Print
Atheists: stand up and be counted
by Adam Rutherford, Guardian
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/adam_rutherford/2007/06/atheists_stand_up_and_be_counted.html
Our children are being force-fed government endorsed religious dogma, and we have to launch a counter-offensive.
Recently on these very pages, Theo Hobson called me pretentious and cowardly. It was not directed personally, but to all atheists, and particularly to those he describes as "militant".
One of those so-called "militants", AC Grayling, dealt quite adequately with Hobson's muddled and unnecessarily straw-clutching logic, and I need not add to Grayling's reply or the staggering 971 responses that the original comment generated.
But Hobson's rhetoric exemplifies a cultural position of mistrust towards atheism, that this default and rational position has negative connotations, associated with amorality and pessimism. This, of course, is nonsense. Wanting to live a life free of superstition is not cowardly, but increasingly brave under the government's burgeoning endorsement of faith. Realism is inherent in atheism, in contrast to the false promises of life eternal, and if morality simply follows a divine command, it is not moral at all.
Mercifully, although many of our politicians may be openly religious, Britain's political landscape is such that candidates do not have to be overtly religious to even stand a chance of election. There is even a cross-party Humanist Group. Compare that to the US, where in 2006 atheists were not represented in Congress at all. Perversely, the US has secularity protected by the constitution, whereas we Brits are subjects of the Defender of the Faith. But as Andrew Copson pointed out, the UK is moving at a menacingly creeping pace towards a government that is in thrall to religion.
The indoctrination that occurs at the ever-increasing faith schools can only promote the mistrust of atheists, and move us towards the deplorable situation in North America, where a 2006 survey revealed that atheists rank lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society'."
I recently gave a talk to science students at a secondary school about the risible promotion of intelligent design and creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution in science lessons. One of my biggest worries before delivering this lecture was not the validity of my arguments, or whether I might offend any of the faithful, but is a bunch of 17-year-olds really going to give a shit?
I was pleased and relieved to find that they did. In conversation with some of them afterwards, they revealed that creationism was indeed a topic in science and religion classes, and the (admittedly self-selecting) audience was largely opposed not only to ID, but also all forms of Biblical literalism. I made a point of asking students what they think of Richard Dawkins, and to my horror, the vast majority had not heard of him.
Now, I support Richard Dawkins in his words and his manner, which while forthright, is also polite and thoughtful, as this video of him chatting to the Bishop of Oxford shows. It is a very rare occasion for me to disagree with anything he says. But it is shocking to think that in schools atheism's most vocal defender is unknown. I can only assume that Professor Grayling and Christopher Hitchens are similarly unheard of. While this debate bats back and forth in the pages of Comment is free and in the grand halls of the Royal Society, schoolchildren are being fed government-endorsed indoctrination into religion, and conversely are not exposed to the intellectual freedom that is inherent in atheism.
I call upon atheists everywhere to stand up and be counted. Take pride in being rational. I'm a humanist and a Darwinist, but not all atheists are. There is a positive message in atheism, which is that it is a position of intellectual curiosity, and our children should not be subjected to the bullying negativity of faith schools towards the atheist. I live a full and moral life. It is untroubled by fear or deference of supernature, and I am proud of that.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/adam_rutherford/2007/06/atheists_stand_up_and_be_counted.html
Our children are being force-fed government endorsed religious dogma, and we have to launch a counter-offensive.Recently on these very pages, Theo Hobson called me pretentious and cowardly. It was not directed personally, but to all atheists, and particularly to those he describes as "militant".
One of those so-called "militants", AC Grayling, dealt quite adequately with Hobson's muddled and unnecessarily straw-clutching logic, and I need not add to Grayling's reply or the staggering 971 responses that the original comment generated.
But Hobson's rhetoric exemplifies a cultural position of mistrust towards atheism, that this default and rational position has negative connotations, associated with amorality and pessimism. This, of course, is nonsense. Wanting to live a life free of superstition is not cowardly, but increasingly brave under the government's burgeoning endorsement of faith. Realism is inherent in atheism, in contrast to the false promises of life eternal, and if morality simply follows a divine command, it is not moral at all.
Mercifully, although many of our politicians may be openly religious, Britain's political landscape is such that candidates do not have to be overtly religious to even stand a chance of election. There is even a cross-party Humanist Group. Compare that to the US, where in 2006 atheists were not represented in Congress at all. Perversely, the US has secularity protected by the constitution, whereas we Brits are subjects of the Defender of the Faith. But as Andrew Copson pointed out, the UK is moving at a menacingly creeping pace towards a government that is in thrall to religion.
The indoctrination that occurs at the ever-increasing faith schools can only promote the mistrust of atheists, and move us towards the deplorable situation in North America, where a 2006 survey revealed that atheists rank lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society'."
I recently gave a talk to science students at a secondary school about the risible promotion of intelligent design and creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution in science lessons. One of my biggest worries before delivering this lecture was not the validity of my arguments, or whether I might offend any of the faithful, but is a bunch of 17-year-olds really going to give a shit?
I was pleased and relieved to find that they did. In conversation with some of them afterwards, they revealed that creationism was indeed a topic in science and religion classes, and the (admittedly self-selecting) audience was largely opposed not only to ID, but also all forms of Biblical literalism. I made a point of asking students what they think of Richard Dawkins, and to my horror, the vast majority had not heard of him.
Now, I support Richard Dawkins in his words and his manner, which while forthright, is also polite and thoughtful, as this video of him chatting to the Bishop of Oxford shows. It is a very rare occasion for me to disagree with anything he says. But it is shocking to think that in schools atheism's most vocal defender is unknown. I can only assume that Professor Grayling and Christopher Hitchens are similarly unheard of. While this debate bats back and forth in the pages of Comment is free and in the grand halls of the Royal Society, schoolchildren are being fed government-endorsed indoctrination into religion, and conversely are not exposed to the intellectual freedom that is inherent in atheism.
I call upon atheists everywhere to stand up and be counted. Take pride in being rational. I'm a humanist and a Darwinist, but not all atheists are. There is a positive message in atheism, which is that it is a position of intellectual curiosity, and our children should not be subjected to the bullying negativity of faith schools towards the atheist. I live a full and moral life. It is untroubled by fear or deference of supernature, and I am proud of that.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 86 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #50487 by Diplo on June 18, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I will repost my comment I made on the Guardian site (which is in the form of a reply to another comment):ernoleadpencil said (in comment 644869):
"Religion is a metaphor. Why are you so scared of it? Do other, smaller metaphors like the tooth fairy and Father Christmas gove you the willies? Would that be 'rational'? Are you perhaps somewhere on the autistic spectrum?"
Religion isn't a metaphor, it's a collection of irrational ideologies that revolve around mainly bronze-age conceptions of the universe and morality. When suicidal fanatics blow themselves up on buses they are not engaging in light-hearted linguistic debate. When the Pope tells Catholics to stop supporting human rights organisations and propagates irrational advise that leads to the spread of AIDS across Africa then he isn't simply engaging in wordplay. When Zionist settlers grab land and provoke conflict we are no longer witnessing discourse but a conflict.
The trouble with what you say is that people who engage with the "metaphor" of the Tooth Fairy tend not to crash packed jet planes into skyscrapers. When children finally figure out that Father Christmas doesn't exist, and say so, you wouldn't expect them to be sentenced to death for apostasy.
Religion is, and never has been, a personal belief or set of convictions. It's something that permeates through the whole of society - as Hitchens observes, it "poisons everything". You only have to turn on the news, any day at any time, and see the first hand results of religious ideas being put into practice. Whether it be terrorism, wars or simply a bunch of people in frocks telling people what they can (and cannot)think, say and do.
Believe me, atheists do not want to be vocal. In any rational world there would be no such concept as atheism. However, until the day comes when the religious are no longer able to impose their dogmatic superstitions on the world, then atheists will stand up. We will no longer be silenced by undue deference to fairy tales. We will no longer keep quiet when you try and indoctrinate our children, censor our speech, interfere with our sex lives and subjugate our women.
Other Comments by Diplo
3. Comment #50491 by konquererz on June 18, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I love the article, but the premise saddens me. I think it also points out the reason that atheists don't speak out more. We see what should be obvious. The atheist position shouldn't need to be defended. Its going to take a large portion of us realizing that religion must be stood up against, and our voices heard or we will get steam rolled.Yes, we are in the right. And yes, atheism is the default position for every rational thinking person. But we aren't dealing with rational people. We are dealing with fundamentalists who believe first and ask questions never. In order to "break the spell" of religion, we will have to push, pull, fight, scratch, and bite until we can be looked at like every other free human being.
The attitude that Christians have in America towards atheists is down right criminal. Most Christians think we are a religion and have a solid set of beliefs. Beliefs in "not god" so to speak. I fight this tooth and nail no matter where I am, what forum I'm on, or what person I'm talking to. It must be so! Any other way will not lead to equality and acceptance of how we believe. And no other way will pry open the eyes of the blind.
Other Comments by konquererz
4. Comment #50495 by scottishgeologist on June 18, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Diplo points out: "You only have to turn on the news, any day at any time, and see the first hand results of religious ideas being put into practice"Exactly. Good point, well put. There is almost an unbroken band of religious lunacy from Gaza right the way to Pakistan of nutjobs killing each other in the name of religion. Absolutist "I'm right - you are wrong" BS
And then you've got the born again, dominionist, evangie cheer leaders in the West interfering in it, cheering it on and virtually coming in their pants at the expectation of the Messiah's return REAL SOON NOW as Microsoft would put it.
And now weve got this BS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6763119.stm
Because Rushdie got a knighthood.
The Endarkenment moves relentlessly on...
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
5. Comment #50496 by blueollie on June 18, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Compare that to the US, where in 2006 atheists were not represented in Congress at all.
Strictly speaking, this isn't true. There is a congressman from California (Pete Stark) who openly doesn't believe in a personal god:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/17/BAGFRONAJD6.DTL
(true, he attends a Unitarian church)
Other Comments by blueollie
6. Comment #50497 by NJS on June 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm
"You only have to turn on the news, any day at any time, and see the first hand results of religious ideas being put into practice"Along with my despair at the stupidity of the case in the UK last week with the honour killing I also felt angry that not one of the several news reports I watched and read mentioned the "religion of peace".
I know they will say its cultrural but I've read of honour killings involving people who originate from countries stretching from Turkey to Indonesia - the common thread is obvious - why don't they speak its name?
Other Comments by NJS
7. Comment #50500 by PHackett on June 18, 2007 at 1:06 pm
"the UK is moving at a menacingly creeping pace towards a government that is in thrall to religion."Is this really so? Despite Tony Blair's religious leanings, they told the Catholic church to take a hike over adoption by gays.
Yes - Be on the lookout - But in thrall of religion - I'm not sure.
Other Comments by PHackett
8. Comment #50501 by NJS on June 18, 2007 at 1:09 pm
"they told the Catholic church to take a hike over adoption by gays."No they allowed a period for "consultation" which means they'll bury the climbdown in a bad newsdaay
Other Comments by NJS
9. Comment #50507 by Steven Mading on June 18, 2007 at 1:35 pm
5. Comment #50496 by blueollie on June 18, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Compare that to the US, where in 2006 atheists were not represented in Congress at all.
Strictly speaking, this isn't true. There is a congressman from California (Pete Stark) who openly doesn't believe in a personal god:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/17/BAGFRONAJD6.DTL
The stat was for 2006. Pete Start didn't publicly declare his freethinker status (he's a bit unclear if he's agnostic, atheist, or something inbetween) until 2007. The stat was true at the time it was published.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
10. Comment #50514 by maton100 on June 18, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Don't tell Michael Behe, whatever you do.http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com
Other Comments by maton100
11. Comment #50523 by blueollie on June 18, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Steven, thanks for the clarification! ;-)Other Comments by blueollie
12. Comment #50527 by Miri on June 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I call upon atheists everywhere to stand up and be counted. Take pride in being rational. I'm a humanist and a Darwinist, but not all atheists are. There is a positive message in atheism, which is that it is a position of intellectual curiosity, and our children should not be subjected to the bullying negativity of faith schools towards the atheist. I live a full and moral life. It is untroubled by fear or deference of supernature, and I am proud of that.
I don't think it is that we are not proud of what we believe (I am proud indeed) - it is just that we are sensitive to the idea of offending the beliefs of others. This, of course, makes the claim that we are amoral and pessimistic all the more ironic and undeserved.
Other Comments by Miri
13. Comment #50529 by pkmusic on June 18, 2007 at 3:36 pm
This article speaks the truth, but the question really is: Where do we start? I think we all sit around and think about how screwed up the world is with religious people in power and want to do something about it. It's a matter of not knowing what to do.I like the "Stand-Out Campaign" idea from Richard Dawkins with the Scarlet Letter shirts, but there has to be something more than just wearing shirts. Any brainstorming?
Other Comments by pkmusic
14. Comment #50530 by TIKI AL on June 18, 2007 at 3:40 pm
One of the problems we have here in the states is that an atheist is still equated by the godbots as also being a communist, which is a leftover from the cold war.The Knights of Columbus helped promote national religion by having "under god" inserted in the pledge in the 50's.
It's going to take a long educational process to stop the brainwashing.
Other Comments by TIKI AL
15. Comment #50532 by Naturalist1 on June 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Re:Comment #2:Diplo...Thank you Diplo...could not have said it better myself!I only wish some of the American Christo..Fascist Nazis would read some of the wonderful points made on this website.
Other Comments by Naturalist1
16. Comment #50533 by GordonHide on June 18, 2007 at 3:43 pm
It may be that this government's current love affair with the religious is partly fueled by it's concern for the perceived lack of morality and aimlessness amongst some of the young. I'm just afraid that we will have to wait until the government realises it's mistake. But don't hold your breath.Other Comments by GordonHide
17. Comment #50534 by Richard Morgan on June 18, 2007 at 3:51 pm
MIRI:Many years ago, during my personal Dark Ages when I was a mormon, there was considerable concern in the church at a certain time with the problems of reverence (or lack of) during the service. Usually harassed mothers unable to control masses of lively toddlers who saw no interest in being reverently silent.
People in charge were reluctant to adress the problem openly for fear ofoffending the noise-makers.
Then the directive came down from on high : "Don't worry about offending those who are irreverent during the service, because they have already offended everybody else by their lack of reverence."
In other words : "Go get the noisy sods!"
Yeah. Why not?
I mean, we don't actually slit the throats of theists do we?
Do we?
Well, I don't.
Also, it's important to be precise in our use of language : we can't offend "beliefs", we can only offend people. There's an important difference.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
18. Comment #50541 by lostpoet on June 18, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I call upon atheists everywhere to stand up and be counted.
Sigh...so often this phrase is a mere nod to motivational rhetoric. But I'm game. Here is what I pledge to do. I will continuously press politicians and other public people for "verifiable evidence" to support their claims to knowing, having a personal relationship with and/or communicating with supernatural beings they call "god." I really don't care what kind of rubbish people personally believe. However, when they openly state their superstitious rubbish for public consumption and approval, they're fair game.
Time to press the attack. Make them prove their statements. If they "communicate" with supernatural beings, demand that they show verifiable proof -- keep demanding it loudly...until they shut their faces in disgrace.
Other Comments by lostpoet
19. Comment #50551 by Russell Blackford on June 18, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I love Diplo's letter.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
20. Comment #50552 by mithraman on June 18, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Well, christians have their thousands of churches where they can go stand up (or kneel down) and be counted. Where are atheists supposed to go? What atheists need is a church of some sort. And to do that, we need to have a god. I know that seems to be going against atheist principles, but it can just be a little god. Just for tax purposes really. I think this would be a good compromise. We get rid of the big powerful gods with their pestilence and stoning sinners and eternity in hell. And we have a tiny, ineffectual god who doesn't even care what we're doing. It wouldn't be strictly atheism, I know, but at least we'd have a church where we could stand up and be counted. Of course, there would be some troublemakers, I'm sure, who would doubt the existence of our wonderful mini-god. The blasphemers! Infidels!Other Comments by mithraman
21. Comment #50557 by BAEOZ on June 18, 2007 at 6:26 pm
And we have a tiny, ineffectual god who doesn't even care what we're doing
I nominate the Flying Spaghetti Monster! By far the tastier option. Now, if we can only wipe out the reformed tagliatelli sect and subdue the durum schism we could have one true Pastafarian church....
Other Comments by BAEOZ
22. Comment #50561 by crabsallover on June 18, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Scott says "Something should be done about this, if for no other reason than to point out that religion is a choice, not a default. I'm going to go see the Head-mistress about this, and I'll happily post the response. Anyone else want to commit to doing the same?"I for one. My twelve year old daughter attends my local Hampshire comprehensive school. Earlier this year the GSUS Live http://www.gsuslive.co.uk/ trailer came to 5 Dorset/Hampshire peddling their religious views. I'm in correspondence with the Head and am considering taking my daughter out of RE classes next term.
Other Comments by crabsallover
23. Comment #50562 by crabsallover on June 18, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Comment #50529 by pkmusic says "This article speaks the truth, but the question really is: Where do we start? I think we all sit around and think about how screwed up the world is with religious people in power and want to do something about it. It's a matter of not knowing what to do. I like the "Stand-Out Campaign" idea from Richard Dawkins with the Scarlet Letter shirts, but there has to be something more than just wearing shirts. Any brainstorming?"
If you are in Britain I suggest you join The British Humanist Association BHA http://www.humanism.org.uk
BHA has over 60 local groups and 6000 members. But needs loads more members to be a real influence!
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=369
Richard Dawkins is a BHA Vice President:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1160
Other Comments by crabsallover
24. Comment #50568 by monkey2 on June 18, 2007 at 7:42 pm
What can we do?How about an atheist candidate in the UK Parliamentary elections. It's not that expensive and it has, over the long term, been a successful tactic for the greens. Politicians nowadays all want to be 'greenier than thou'.
Other Comments by monkey2
25. Comment #50569 by MelM on June 18, 2007 at 7:42 pm
OTRe: Comic in U.S. 'hate speech' row (May 25, 2007)
I just posted a follow up comment (#45).
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1178,Comic-in-US-hate-speech-row,chortlecouk#50563
It concerns the response from Cohen and Wornick to my email to the Berkeley "Peace and Justice Commission". To complicate things further, I believe there was a problem with the Chortle article.
(I wonder if Condell will have something to say about the response to Salman Rushdie's knighthood.)
Other Comments by MelM
26. Comment #50574 by eccles on June 18, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Why should anyone, especially Atheists be afraid of offending the beliefs of the religious. Every time the religious say anything about Atheists it is in the most offensive manner. I don't give a shit what religious people think, as far I am concerned they do not possess the necessary intellectual equipment with which to think Other Comments by eccles
27. Comment #50576 by Zaphod on June 18, 2007 at 8:53 pm
To Diplo Fantastic comment Diplo.Great article by Adam Rutherford. AC Grayling and then Rutherford. Two good articles on the topic of atheism from the Guardian. They must be getting a nose bleed over there.
Other Comments by Zaphod
28. Comment #50595 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 2:58 am
monkey2 Comment #50568 on June 18, 2007 at 7:42 pmWhat can we do?
How about an atheist candidate in the UK Parliamentary elections. It's not that expensive and it has, over the long term, been a successful tactic for the greens. Politicians nowadays all want to be 'greenier than thou'.
Even then it's tough. A former renowned scientist in molecular biology, Ronald Plasterk, became Minister of Education here in Holland, and he made this transition sort of out of the blue. When he's in the news -especially when he just started-, he's addressed as "the atheist Minister" andsoforth by reporters. Annoingly, they say "atheist" in a way as if he's a nutter, like "we know he has brains, therefore it's so shocking he's an atheist!" or "how can we run a government if we have this atheist amongst us!". As if he is going to be the one that for sure will cause problems. They even asked prime-minister Balkenende whether it was such a good idea to have an "outspoken" (whatever that means) non-believer in Parliament. This is how mainstream media deals with atheists in Parliament here.
And this in a Parliament which is run by conservative Christians who are more and more pushing their religious agenda. I guess we still have a long way to go.....*sigh*
Other Comments by rokort
29. Comment #50597 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:03 am
As usual, why let facts get in the way of atheist rhetoric. I teach in a Catholic school and have taught in three others. Creationism or Intelligent Design has not been taught in any of them, and is not taught in any of them.Evolution is taught in all schools because it's on the National Curriculum so it has to be taught.
Just a little fact to be getting on with. As you were.
Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
30. Comment #50601 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am
If you want to presume that you reside in the high point of pure reason as many athiests do, then you must adhere to facts with, dare I say it, a religious fervour. The trouble with athiests when they discuss religion, is that they are seemingly unable to do this.Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
31. Comment #50604 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 4:18 am
fides_et_ratio, I think you must be on the wrong thread. You need to find the thread where atheists are demanding that evolution is taught as well as ID. It must be somewhere, but not here I'm afraid. Good luck with your search. Other Comments by AdrianB
32. Comment #50605 by Pi Guy on June 19, 2007 at 4:20 am
I used think that, if an argument simply makes sense, if the premises are sound, then everybody will just get it. That's the way I work, it makes sense, and I certainly don't have any sort of monopoly on common sense.Therein lies the problem, you see. The people with whom we tend to have this argument have already demonstrated the lack of capacity for reason by believing in the first place! By the time that we engage them - heck, by the time that they arrive in kindergarten! - it's way past too late. Now what? I have hope that we can prevail over time but I must admit that I think that it's going to be a tremendous challenge.
Personally, I like the recent straight-ahead tactics proposed by RD et al as I think that the only way to break people loose of the bonds is to continually remind the religious of how irrational and intolerant they are. We need to continually remind them that articles of faith are NOT TRUE statements and, subsequently, cannot form the premise of any valid argument. Beliefs do not constitute support for any position in a debate such as land ownership in the Middle East, stem cell research, homosexual couples marrying and raising families, or assessing the fitness of political candidates for office.
And if it offends or embarrasses the faithful to have that pointed out to them - and, for any rational person, the realization that they've been harboring a litany of ridiculously improbable, empirically unsupported beliefs should be a complete embarrassment - then that's their problem. Keep at it and hope that every once in a while you find someone who can think for themselves. I think that you will.
I choose to be counted.
Other Comments by Pi Guy
33. Comment #50606 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 4:24 am
Comment #50601 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am
If you want to presume that you reside in the high point of pure reason as many athiests do, then you must adhere to facts with, dare I say it, a religious fervour. The trouble with athiests when they discuss religion, is that they are seemingly unable to do this.
Have you ever read CH, RD, SH, etc, i wonder? What do you think they discuss, Asian cuisine?
Or do you mean that when an atheist discusses religion and doesn't accept without thinking that religion is based on something there's no real discussion? You are either "with us or against us" rethoric - is that what you prefer?
And what are the "facts" religious fervour? That there's a book of fairytales anyone could have written?
Other Comments by rokort
34. Comment #50609 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 4:48 am
Fides, I accept that ID has not yet made it on to the curriculum, though that is not for the want of trying. However, it is clear that religious teaching in some schools is treading a very fine line by claiming some kinship with science. For example, in my son's school the RE teacher makes the insinuation that advances in science may some day be able to explain god. This is a backdoor legitimising of religion by deliberately blurring the purpose of science. This was not the only time I have caught them in such evident trickery. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
35. Comment #50610 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 4:51 am
Comment #50601 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am
If you want to presume that you reside in the high point of pure reason as many athiests do, then you must adhere to facts with, dare I say it, a religious fervour. The trouble with athiests when they discuss religion, is that they are seemingly unable to do this.
Is it just me or does anyone find the above amusing. I think that mr Fides has had irony bypass surgery.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
36. Comment #50611 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 4:52 am
What can we do?The other day I opened the jewel case of a CD I had just bought, and out dropped a little piece of paper inviting me to buy the artist's t-shirt. It went straight in the bin. I don't like to advertise myself as being in some 'gang', never have and never will. I don't own t-shirts proclaiming my likes and dislikes, and I avoid clothing that shouts its brand whenever possible. I would hazard a guess that atheists are more akin to this way of thinking than average. We don't really want to form groups, it's against our nature. Besides some sort of quasi-atheist-religion is bound to get screwed up into some sort of cult, and we've already got scientology.
Trouble is, democracy doesn't work either if it can be manipulated to promote the prejudices of the majority as seems to be happening in the US. There is a high possibility that a European country will end up with Sharia Law when the muslim population becomes the majority, which will be in about 50 years given current birth rates.
The only thing we can do is nibble at it. Don't form groups necessarily, but make our numbers known. (The next census in the UK should be interesting; I have always stated my family to be COE even though none of us believe). Defend the separation of church and state is vitally important. Ridicule religion, and demand evidence. Ask that atheism be taught in RE lessons. Push for the abolishment of faith schools. (My children have a choice of 2 secondary schools, but my neighbours' children have a choice of 4, for the same taxes). Argue against the positive discrimination that the religious receive. There are plenty of small things, let's keep the debate going.
Other Comments by AdrianB
37. Comment #50618 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 5:32 am
33. Comment #50606 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 4:24 amI have read the above. I was talking specifically about the fact that creationsim isn't taught in the schools mentioned in the above article by an atheist, and that in all Catholic and CofE schools in this country evolution is taught. These facts are contrary to the claims of the article.
By refusing to engage in the facts that I have highlighted, you are using the same tactic of avoidance that Christopher Hitchins used this morning on Radio 4 when he was confronted with an equally unpalatable truth by his brother. I enjoy curiousity, truth-seeking, an enquiring mind, and debate. By ignoring simple matters of fact, a trait that you share with many religious people, you make the aforementioned noble pursuits an impossibility.
Comment #50610 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 4:51 am
The claim made by your child's RE teacher seems to be shared by Richard Dawkins, as evidenced by his refusal to adopt the title of athiest for himself. Presumably because he can't discount the fact with complete certainty that at some time in the future the existence of God will not be proved empirically.
Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
38. Comment #50622 by monkey2 on June 19, 2007 at 6:00 am
Thank you Rokort for comenting on my suggestion of a UK Parliamentary Candidate. The title of the post was Atheists - Stand up and be Counted. That sounds to me like a call to do something practical. Adam Rutherford refers to the Government, politicians and their religous beliefs. Am I the only one who could hear him shouting "for Gods sake give me an atheist to vote for" ?
As parents, Atheists can lobby the head teachers, but it is the politicians who ultimately have the power to define the school curriculum. We can petition them to get rid of Faith Schools but if they take their religous beliefs into parliament, quietly hidden in their back pockets, what hope is there for them to vote rationally.
Other Comments by monkey2
39. Comment #50624 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:08 am
I'd like to try to reply to fides_et_ratio, because he/she feels that no one has properly addressed his/her comment.Vis [to use a space-saving Greg Eganism] comment #50597 was:
As usual, why let facts get in the way of atheist rhetoric. I teach in a Catholic school and have taught in three others. Creationism or Intelligent Design has not been taught in any of them, and is not taught in any of them.
Evolution is taught in all schools because it's on the National Curriculum so it has to be taught.
and the "atheist rhetoric" being referred to was the following bit in the main article, I think:
In conversation with some of them afterwards, they revealed that creationism was indeed a topic in science and religion classes
If this is the case, then my response is that I look at the possible situations this way:
1) It must mean *something* for a school to be labelled as "Catholic", otherwise the label means nothing
2) Catholic schools must, therefore, incorporate something of their theology in the nebulous idea of "ethos", and they would, I expect (and half-know because I know someone who teaches physics in a Catholic school) require pupils to attend Mass.
3) Catholic Mass involves the assumption of processes that cannot be explained or even measured with the techniques of physics. But they are said to occur nonetheless. Hence: pupils are being told things that are incompatible with the other things that they are being told.
4) Even if they are not taught that god made the cosmos in 6 days, they have to believe, as Catholics, that a human being, the first human, called Adam, performed some actions that lead to all humans being unable to behave nicely. Evolution teaching indicates that there were no "first humans", and so once again we have contradiction.
I've only picked on Mass because it points out the contradictions nicely, I think.
Perhaps the article was being unclear about what "creationism" means. Is it the 6 days stuff, or the involvement of god, per se? Either way, religious education must involve "god made the universe" and science classes in a Catholic school must contain the assumption that there is a god that "makes things go". Even if it is not stated dogmatically.
In a way (sorry, rambling again), I kind of prefer the dogmatic stuff - it is easier to point at for laughter purposes - rather than the insidious creep of theistic assumptions that, I really do believe, infuse and infect almost everything these days.
Other Comments by Sargeist
40. Comment #50625 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 6:12 am
Okay, fides_et_ratio, fair enough, point well taken. Let me focus on what you have to say about the article then. Which is:As usual, why let facts get in the way of atheist rhetoric. I teach in a Catholic school and have taught in three others. Creationism or Intelligent Design has not been taught in any of them, and is not taught in any of them.
Evolution is taught in all schools because it's on the National Curriculum so it has to be taught.
Just a little fact to be getting on with. As you were.
plus
I have read the above. I was talking specifically about the fact that creationsim isn't taught in the schools mentioned in the above article by an atheist, and that in all Catholic and CofE schools in this country evolution is taught. These facts are contrary to the claims of the article.
So Adam Rutherford seems to use his experience as having been in one school as evidence for pushing ID into science and religion class. You use the absence of such in 4 schools as evidence that he exaggerates or is overstating (i guess).
Neither his nor your experience makes it statistically significant to say something about Evolution and/or Creationism being taught in other places, strictly speaking.
However, what he might have meant by addressing that there are schools that teach Creationsm/ID that such is already bad enough, for the simple reason it doesn't belong in Science class.
Furthermore, we know this whole ID-thing and Creationism is a recently pushed idea, so i could argue that perhaps at the schools you've taught this wasn't incorporated into the curriculum yet.
And Evolutiuon is not only taught because it has to, but because it's a perfectly logic and so far the best scientific way to explain life on our planet. And when we want our kids to learn how to deal with life, they at least need to know what it is and how it came about. Which has nothing to do with how it all started by the way. So Evolution and Creationism are not really comparable, and even far from having to be considered equal.
Other Comments by rokort
41. Comment #50627 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 6:31 am
Isn't the real point that Rutherford doesn't actually make the claim that ID is being pushed in schools, nor specifically Catholic schools. Yet Fides seems to imply that he does, and attacks atheists for ignoring facts. Other Comments by AdrianB
42. Comment #50629 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:35 am
I'd also like to ask fides_et_ratio to enlighten me as to what Christopher Hitchens couldn't respond to on Radio 4. I didn't hear it. Other Comments by Sargeist
43. Comment #50633 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:45 am
AdrianB:In fides' comment, he was saying that he has taught in several Catholic schools and that they did not teach Creationism. Much as I find that hard to accept (and my comment was meant to point out that I think that one cannot meaningfully have a "faith school" without that religion's supernatural stuff coming in and pooing all over our children), I don't really think that fides was saying that *all* schools are teaching ID/creationism, or even implying that.
If anything, he/she was saying that *we* are saying that *they* are saying it, and they're not. Or something.
Other Comments by Sargeist
44. Comment #50634 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 6:59 am
39. Comment #50624 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:08 amFirstly, science in Catholic schools (I refer specifically to them because I know about them), is taught in the same way as non-faith schools. You don't refer to any specific in the Mass which conflicts with science so I'll leave that. Your reference to Adam shows a normal lack of knowledge and understanding of the Bible and Christian teaching, by those who quote it on this forum. The eteymology of the word Adam points to it being a word that describes mankind, not a man. As the bible is a translation when in english, it is important to fully understand the words that one quotes.
Comment #50627 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 6:31 am
Secondly, then why is it mentioned in an article with the sub-heading, 'Our children are being force-fed government endorsed religious dogma, and we have to launch a counter-offensive.'
Comment #50629 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:35 am
Hopefully, it'll be posted on here later. It involved Peter Hitchins pointing out the nonsense in Christopher's persistent 'challenge' to people of faith.
43. Comment #50633 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 6:45 am
I think this may have been dealt with.
Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
45. Comment #50636 by monkey2 on June 19, 2007 at 7:05 am
What can we do?stop press. Fides_et_ratio has resigned his post as a catholic school teacher and is standing as the first atheist candidate in the uk parliamentary elections. Congratulations.
Other Comments by monkey2
46. Comment #50638 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 7:18 am
Hi fides,Sorry, I should have said what I meant about Mass vs Science, specifically Physics. I was referring to the way in which transubstantiation contradicts atomic theory. The rather interesting book "Galileo: Heretic" by Pietro Redondi argues that it was Galileo's support of the idea of atoms that led to his trouble with the Inquisition. Something to do with "accidents" and Aristotle, not my area of knowledge. But, at bottom, how can the wine be blood if it still looks and tastes and responds to scientific enquiry like blood?
well, bang goes your atomic theory, and people just say "cos we say it does".
As for the whole "Adam" thing, well I may have to bow to your higher knowledge of etymology, but it has never been very convincing to me this suggestion that Genesis was *not* meant to be actually referring to the first ever human. Of course I know that the word Adam has its origin as a word meaning "man", but this does not mean that Genesis is referring to *all* of mankind; to refer to just myself, I thought it was talking more about the species of man, and not people collectively.
Maybe they're just wrong and know nothing about what the words are "supposed" to mean, but the Catholic church seems to be quite clear in the catechism that Adam was "the first man" and that Adam and Eve were "our first parents" (taken from http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm - sorry I don't know how to do links).
I'll go out on a limb: it seems perfectly clear to me that the words that were written in the Old Testament were meant to be taken as being things that had happened. It doesn't seem honest to me to take those words, realise they don't make sense in the light of what we now know, continue to assume that they must, nevertheless, be correct, and seek some way of reconciling them with attitudes of "metaphor", "allegory", "etymology" and so on.
Other Comments by Sargeist
47. Comment #50644 by monkey2 on June 19, 2007 at 7:42 am
What can we do?Just when you think you have the world all suussed out you go and find that Adam Rutherford, is the first ever human. Next your going to tell me that fides_et_ratio is Eve.
Please carry on and take no notice of me. I'm just totally frustrated by the failure of this thread to answer/ discuss the article at the top of the page. An opportunity hidden under the fog of Genesis
Other Comments by monkey2
48. Comment #50645 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 7:44 am
I ought to try to do some non-rambling and be concise (for a change):If Adam did not exist
Then "he" could not have disobeyed god
So he and Eve could not have been condemned to die and Eve could not have been punished with painful childbirth (thank the good Lord for epidurals, eh? Beholdest thou the anaesthetic works of SATAN!!)
And they could not have stained mankind with "sin"
And so Jesus could not have been saving mankind from that sin that did not exist
I am sure that skeptics have been saying that sort of thing for *ages*, but what are the "official" answers supposed to be? If I want to know the truth about biology, I can pretty much go to any textbook and, if my question is not at the bleeding edge of research, get the right answer.
By contrast, every damn thing in religion seems to be at that bleeding edge. There seems to be nothing that they can agree on, and it really pisses me off. What are the official answers? And, more important of all, how can we know that those official answers are correct?
One could say that Adam never existed, and so Genesis is a philosophical discussion in story form about why it is that we humans seem to always screw things up. But I, personally, would need to see some evidence that that was the intention.
Other Comments by Sargeist
49. Comment #50646 by Sargeist on June 19, 2007 at 7:49 am
Dammit, just cos I'm bored with work and would much rather write my long rambling posts here than do what I'm supposed to be doing, doesn't mean that I can answer *everyone*. :PWhat can we do?
Well, I personally seem to have become very good at pissing off my (nominally) Muslim girlfriend at every available opportunity by slagging off religious beliefs and telling her (actually) Catholic friend that her father is a nutter (Antichrist living in the White House since 1960s? Do me a favour...) and that she herself needs to start turning her brain on and *thinking* (oh, the pain).
All that is true. But, seriously, I am not sure what we can do as "body of people". My preference is for the sustained don't-take-it-lying-down attitude of questioning people when they make statements that contain tacit or implicit acceptance of religious ideas.
Someone earlier on said a similar thing - it was lostpoet @ comment 18 of this thread.
I regard myself as a militant atheist - I've offended my mother, girlfriend, girlfriend's friend, various other people at work, including agnostics, and, yes, actually I rather enjoy it. There are worse things than being thought an annoying intolerant godless bugger.
Other Comments by Sargeist
50. Comment #50659 by robert s on June 19, 2007 at 9:07 am
So if 'Adam' is not intended to be read as refering to an actual person, because the name means 'mankind', can we do the same for 'Jesus'?That name means 'Jehovah saves', therefore the Gospels should be read as telling us about how wonderful God's salvation is through the metaphorical story of a man's life and death and only stupid atheists with their literal caricatures of religion would think Jesus was actually a real person.
Other Comments by robert s
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #50485 by Scott McMeekin on June 18, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Something should be done about this, if for no other reason than to point out that religion is a choice, not a default. I'm going to go see the Head-mistress about this, and I'll happily post the response. Anyone else want to commit to doing the same?
Scott.
Other Comments by Scott McMeekin