Kansas Citizens for Science

[lcraig]

From Ed's blog, "Dispatches from the Culture Wars": "With Friends Like These..."

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/with_friends_like_these_1.php

[rmadison]

Brayton Says:

[lcraig]

I think it's dumb to alienate the very people you would attempt to educate about science by bringing in an irrelevant issue: their religious beliefs.

True, fundamentalist beliefs rule out science. They are not our audience. The people we want to reach are not fundamentalists. They are mainstream people of faith who are wondering whether science threatens their faith or not. So you come to them and say, "Religion is hogwash." Then you proceed to tell them that science makes their religion irrelevant. Then you find yourself talking to backs as your audience exits the room.

Sounds dumb to me.

[lcraig]

http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/11/not-pretty-picture.html

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Not a Pretty Picture
The Revealer, a daily review of religion and the press, is one of the great sites on the Internet both for its coverage and insightful writing. The lead story right now, by David Sorrell, is titled "South Park Takes on Richard Dawkins."

After providing a synopsis of the two South Park episodes on Dawkins and his new book, The God Delusion, Sorrell sums up -- accurately we think -- the key criticism South Park seems to be making of Dawkins:

extremist enthusiasm for any belief system -- in this case Dawkins’ vaunted atheism and scientific rationality -- can lead to sectarian group-think, absolutism, and even schismatic violence. Replacing religious dogma with atheistic dogma still leaves us with the problems of dogmatism.

As Sorrell points out, South Park isn't going after Dawkins because of his atheism. They have often satirized religious belief in the past. "Rather, it is the slavish thinking and rigid dogmatism that go into any –ism or orthodoxy that South Park is best at lampooning. Dawkins’ abrasive public demeanor and penchant for rhetorical excess is interpreted in South Park’s blunt satire as just as inflexible and uncompromising as any of the religions it targets. This should be a lesson to Dawkins and fellow-travelers to tone down the noise and antagonism of their message if they are going to be persuasive. Yet it also indicates that, unlike Scientology, Islam, or Catholicism, atheism’s ideas, as opposed to its style, proved off limits for even South Park’s religious critique.
For those non-believers who want to defend themselves and the nation's secular institutions from attack by the religious right, all this should be food for thought.

RSR believes effective defense work begins by dividing your enemies and uniting your friends -- not the other way around. Appearing to adopt the dogmatism of the other side is not a useful tool in this respect.

[rmadison]

[EricB]

Atheistic dogma??? What, exactly, is that? And where does Dawkins proclaim such a thing?

Sorry, but it seems to me what Brayton, and others, are saying is "Why don't you atheists just be quiet and stop critiquing religion?" We are trying to be friends with the religious "moderates", so let's be nice. Yet, are the theists doing this to the atheists? I don't see a lot of support of atheistic views by the religious "moderates". I see the same old discrimination against nonbelievers.

Religion is so pervasive in this country. It is everywhere. Atheists are just looking for a window of opportunity.

So, Dawkins thinks religion is silly. So do a *lot* of atheists. So, he automatically becomes the bad person because he criticizes religion. You know, this is exactly what Dawkins and Harris are talking about. For some reason, religion is off limits to criticism, and it shouldn't be. It should as open to critical inquiry as any subject. And by asking them to be quiet, and not criticize, is supporting these very same ideas. Yes, Dawkins has referred to labeling children with religion as a bad thing. But he has not claimed it should be outlawed. He thinks we need to raise our consciousness about religion, just as we have raised our consciousness in regard to women's issues and civil rights issues. Now is the time to question religious issues. And I hope there are more atheists willing to speak out and do that questioning, regardless of what Brayton thinks.
_________________
"Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness."
~ Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages ~

[rmadison]

[csadams]

When you criticize religion, it can be interpreted as criticizing a person's faith.

Trying to separate out 'criticizing Christianity' from 'criticizing Christians' seems problematic because our faith is such an integral part of who we are as believers.

When you attack our faith, the gut response is to reject the attackers and their ideas.
_________________
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke

Stand Up For REAL Science!

[rmadison]

[EricB]

I figure when you're a member of the least trusted group in America, what have you got to lose? Either roll over and continue playing dead, or speak out and say something like:

"You know what, I'm not ashamed anymore being a disbeliever. In fact, I'm quite proud of the fact. I think my worldview makes more sense than a religious one. And I'm tired of staying hidden away in a closet like a strange, socially-inept relative. I am going to openly question your worldview."

There are two sides to this issue. Let's hear from the other side for once. Let's give them special privileges. Let's make their position the default, and see where it takes us.

[rmadison]

[Josh Rosenau]

[rmadison]

[lcraig]

If you will look back toward the top of the thread, you'll see my comment about not alienating people of faith was in the context of establishing a basis for educating them about science.

It doesn't matter if you say, "Religion is hogwash," "Your religion is hogwash," or "In my opinion, religion is hogwash." It's not the ideal position to take when trying to educate people about anything, let alone science.

If you are a professional or amateur science educator, your feelings about religion have nothing to do with what you're doing. And accepting science does not necessitate ditching religious faith. Only Biblical literalists have the either-or scenario to deal with.

If you believe stating your opinion is more important than communicating effectively with people you might otherwise educate, then I must admit I don't follow your thinking.

[rmadison]