's experience of elves is limited to reading Tolkien and imagining them - which I love to do - I would posit that this is a less reasonable basis for believing they exist in our universe than say, praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

Of course this is all subjective and will not necessarily convince anyone, but that's my point. In the end we all have to decide this question for ourselves, no?

So here's something from Dawkins: He says raising children in a religion is tantamount to child abuse and possibly worse than sexual abuse. This is shocking to fathom, but he is also surprisingly civil and even charitable, which effectively diffuses the affective sparks that would otherwise fly at such extreme statements. Furthermore, I understand his passion, and if he is right that there is no God, then indeed religious parents like myself are arguably evil - at the very least we are really dissing our kids!

But of course that is the question in the first place (does God exist), and without settling it with certainty (not just some vague probability - how is the probability of God's existence calculated, exactly?), forcing children to be raised by an atheist state is no different than the (apparently powerful and poised to take over the country) American Christian fundamentalists forcing their religion on the kids of atheist parents.

And though this is really a side issue, it elicits the further question of who is going to decide what is best for children, if not their parents? A government panel of expert scientists and psychologists? How will these people be chosen, and by whom? And how will these thought-police enforce their edicts? How will they keep Catholic parents from saying anything at all to their kids that could be construed as religious indoctrination? Must the parents go to mass in secret and tell their kids they're going to a weekly science club instead? In practice wouldn't it really be necessary to take the kids away from the parents completely, and raise them in properly atheistic institutions (or foster homes with atheist parents)? And if so, how is this different from Dawkins' story of the Jewish boy who was taken from his parents because he was baptized by a Catholic nurse, and raised (by people other than his parents) as a Catholic? Dawkins' greatest and most passionate objection to this (rightly so, IMO) was that the boy was taken from his parents, which was a cause of great trauma and suffering to them all. (He of course had no sympathy for the religious freedom of the Jewish parents, who were just as stupid and superstitious as their Catholic counterparts). And, finally, if (a utopian, atheistic) society is not willing to "kidnap" (as Dawkins put it of the Jewish boy) the children of theists of all stripes in order to spare them the abuse of being raised in religious families, why even raise the point that it is an injustice in the first place?

My guess is that it is a rhetorical device, and not a serious proposition. As such it may have some shock value; it may cause some to think more about the nature of religion and the importance of the question of the existence of god(s). This would be good inasmuch as this is a "big question" that fundamentally shapes a society, but that many people are probably content not to consider. Not that they don't have an opinion, it's just unexamined. OTOH, it can be very bad inasmuch as people who aren't too bright start to parrot Dawkins (probably misunderstanding him) and campaign for Social Services to prosecute religious parents for child abuse and take children out of such homes. (Not the least of the issues is where to put them, who would raise them, and who would pay for raising them; and this is before we even get into the severe cruelty of such a thing, especially in the eyes of a young child who knows nothing of philosophy or theology and just wants his or her mommy and daddy.)

I realize that is rambly. I teach for a living; I basically get paid to ramble. Thanks for your patience. For now, I shall relent!

Hi,

I skipped the part about elves. That's more relevant to theists because they believe in elves, God, pixies, angels, fairies, demons, etc. Atheists don't believe in these things.

I am best able to answer your question. I've been an altar boy since I was 5. I sang in the choir since I was 6 and I have been singing the Magnificat and the Nunc Dimittis EVERYDAY at Evensong until last Easter when I was pulled out together with some boys because we had reached that age when our voices would be unstable.

I was raised by parents who aren't fundies. That's the one thing you may not understand because you're an American and American Christians are mainly fundies. We (including my vicar and bishop) contextualize the religion. The Bible is a book that contains falsehoods, untruths and lies becuase it was written at a time when folks were generally untruthful. They had a huge agenda and they told stories to prove what they believed in rather than to tell the truth.

So you don't have to believe in rubbish just because you're a Christian. People think I'm an atheist but I'm not. I'm just an honest Christian. Ever heard of an altar boy who's an atheist? Of course not. I'm no more an atheist than the former Archbishop of York who questioned the existence of Jesus. At least I believe the man Jesus existed as a man and not as an Elf even though he was probably short.

I'm the right person to speak to if you want to know more about how we can be Christians without being silly.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know about that "without being silly" bit Gren....

[jacklegger]

While I suspect that this is a large amount of hyperbole ( I appreciate good hyperbole btw),

Yes, and glad to hear it. A good sense of humor goes a long way in this context I think. And not taking oneself too seriously.

[quote]
it isn't really relevant to atheism. Atheists just don't believe in gods, that's all there is to it.

I get it. I was making the point that most of the atheists (or apparent atheists) I've met didn't seem like the type who were capable of or interested in a serious, civil conversation on the topic of the existence of god(s).

and frankly I wouldn't argue that point. I would ask though, what experience one has had with elves, not as a way to prove or disprove anything, but to understand the basis for such a belief. And as such I don't think that all beliefs are equally reasonable to hold. For example, if one's experience of elves is limited to reading Tolkien and imagining them - which I love to do - I would posit that this is a less reasonable basis for believing they exist in our universe than say, praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

Sorry, gonna have to call bullshit on that. Don't take it personally.

Not at all, but which part are you calling bullshit? Basing belief on experience or the claim that my mother's tumor disappeared after prayer? That of course is something that could be "scientifically" verified. You may not believe me just because I said it happened; frankly I would be skeptical of someone else who said the same thing and I'm a believer in God and prayer. However, I assume you would agree that this is something that one could have evidence for. Like if you were the physician (who understood the ultrasound or whatever imaging technique was used), recognized the unmistakeable image of the tumor, and then re-imaged the patient a day or week or whatever later, and found no trace of the tumor. I'm not saying this would convince anyone that her prayer "worked" or that God exists, only that there was a tumor, and now there isn't. My point is that for my mom and others who have such experiences, the experience is strong (subjective) evidence for the existence of God.

BTW, this spontaneous regression is so common that it now has a name and people are seriously studying it. See the Wikipedia article. Here's a quote from it: " In a carefully designed study on mammography it was found that 22% of all breast cancer cases underwent spontaneous regression." (There is a reference for that stat, which refers to a peer-reviewed medical journal.)

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying this is evidence for anything other than that this kind of thing happens sometimes (not usually, but often enough to be recognized as "real".) I suspect most doctors and scientists don't try to hypothesize how or why, since there is likely no known physical mechanism by which it could be explained. Of course ignorance is no threat to science or naturalism, etc. Quite the contrary, it is its raison d'etre.

So maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but if you say, "bullshit that could never happen", I would reply, "sure it can, and does".

But of course that is the question in the first place (does God exist)

Not yours, no.

Actually it is. I'm here because TGD challenged my thinking sufficiently to reexamine the question. I am coming at it from the theist side (as opposed to the first time I came at it, which was from the atheist side), but I am coming at it, and taking it seriously.

[qoute]

, and without settling it with certainty (not just some vague probability - how is the probability of God's existence calculated, exactly?), forcing children to be raised by an atheist state is no different than the (apparently powerful and poised to take over the country) American Christian fundamentalists forcing their religion on the kids of atheist parents.

Except in that tiny little detail of peddling superstition as fact capable of influencing public policy....no...no different.

Well, atheism is not superstition, I guess technically it's not anything positive at all, only the denial of theism. But atheists generally do have positive philosophies (naturalism, materialism, humanism, pick-an-ism.; "get your -isms here!" ) about the nature of the universe and our place in it, and they certainly influence public policy. Your statement is assuming that atheism is true and theism is false. If that is the case, I agree with you. However, for those who consider this an open question and a personal decision, then I don't see the difference. It's forcing one's personal views on others either way.

And though this is really a side issue, it elicits the further question of who is going to decide what is best for children, if not their parents?

A tough issue, we have many cases where parents are not deemed fit to decide in the best interests of their children. Is religion one of those? In my honest opinion, depends on the religion.

Agreed. Some parents certainly are not fit. As a parent though, I would want my government to err on the side of giving parents the benefit of the doubt when the call is close, which I think the U.S. government currently does, more or less. I think the logical implications of Dawkins' suggestion of somehow prohibiting parents from raising children in a religious context go way past that though, into tyranny. I mean why not just go the whole way and do the Brave New World thing? Would be more efficient to just take reproduction out of the hands of people altogether. Just harvest some eggs from willing (or not) women and genetically engineer the citizens needed for the ideal society. Screw the parents. (More hyperbole there. )

Dawkins' greatest and most passionate objection to this (rightly so, IMO) was that the boy was taken from his parents, which was a cause of great trauma and suffering to them all. (He of course had no sympathy for the religious freedom of the Jewish parents, who were just as stupid and superstitious as their Catholic counterparts). And, finally, if (a utopian, atheistic) society is not willing to "kidnap" (as Dawkins put it of the Jewish boy) the children of theists of all stripes in order to spare them the abuse of being raised in religious families, why even raise the point that it is an injustice in the first place?

So that said religious shit-wits might reconsider whether or not it;'s a good idea to indoctrinate their children.

Roight. That's what I meant by saying it was a rhetorical device. But that also opens the door for atheist shit-wits to storm the houses of religious families (at least metaphorically/politically, if not literally) and demand the kids be liberated. I can imagine that some of them think The Brave New World sounds pretty good, and wouldn't consider it hyperbole.

... the severe cruelty of such a thing, especially in the eyes of a young child who knows nothing of philosophy or theology and just wants his or her mommy and daddy.)

Unfortunately Mommy and Daddy aren't always good people.

True, but who is going to be the judge? You? I sure wouldn't want that job, and as I said, if someone's going to judge me as a father, they better have a damn good reason to take my babies away from me if they try. Really, even if God is a terrible evil forced on weak-minded children, is it worse than taking kids away from their parents? Certainly and in every case?

What do you teach?

Math. e^i*pi + 1 = 0, therefore God exists. Q.E.Dizzle! (Joking of course!!!)

[greneknight]

I don't know about that "without being silly" bit Gren....

Simple. Just show me a SINGLE belief of mine that is silly. I am a Christian but I haven't got a single silly belief that's comparable to a belief in fairies, elves and pixies.

[pocaracas]

praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

It's amazing how god never ever is recorded history managed to grow arms and legs of people that prayed for it, but can switch your body to eliminate a foreign substance, as it's supposed to do. Our bodies kill defective cells every day, they just become out of hand when we lose that ability or the defect masks itself very well... Doctors don't understand well all the nuances in cancer... they just know statistics and try to group cancers in a way they can categorize them... but there's still so much to learn.
That's where the famous "god of the gaps" steps in. Doctors, the scientific experts in the field, are incapable of treating, but the problem gets fixed, hence god.

On the other hand, taking it from stimbo, why "hence god"?, why not "hence Gandalf"? or "hence allah", or "hence galadriel"?

Sorry, didn't read anything past this sentence...

[Minimalist]

He of course had no sympathy for the religious freedom of the Jewish parents, who were just as stupid and superstitious as their Catholic counterparts).

A fact throughout history....and you should see some of the fundie assholes we have here in the US.

[greneknight]

praying to God for healing from uterine cancer and having an apple-sized tumor "spontaneously disappear" overnight, confirmed by medical imaging by a non-religious physician (which happened to my mother, FWIW) is a basis for believing in God.

It's amazing how god never ever is recorded history managed to grow arms and legs of people that prayed for it, but can switch your body to eliminate a foreign substance, as it's supposed to do. Our bodies kill defective cells every day, they just become out of hand when we lose that ability or the defect masks itself very well... Doctors don't understand well all the nuances in cancer... they just know statistics and try to group cancers in a way they can categorize them... but there's still so much to learn.
That's where the famous "god of the gaps" steps in. Doctors, the scientific experts in the field, are incapable of treating, but the problem gets fixed, hence god.

On the other hand, taking it from stimbo, why "hence god"?, why not "hence Gandalf"? or "hence allah", or "hence galadriel"?

Sorry, didn't read anything past this sentence...

Don't be silly. Of course God can't grow an amputated limb. That's something humans and nature can't do. Don't you see? We attribute to God things which happen naturally or which are done by doctors because God is a metaphor for goodness. When I narrowly miss getting knocked down by a lorry, I say "Thank God I'm safe" not because a God being saved me but it's just a figure of speech. To believe a God being like Superman swooping down to save me would be lunacy!

Of course not all Christians are enlightened and many are superstitious and sound a bit off but they'll get there in time.