Wife wants sprog Christened - I don't.

[VeeDubBigBird]

Been in a similar position to the OP when my son was born. Less than five minutes after he popped out, the missus decided she would try to coerce me into change his name to something I had previously said was a definite 'no'. My response was sure go ahead name him that, but both him and you won't be sharing my surname. She quickly backed down.

It really depends on how strongly you feel about it. and how much it might affect your relationship with your O/H and sprog in the future.

[BoRED S2upid]

Find the right person to do it say you don't want it heavy in religion more of a blessing for a healthy child being born 15 mins and your done then have a party.

We had this for little BS2 I'm not very religious as far as I get is that the 10 commandments or at least a few have some worth.

[xRIEx]

Jaroon said:

Science has proved lots of things to be true that have turned out not to be true

Any examples, out of interest?

I'm of the belief that you don't understand the meaning of the scientific method, evidence, 'proof' and theories.

"As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired."

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[23][26] A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.[27]"

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 27th June 08:07

[0000]

I'm not religious. My wife's not really religious (she'll say she is if someone asks, but if they ask if she believes in God she'll say no pretty adamantly). We chose not to christen our son (less than 2 years old for a little longer) on the basis that he would still have the option.

Three of his grandparents haven't commented on this. One, you can guess which, has produced such gems as saying he doesn't have an identity as a result. Of course, she'll only say these things to my wife when I'm not in earshot.

[prg123]

I was a selfish sod before we had kids, and was very apprehensive before my children were born. But the first time I saw my babies being born it was truly instance love.

Of course it is bloody hard work in the first six months or so and you constantly worry about them. But seeing them start to grow and do the first things (first tooth, first dada/muma, first crawl first tentative walk) it is the best thing in the world.

With regards to christening I had the exact same argument with my wife & we didn't go through with it because I felt it wasn't right to go through with it because we are both not religious so it has no real meaning to us.

- Pete

Edited by prg123 on Friday 27th June 08:10

[TwigtheWonderkid]

xRIEx said:

Jaroon said:

Science has proved lots of things to be true that have turned out not to be true

I'm of the belief that you don't understand the meaning of the scientific method, evidence, 'proof' and theories.

I share your belief.

[226bhp]

prg123 said:

I was a selfish sod before we had kids

In some respects and on a global scale I think you'll find you got that the wrong way round, you were being selfless, then decided to be selfish.
But that's a different topic altogether......

[Jaroon]

xRIEx said:

Any examples, out of interest?

I'm of the belief that you don't understand the meaning of the scientific method, evidence, 'proof' and theories.

"As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired."

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[23][26] A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.[27]"

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 27th June 08:07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientif...

http://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-sci...

These are the kind of examples I'm getting at but may not fit your criteria, where are your quotes from btw.

Anyway I've side tracked the thread enough with, I hope, a decent little dicussion but finally would would agree science is a belief system?

''Science can never be more than an affirmation of certain things we believe in. These beliefs must be adopted responsibly, with due consideration of the evidence and with a view to universal validity. But eventually they are ultimate commitments, issued under the seal of our personal judgment. At some point we shall find ourselves with no other answer to queries than to say “because I believe so.”
Michael Polanyi, Scientific Beliefs, Ethics, 61 (1)Oct. 1950, 27-37

This would echo my views.

I would say ones beliefs are much affected by their parents, education, where they were born etc. If you change these parameters you may well have a different set of beliefs which shouldn't automatically make them risible imo.

Edited by Jaroon on Friday 27th June 11:30

[walm]

The fundamental difference between the scientific method and religion is faith.

When faced with uncomfortable internal inconsistencies within most modern religions, acolytes are forced to fall back on faith (some sort of "greater plan" we mere mortals can never hope to understand etc...).

That simply isn't the case with science.

[Kermit power]

Jaroon said:

I send my lad to a C of E school and as a lapsed Catholic and agnostic I have no problem with the level of indoctrination directed at him as I feel the Christian values, the important part for me, out weigh any potential damage or confusion the school might cause.

I now want to punch you, I'm afraid. I feel the desire to punch anyone who uses the term "Christian Values". Where the hell does any religion get off trying to appropriate decent behaviour as something exclusive to its followers?

I know you don't necessarily mean that, but it just says everything about the smug self-satisfaction of the church.

[Jaroon]

Kermit power said:

I now want to punch you, I'm afraid. I feel the desire to punch anyone who uses the term "Christian Values". Where the hell does any religion get off trying to appropriate decent behaviour as something exclusive to its followers?

I know you don't necessarily mean that, but it just says everything about the smug self-satisfaction of the church.

Violence is never the answer brother but I forgive you. Joking of course I'm not religious at all but the school does promote er (panic) good moral standards in the context of religious teaching, not exclusively, play ground conduct and meal time conduct etc. have their own set of rules.

I am not a active Christian but the term "Christian values" (sorry) does not get me swivel eyed, it may be your problem rather than religions, which is an entirely man made construct it must be remembered.

[xRIEx]

Jaroon said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific...

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientif...

http://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-sci...

These are the kind of examples I'm getting at but may not fit your criteria, where are your quotes from btw.

Anyway I've side tracked the thread enough with, I hope, a decent little dicussion but finally would would agree science is a belief system?

''Science can never be more than an affirmation of certain things we believe in. These beliefs must be adopted responsibly, with due consideration of the evidence and with a view to universal validity. But eventually they are ultimate commitments, issued under the seal of our personal judgment. At some point we shall find ourselves with no other answer to queries than to say “because I believe so.”
Michael Polanyi, Scientific Beliefs, Ethics, 61 (1)Oct. 1950, 27-37

This would echo my views.

I would say ones beliefs are much affected by their parents, education, where they were born etc. If you change these parameters you may well have a different set of beliefs which shouldn't automatically make them risible imo.

Edited by Jaroon on Friday 27th June 11:30

The issue is describing a scientific theory as 'proof' - none of those 'disproven' theories were ever proven; the Wiki article title is 'Superceded...'. A theory is a body of observations, data, evidence, laws, etc. that allow us to make predictions - the stronger the theory, the more accurate the predictions.

As per one of the links above about Mercury's anomalous behaviour, this was due to it not conforming to Newtonian Mechanics, but it is explained by Special Relativity. That doesn't even mean that we throw away Newton's theories, because that theory/theories are sufficient for many cases.

Science doesn't claim to 'prove' anything; the only undeniable proof is found in Mathematical theories.

[walm]

xRIEx said:

As per one of the links above about Mercury's anomalous behaviour, this was due to it not conforming to Newtonian Mechanics, but it is explained by Special Relativity. That doesn't even mean that we throw away Newton's theories, because that theory/theories are sufficient for many cases.

General not Special.
Usually Special Relativity (SR) is concerned with stuff moving really fast and General is to do with gravity.
In fact, evidence for SR helped back up much of Newtonian mechanics because when you are moving very slowly relative to C (i.e. most of the time, particularly when driving or playing billiards etc...) Newton's formulae are the same as SR formulae.

[xRIEx]

walm said:

xRIEx said:

As per one of the links above about Mercury's anomalous behaviour, this was due to it not conforming to Newtonian Mechanics, but it is explained by Special Relativity. That doesn't even mean that we throw away Newton's theories, because that theory/theories are sufficient for many cases.

General not Special.
Usually Special Relativity (SR) is concerned with stuff moving really fast and General is to do with gravity.
In fact, evidence for SR helped back up much of Newtonian mechanics because when you are moving very slowly relative to C (i.e. most of the time, particularly when driving or playing billiards etc...) Newton's formulae are the same as SR formulae.

Aye, I couldn't remember which so took a stab at it