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.

jeering mob?

"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..."

Where? By whom? On this board?

If I just wanted to "rubbish" faith I surely wouldn't bother to engage with anyone's arguments, but would just lob bricks and run away. I actually do attempt to engage with people's answers.

Unquietdad, have you not noticed that those of us who disagree with you most vocally ARE NOT BELIEVERS? Where exactly are you getting your axis of godliness from.

But you have already said before that you find Christians eager to contradict you in rl too. It is becasue you are so misrenpresentative of faith in your persistent rejection of it.

And as for axix of Godliness, I don't eve believe in God (though I migght conceivably come to), I just find that you give atheism a bad name.

Your position isn't 'rationalism'

Please explain what you understand by rationalism and how my position differs from it.

Am with guvk about giving atheism a bad name.

Being rational does not mean being an atheist

There are rational and irrational atheists, just as there are rational and irrational theists

(although I REALLY wish that the Atheist Bus had said "All about the Rational Express". Why are the Dawkins-fans so humourless?)

I would love to dispute "the fact that gravity pre-existed the proof of its existence." I've got a philosophy degree, dp is a physicist, we discuss these things.

As DP the physicist says, Newton's gravity is different from Einstein's gravity which is different from String Theory gravity. Newton's theory is a mathematical rule which happens to explain the behaviour of nearly everything as physicists see the world at this point, but only approximately. So actually, Gravity, as Newton described it, didn't "exist" before he formulated the rule, and may not "exist" at all.

Scientists do not try and find the rules to explain what is "already there in the world", as someone said a few posts ago. They aren't presupposing what is already there. They try and construct, then prove and disprove theories for the world as best they can tell. If new evidence emerges, they drop or adapt the rule or belief.

This is quite different from religious or philosophical attempts to prove the existence of a God, or similar. those are post-hoc attempts to prove something you already believe. Not like science.

ABOARD

merry . . . I don't think anyone can actually prove gravity. We can see that the apple falls over and over, which my dd is currently experiencing with repeatedly dropping her spoon on the floor. (Yes, it fell to the floor again.) We can even devise mathematical representations of that experience which allows us to predict behaviours such that we can send a telescope to the L2 point.
I think the idea that science proves things is dangerous.

How your position differs from rationalism?

Well, there is the point I made just now 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.

Also, your dismissive remark about 'discussing an abstract philosophical concept' suggests that you think such discussion does not actually have a part to play in the formation and correction of beliefs.

And I think you mistake scientific method for rationality, instead of (what it is) an application of rationality to one area of enquiry (empirical enquiry).

"This is quite different from religious or philosophical attempts to prove the existence of a God, or similar. Those are post-hoc attempts to prove something you already believe. Not like science"

What about the work of atheist philosophers? Surely you are describing a Hegelian process that is used in theology/philosophy as well as science?

(lol at the Rational Express Bus)

(Yes I should do atheist PR!)

I think it's very difficult to argue that I haven't been misrepresented on here.

I've had a few times now - and I mean not just in this thread, but over the last year or so - the many and various accusations that I somehow want to rid the world of Christianity's influence (FFS), that it's actually "faith" which I am arguing doesn't exist (FFS squared), and that by being an atheist (*) I am somehow lacking in what Christians call "love" or "compassion" or "doing unto others" (FFS cubed).

(*) I actually don't tend to use the word "atheist" about myself all that much except when backed into a corner. I don't really see much need for it, any more than I see a need for a particular word which tells the world that I don't set much store by tealeaf-reading. Or that, if you don't mind, I'd really rather not try to cure cancer by waving crystals at it. Or that I'm not that big on astrology...

To be clear, Fennel, I wasn't thinking about 'religious or philosophical attempts to prove the existence of a God'. None of those is compelling I thing. I was really thinking of other sorts of philosophical reflection on the objectivity of value and the manner in which we experience it which get my rather weedy little god going.

UQD I love the way you go from "I think it's very difficult to argue that I haven't been misrepresented on here" STRAIGHT to the fairies / crystal / tea-leaves

Well, I was channeling Sam Harris. Who I actually quote more often than Dawkins.

Has anyone got anything else useful to say about the "atheist camps"? I've already said I don't think they're necessarily a good idea.

I agree that those reasoing processes can be used in theology too. really in my last post I was trying to distinguish between the way that sciencific "fact" and "belief" is most commonly approached by scientists, and the way that belief about religion is most commonly described, for example on this thread.

the key point about a scientific approach I think is that when a new theory emerges which seems to fit the world better, the scientist is obliged to drop the old theory and, for the moment at least, until new evidence emerges, stick to the new one. This is what doesn't easily happen in religion, organised religions anyway, though of course it happens in theology departments.

The religion schoolchildren are exposed to isn't the sort you get on a theology degree, I'd be far happier if it were. I would love it if schoolchildren were taught philosophy and theology rather than about religion.

UQD..what is you're trying to do then?....most people i know who arn't religious don't give a toss about religion...they certainly don't spend too much time talking about it.

Fennel, I agree with your overview of the scientific process, myself (by training) and dp (by training & profession) being physicists as well.

Science should be seen as a continual unfolding of inquiry and discovery.

UQD, the Christian comment in my earlier post was actually in response to Fennel saying that her dc get Christianity indirectly.

As I've said before, I'm not really trying to do anything. I very, very rarely start topics on religion. I just wanted to make my contribution to this thread as it is on a topic which interests me, and I think what I had to say on it (that I'm not hugely keen on Atheist Summer Camp, tbh) is not necessarily what people would expect me to say.

(A brief look at the "threads I'm on" shows I have spent more time on Pedants, News, Chat, Adult Fiction, AIBU and telly than in here over the past 2 weeks.)

Somewhere along the line, though, these threads always evolve into a general God Discussion. Maybe there should be an all-purpose one for that...

So, let's clear up these misrepresentations then, unquietdad.

1. that you would like to remove Christianity's influence on our culture. Presumably you aren't entirely happy with all aspects of this, as you are constantly seeking to convince people that Christianity based on a fallacy with no more substance than belief in the Loch Ness Monster etc. But if you are happy with it, then what is it that you would like to see changed?

2. that you are arguing that faith does not exist. I've never seen such an accusation anywhere on these threads - please elaborate.

3. that you are lacking love or compassion because you are an atheist - again I have not seen any posts suggesting this.