to think it is rude to persistently refer to God/Allah/etc. as an "imaginary friend"

[AtheneNoctua]

even after asked not to by several posters who have stated they found it offensive.

Or to have your views summarily dismissed because if you are a CofE minister, you must have creationist sympathies.

As well as a biologist.

I think onager's point is a good one, because if you are not going to discuss obscure worlds views in the classroom, why discuss the most popular one? Without "gatekeeping", what's to stop any old rubbish being discussed? You have to draw the line somewhere.

The "some people believe" approach works to an extent. But why are more likely to say of, for example, David Icke's lizards, or Flat-Earthers, "well, some people believe this but frankly they are off their rockers and it's a crock of shit", whereas we are supposed to say of the farrago of exaggeration and hagiography in the Bible that it should be treated with deference and respect? They both seem to come from the same place - woo-world.

ruty said: "I don't understand why athiests keep saying 'Believing in God is like believing in Thor/Fairies/Father Christmas/Loch Ness Monster/David Icke's Lizards etc. and therefore you lot are undeserving of even the slightest amount of civility'"

I think that's a bit disingenuous. Even if we keep saying the first - which is something of a rephrasing, but never mind, I'm sure I'll come back to it - then it doesn't necessarily follow that we say the second. Scientists I've seen in the media like Dennett, Harris and Dawkins are extraordinarily courteous to religion, in that they give it the platform to debate and the opportunity to back its theories up with evidence. None is ever forthcoming.

They are all far more polite than I'd ever be, and to be honest I don't know quite how these guys do it, patiently stating the logic of their position again and again in the face of superstitious ignorance. Even Dawkins, with his "spiky" debating style, is no more acerbic than he'd be to any scientific colleague. It's debate, chellenging, querying, having its authority questioned. The one thing religion hasn't had to a great extent in recent centuries. And now it's happening, now that people dare question the church in numbers, and with authority, for the first time in generations, the church is scared of the way the world appears to be slipping from its grasp.

And given that the religious have held enormous power - political and economic power, most importantly - for so long, who, frankly, can blame them?

How likely is it that there are going to be flat earthers in my lab? Or David Icke followers? There will however almost certainly be children who hold creationist views. I have never taught a class on evolution without being challenged by a child, or at least having one mention it, if not in front of the rest of the class then privately. No-one has ever mentioned lizard people But if they did, I still wouldn't call it a crock of shit.

I would never just blanket tell a child they are wrong about something like this. I really do believe that if you do that, you are not encouraging the critical thinking that is so very important in science. I want the children I teach to engage with the ideas, and not turn off because I have failed to address their questions. And I do that by recognising that they have a view, and explaining how that view differs from a scientific theory.

Nothing in that article suggests that the Royal Society is suggesting that creationist views are to be treated with "deference". You are buying into the headlines and not looking at what was actually said.

I wonder how many people actually do teach their children creationism. I have a feeling that it's just a few noisy bucketheads with money that are pushing this particular viewpoint and they ought, frankly, to be ignored. Same as if a history teacher has the son or daughter of the local BNP councillor suddenly popping up with a bit of holocaust denial or arguments about how slavery was justified - should that 'worldview' have to be respected and seriously discussed in class?

Unquietdad, I think the point the Royal Society vicar was making was not that obscure world views should be mentioned for their own sake, but that where a significant proportion of pupils held a world view that contradicted what they would be taught in science classes, to dismiss that world view out of hand would be, as he put it "self defeating". It strikes me as a pragmatic approach more than an idealistic one.

As to ruty's remark regarding the lack of civility shown by atheists on this board - I don't think it is remotely disingenuous. At the very worst, she may be guilty in a small way of what you, onager and sgb have been doing repeatedly and ad nauseam - applying the behaviour of a minority to the entire group. For someone who prides themselves on their logical thinking I am amazed that you don't seem to be able to see the basic error of the kind of "Creationists are Christians, therefore all Christians are Creationists... and if you're not then you're not a proper Christian" line of thinking that underlies many of the anti-religion squad's arguments on this board.

pmsl at the idea that Dawkins is "extraordinarily courteous towards religion. And I'm a big fan of Dawkins' work. Actually I think even he would piss himself laughing at that idea.

what Iorek said.

I have never ever said "Creationists are Christians, therefore all Christians are Creationists and if you're not then you're not a proper Christian", or anything remotely like it.

In fact, aside from the odd glancing comment, I've steered myself away from the Creationist side of the arguments on here, because I don't think they're helpful - a lot of Christians think they are nutters too, after all.

But I do think the danger is in a superstitious person thinking that, if they can find someone who believes an even dafter and more lurid version of their myth, and discredit them, then the version they themselves believe must be perfectly reasonable.

You misunderstand me about Dawkins. He is hostile towards religion in his views. But the way he treats believers in person is remarkably polite, I'm inclined to think. Scientists disagree with people all the time. It's their job, in a way, to haul up colleagues and say "show me the evidence for that. How can that be true?" That's not rude. It's quite the opposite. It's saying "Interesting theory. I liked it enough to listen. Now show me the evidence."

'But I do think the danger is in a superstitious person thinking that, if they can find someone who believes an even dafter and more lurid version of their myth, and discredit them, then the version they themselves believe must be perfectly reasonable.'

I think this is a little bit disingenuous UD. And rather wilfully ignorant of how many Christians are - ordinary intelligent people for whom Christ's teachings strike a resonance, but who struggle day to day with ther faith., who are constantly asking themselves the questions you ask here, and as AMIS says, the questions are always presented here as if christians have never thought of those themselves, which is more than a little patronising.

One of JC's warnings was against self righteousness - a trap both believers and non believers [and those in between] can fall into.

But it was an attempt to represent my position - that it's entirely possible to agree with believers who rubbish creationism, but to find their version of the myth - no matter how much they question it - equally shaky.

I don't see how it can be self-righteous simply to demand evidence.

The trap atheists like me fall into (if indeed I am one - I've never been totally comfortable with labels) is to allow ourselves to become embroiled in ever-more-recondite points and circumlocutions, and to lose sight of the essential point about atheism. I've been guilty of this. The problem is, arguing the essential point again and again just sounds like repetition, and as if we have nothing new to say. My problem is that I don't need anything new to say, just different ways of saying the same thing. You reach the point where it's all been said in various ways, and yet still-more-varied ways are demanded.

But if you think you already know all the answers, that you are right and others are wrong, your mind is closed, and that is dull. This can apply to atheists and religious people.

New ideas are so exciting, mind boggling. We still have so much to learn. And new knowledge throws a whole different light on things.

In a few hundred years people will look back on this time and laugh at our ignorance.

I do think it is good to reject what is bad about religion. And if I thought god was a small, limited, describable, containable monster I would throw that out too.

Yes it seems silly to believe in the 'unknown' but I think embracing the possibility of god is more fun than wanting everything to be knowable, defined and under control.

if I am wrong and no one wants to show deference in science class to a select group of popular religions there why on earth are the royal society making a statement in the first place.
Their statement should have been a blank sheet of paper.

Teachers already know not to say "you're wrong you idiot" but to say how we arrived at the truth. What possible change can you make unless you mean "be careful not to offend the religious"

And once you put in black and white (no matter how pure your intent) "be careful not to offend the religious in your class" then you start down a slippery slope.

If this is considered to be such a ridiculous fear then I can only point at the US who are currently fighting to keep their schools from teaching creationist myths as science.

Must admit I hate being told I'm wrong if I think I'm right and my respect for what people close to me believe keeps me loyal to some ideas which were not my own.

And this must be common and the challenge for people who have things to teach us.

Any evidence for "miraculous" healings will be received with interest, but in the absence of objective medical assessment must be treated with a default position of scepticism.

I think we can agree that unexplained and sudden recoveries do happen, and that the church has chosen to treat these as miracles.

Of the 65 was there one 'naked eye' example where you could see at once that healing had taken place? That is without the testimony of the person claiming it or the opinion of a catholic doctor.

If there had been I'm pretty sure the hadron collider would have taken a back seat as scientists flocked to the scene.

Current medical science can't explain everything yet - we hear about people who make what are called, colloquially, "miraculous" recoveries all the time, and without the need for any religious intervention. The media love such feel-good stories, and why not?

Correlation does not equal causation. Who is to say what causes these "recoveries"? Why should it be a visit to Lourdes or a prayer, rather than eating red apples or bathing in moonlight or uttering a particular words that morning? The simple principle of parsimony (preference for the least complex explanation for an observation) makes a mockery of the whole thing.

There was a time when someone in a coma would have been thought to be dead, and when someone having an epileptic seizure would have been thought to be possessed by demons. In two hundred years, maybe such "miraculous" recoveries will have had extensive research done and peer-reviewed papers published on them, and we'll known more about how things like this happen. We almost certainly will if we allow medical science to go on asking questions, which is its job. We certainly won't if we close off questions by saying "it was God."

that again, forgive me UD, is a little disingenuous. The only limitations to our scientific progress are money [siphoned into wars/profits etc]. Religion may have tried to prevent progress in the past but rarely succeeds. I am angry that stem cell research has been hindered by the religious right in the USA, but thankfully here we are funding the research.

I get your argument. I am not saying you should not repeat it, i am saying that i find it odd that other arguments, for example that God and science and scientific discoveries are inextricably linked, and that the Bible is just a collection of stories struggling to make sense of our environment and our spiritual selves, get ignored, or those who suggest them are told they are just being selective, taking the 'fluffy' stuff and leaving out the hateful stuff. This belies a huge misunderstanding about theology and theological debate. It is, I am afraid, extremely reductive.

justaboutagrownup, thanks for the examples, but I'm not sure those are 'naked eye' healing.

Certainly Serge Perrin knew whether he was blind and got his sight back, but to the casual onlooker that's not obvious. I mean it's not as though his eyes were missing before. He just had very poor sight.

Jeanne Fretel woke up.

If she really was in a coma and came out of it that day I'm sure it was a 'miracle' to her family. All an onlooker sees is that someone wakes up.

Still not one case of "hey, look that man is growing his leg back!"