Have we had a thread about the Richard Dawkins atheist summer camps for kids yet?

[policywonk]

here

Though #1: Dawkins is a loon.

Thought #2 (following very closely on the heels of Thought #1): DS1 (6) - who is alone (in his class of 30) in having been taught about the Big Bang rather than the creation story - might well get a lot out of something like this. At the moment, he's beginning to suspect that his father and I are cult leaders.

Oh yes, actually. Good point Merylegs.

Thank you to guvk and merry for great posts.

Religion today, regardless of what it used to be, is very personal.

UQD, I think your analogy of standing above the ocean of religious sentiment is profoundly incorrect. We are all in the same ocean, and absolute objectivity is a myth. We all perceive that ocean differently, each according to our past experiences and inclinations.

So much of our experience is not consciously noticed. We don't usually notice things unless we expect to see them in some way.

With regards to a Christian understanding that seems to be fundamental to our culture . . . well yes, it is there. It's in the whole moral fabric of 'do unto others' and 'love and compassion' for others. Are you suggesting we remove this element of our civilisation?

Merrylegs - yes, but he had to prove it, that's my point. The reasoning has to fit the answer. He didn't expect people to believe it just because he "knew" it.

quvk - if you want to put "god" in the realm of an abstract philosophical concept then that's fine. That wouldn't bother me hugely. But that isn't the way most Christians see it, and it isn't the "god" we are asked to believe in. We are asked to think of it as something real, existing in the here and now. Something which they experience and with which they have a "realtionship".

DS1 is very sciency and fact-driven and does not believe, whereas DS2 is a pure maths and music person. They've both been exposed to the same influences at both school and home. Perhaps it's hard not to have a respect for Christianity if you love Bach?

zazizoma - you have fallen into the common trap of presuming that the moral framework of Christianity is exclusive to believers. It is entirely possible to believe in compassion and "doing unto others" without having any kind of religious belief at all - simply out of wanting to make the world we all live in a reasonably nice place.

This seems so glaringly obvious that I am almost embarrassed at having to point it out.

Oh excellent point, Merrylegs.

UQD You are not disputing the fact that gravity pre-existed the proof of its existence, surely?

UQD, I wasn't saying that, please don't be insulting.

That may be true, swedes. I have certainly noticed rather more religious inclination amongst my musician friends (although not all of them by any means), than amongst those who have a background in the other humanities.

'We are asked to think of it as something real, existing in the here and now. Something which they experience and with which they have a "realtionship". '

Well, if I came to a belief in god it would be something real and existing in the here and now. It wouldn't be a personal god, and it would be something quite slight and subtle, though large in some implications -- and I would get there through looking at the 'abstract philosophical concepts'

But I think in your last post you have come close to accepting that there is at least a discussion to be had, and that there are more plausible and less plausible accounts of god, whereas before you have always given the impression that religion is plain irrational and that the evolution from one concept of god to another more sophisticated one is never rationally respectable, but rather discredits the whole enterprise of belief.

Of course, Newton and his formula doesn't help UQD in his quest for spiritual proof. Because of course you can prove gravity. You can see the apple fall. In fact, spirituality probably works the other way. In science you are seeking the formula to prove what already exists. UQD isn't sure anything exists and yet is seeking the formula to prove that. Mathematically and logically that is never going to work. The equation just won't balance. He needs something other than that which can be explained. He literally needs a leap of faith.

my last post relates to uqd 10:51

lol UQD - that was a stunningly pompous post!

It is of course possible to believe in compassion without religious belief, and to value it even while viewing it purely through the lens of evolutionary biology.

However it is also true that these values happen to have been disseminated through our culture largely through Christianity.

zazizoma - I'm not being insulting. I'm sorry - if that's not what you meant, please explain again. You asked me if I was suggesting that we remove the "ideas of "do unto others" and "love and compassion" - correct? And of course I don't - but neither do I feel these ideas to belong exclusively to any particular religious thought.

Swedes?! Gravity pre-existed the proof of its existence, but its effects were demonstrable and fitted the theory once it had been formulated. Why did Newton feel the need to formulate his laws? He didn't think it was enough just to point and say "Look, you fools, things FALL, can't you SEE?"

unstrungharp: I am tempted to come over all teenage, shrug and say "SO?" Or, if I were being more eloquent to say that's absolutely fine, but all that proves is the belief in Christianity - it doesn't demonstrate the validity of a being called "god" one iota.

I sometimes think people are under the impression that I am arguing that religion doesn't exist.

merrylegs - I think you have expressed it. Of course I am not going to make a "leap of faith" as such because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Well your post to zazimoma was in response, was it not, to her question:

"With regards to a Christian understanding that seems to be fundamental to our culture . . . well yes, it is there. It's in the whole moral fabric of 'do unto others' and 'love and compassion' for others. Are you suggesting we remove this element of our civilisation?"

Which had nothing to do with proof, but which was rather to do with the merits of the Christian influence in our culture which you seemed keen to excise.

I am interested in your answer to guvk's observation that:

"in your last post you have come close to accepting that there is at least a discussion to be had, and that there are more plausible and less plausible accounts of god, whereas before you have always given the impression that religion is plain irrational and that the evolution from one concept of god to another more sophisticated one is never rationally respectable, but rather discredits the whole enterprise of belief"

Would you agree with this?

I find it a bit embarrassing that we all cluster round UQD's atheism and address it as if it were the most telling enemy of faith.

For my part, the reason I feel drawn to oppose UQD is that he has an amazingly pronounced tendancy to reconstruct everyone's argument on the basis of an Assumption of Maximum Stupidity, taking the worst, weakest possible interpretation of religion, and of arguments about it here, and then arguing against that straw man. It is incredibly frustrating.

There is a basic principle of rationality which I mentioned further back on the thread -- that when adressing someone in argument you take the strongest possible version of their case and argue against that, in order to be sure of covering all points and testing your own views.

Again - who on earth is suggesting that I am "keen to excise Christian influences in culture?" I am flabbergasted at these suggestions that I am arguing things which I am not. Generally, this is a sign of clutching at straws. Or straw-men.

guvk: "in your last post you have come close to accepting that there is at least a discussion to be had, and that there are more plausible and less plausible accounts of god, whereas before you have always given the impression that religion is plain irrational and that the evolution from one concept of god to another more sophisticated one is never rationally respectable, but rather discredits the whole enterprise of belief"

Well, I would answer that I still consider religion to be irrational, but this doesn't stop you from discussing god as a philosophical concept if you like. At the end of the conversation, it will still be just as unlikely to exist.

I have lost count of the number of times I have had atheism reconstructed at me as if it were the most stupid thing in the world. It cuts both ways...

"discussing god as a philosophical concept if you like"

What do you mean by 'disscussing as a philosophical concept' UQD? It's not tennis or eating cherries. It's about teasing out the rational and the well-grounded from the not rational and not well-grounded.

That would be a "no" then. As you were.

So you are happy for Christianity to play a significant role in our culture. As long as nobody actually believes anything it stands for.

If you just wanted to rubbish faith on the grounds that someone has rubbished atheism to you, why didn't you say so? We would have saved time.

I agree with you guyk

I find his enthusiasm for telling theists that they are unthinking / immature / sheep / have psychological hangups / needy - all v. tedious

I think I might read a book about how authors are lazy thickos and then chase him round the boards insulting him at random and then saying 'I'm sorry if you found that rude'

I really should do some work though

I have to say, as a general observation, that there is a really odd Axis of Godliness on here - which I find totally at odds with Real Life.

It makes me perhaps more defensive than I would otherwise be, as people almost always are when they are surrounded by a jeering mob of half a dozen who are (for the most part) good at arguing, mixed in with a few misrepresentations for good measure. It's almost as if people are worried that I will taint this place with my attempts at rationalism.

Unquietdad - this is what really annoys me about some of your posts on this subject, and makes me inclined to waste more time than is sensible on them:

"I have lost count of the number of times I have had atheism reconstructed at me as if it were the most stupid thing in the world".

Nobody is criticising atheism. You do not represent all atheists. You have expressed a particular set of opinions about religion that happen to fall within the category of atheism, and it is those I take issue with, not atheism.