as far as I'm aware Dan, the BCSE is entirely neutral on the subject, welcoming into their ranks people of any religion and none.
and that's how it should be.
Science shouldn't be used to promote either religion, or Atheism, since it takes absolutely no position on the supernatural.
That's the problem I have with Coyne, Myers, Dawkins and Rosenhouse. They're using science to promote Atheism and attack Christianity. The NCSE are quite correct in pointing this out.
Coyne's stratagey isn't ging to work I'm afraid
cathy wrote:Are you bovvered?
Not quite sure what you mean by this?But you just this second said, literally a couple of sentences ago, that the BCSE is "entirely neutral" on the subject, and "that's how it should be".
But here you are advocating that the CSEs should *attack* atheists for using science to "promote" atheism.
Why should the CSEs do this, if neutrality is the ideal?
Thats not strictly true is it! I've just read it. To quote from the introduction: re evolution-"Nor must it promote atheism, for enlightened religion has always found a way to accommodate the advances of science. In fact understanding evolution should surely deepen and enrich our appreciation of the living world and our place in it". Page xix in the hardback edition. So as far as I can see he is saying atheists shouldn't be using science to promote atheism? Science is just science it doesn't promote beliefs or lack of them. Until it can actually measure the supernatural world. It has disproved the book of genesis cos it has the tools to suggest how the natural world came into being. Oh and what exactly is the last chapter of his book about?His book on evolution mentions religion, if I remember correctly, not at all.
As far as I'm aware nobody on this site has actually criticised him at all ever until I just criticised his blog a minute ago. And that was after seeing the folk there rip the BCSE to shreds. Folk campaining for atheism or religion outside of BCSE are fine. Here it is prohibited and frowned upon when it appears on the forum. So if he is campaigning for atheism that has nothing to do with the BCSE nor NCSE.I If he's specifically hijacking or targetting campaigns to keep creationism out of science and schools to further atheism (which I really don't know, as until I found his bookl in the library I had never heard of him) than that will be being unhelpful and they have a right to say so. However I don't know how this argument started so can't commetn.The BCSE is being attacked by religious groups for being atheistic and by atheist groups for being religious. If they're getting everyones back up than they must be relligiously neutral.All he's saying is: "please stop criticising me for campaigning for atheism". Be neutral.
The Coyne/Dawkins appraoch will simply advance creationism, as "evolutionary" Christians will be rejected by many Christians who clearly object to atheism.
To get rid of all religion will fail without doubt and Coyne/Dawkins will simply flare up a culture wars scenario. There are already signs of this in the anglican church
It's a figment of someone's imagination, somewhere in the blogosphere. It never happened.
Can you point out to us where the BCSE has had a go at atheists?
I point out that creationists quote Dawkins (
I don't think that being told to STFU, about the merits of atheism and the irrationality of faith, when in involved a pleural campaign against creationism counts as an 'attack'
I can't help but think that the 'New Atheist' movement is just as riddled with ego and irrationality as Creationism.
such bits of propaganda could influence some atheists to withdraw or not become involved in groups like the BCSE because somehow they shouldn't be seen with theists
I'm not exactly sure what Jerry Coyne is on about but he's certainly got his knickers in a twist about something which seems to be the fact that religious neutrality means anyone that shares your aims can join whether they believe in God or not.
on the Jerry Coyne site they are claiming the BCSE is not religously neutral, By that I think what they mean is it is not specifially atheist.
Richard Dawkins has changed somewhat. I used to really admire him. I can't help thinking that all the adulation has gone to his head. I don't know what the slight to Richard Dawkins was but why can't he defend himself? If the slight was justified or slightly justified he and his followers should argue the actual point or think about it. If it wasnt' they should say why it wasn't. They don't seem to be.Roger wrote: would be the understatement of all times to say I am bothered about the issue. I'm bloody furious.
I have never in my life seen such a mob baying for blood. Not a single one of the hundreds of posters had even the slightest courage or balls to defend Nick Matzke. He has done a huge amount for sound science but, no, lets get him and call him to account for slighting Richard Dawkins
If you did bring them on board and something like the Exeter school incident cropped up I predict they would say a) 'its her own fault for sending her child to a faith school'. b) 'thats what all faith schools teach-no don't come here with your facts it is' and c) 'lets not bother dealing with this issue that we can realistically address, lets go for the totally unrealistic one of closing the school down, whilst we're at it lets close them all down. Anyway must go and fulfil my new atheist duties and berate a catholic for not having 21 children and a husband, tsk now us atheists are having to do the churches jobs telling folk how they should be behaving tsk tsk whats the world coming to when you can't find a decent stereotype to rant about" And yes I know I just have but it isn't that far from the truth.Roger wrote: Still it's up to the BCSE members if they want the BCSE to support Richard Dawkins, Gerry Coyne and a mob on a blog.
dannyno wrote:What upsets them is that there seems to be little recognition of that issue and why it is important.
Not quite sure what you mean by this?
His book on evolution mentions religion, if I remember correctly, not at all.
Thats not strictly true is it!
So as far as I can see he is saying atheists shouldn't be using science to promote atheism?
So if he is campaigning for atheism that has nothing to do with the BCSE nor NCSE.
If he's specifically hijacking or targetting campaigns to keep creationism out of science and schools to further atheism (which I really don't know, as until I found his bookl in the library I had never heard of him) than that will be being unhelpful and they have a right to say so.
If they're getting everyones back up than they must be relligiously neutral.
dannyno wrote:Cathy:I'm not exactly sure what Jerry Coyne is on about but he's certainly got his knickers in a twist about something which seems to be the fact that religious neutrality means anyone that shares your aims can join whether they believe in God or not.on the Jerry Coyne site they are claiming the BCSE is not religously neutral, By that I think what they mean is it is not specifially atheist.
With respect, you are completely and utterly wrong on both counts. But as you admit, you're not sure what Coyne is on about anyway. However, Coyne and others have specifically addressed both your points, clearly and without ambiguity.
They are not opposed to organisational religious neutrality. And, therefore, they do not insist that the N and B CSEs must be specifically atheist.
We need to be completely clear about that, because otherwise nothing else will make sense.
Coyne would support a religiously neutral NCSE.
His problem is that he doesn't think the NCSE *is* religiously neutral. He thinks it endorses liberal theology against forthright atheism.
He wants it to *be* religiously neutral.
dannyno wrote:So here we have Coyne, in his book on evolution, saying quite clearly that evolution is not necessarily atheistic. I don't know how much more clarity from him is required on the issue.
Actually this is an open forum so my opinion and others expressed here do not reflect the BCSEs stance on anything. If such things were the case than the regular appearance of creationist nutters and folk attacking atheism on the RDF site would be an indication that it supported creationism and attacked atheism.What never happened? Attacks on atheists for attacking religion? *That* "never happened"?
Brian, it's just happened here in this very discussion!
There has been a huge amount of recognition of the issue within the BCSE. There were bitter disputes about the matter when we first launched back in 2006 (before the New Atheist movement really started).
Like it or not I really did have that "conversation"
We'd already made up our minds about not attacking religion.
Which goes back to our basic issues - we are a single issue organisation. New Atheists are free to call upon us to somehow support their movement, as are movements like the secularists, humanists and so it. We can do if there is common ground which match our single issue objectives. But only to that extent.
We are either a single issue organisation or we collapse.
We've received bugger all support or thanks from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, you and the mob on a blog at WEIT and I would not want personally to be even remotely associated with them, let alone work with them.
He [Coyne] doesn't give a stuff about the BCSE.
So here we have Coyne, in his book on evolution, saying quite clearly that evolution is not necessarily atheistic.
So what? It's hardly a great intellectual insight. Just about everyone here knows that without Coyne pointing it out.
this is an open forum so my opinion and others expressed here do not reflect the BCSEs stance on anything.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest