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.

Ah lots more posts.

Zazizoma, I must admit that I too took your post to mean 'would we want to do without compassion' etc as though it were linked to christianity. It may not be what you meant, but it did sound like it. I'm afraid others have said that and they did mean it that way too so we tend to expect it you see.

Guvk, catching up with your posts on scientific procedure and truth-seeking it seems to me that all the means to arrive at truth are scientific. Philosophy really only helps you decide what should be true or helps you understand the effect that truth has.

It might help explain why people want god to exist, but it provides no evidence that he does.

You mention "teasing out the rational and the well-grounded from the not rational and not well-grounded" but there is no evidence to sift through. It doesn't really matter what size mesh you use if you have nothing to put through it.

UQD....ikwym

i'm catholic..some of my views on homosexuality haven't gone down too well on mumsnet...esp re; gay parenting....i feel unable to talk about my religion sometimes.

I think I had the same idea as onagar did about what Zazizoma said, so maybe I misinterpreted it? It chimed with something I have been accused of before, so maybe I leapt in there.

If you want to argue that ideas such as love and compassion have been disseminated through our culture by Christianity, then this is arguable and requires evidence. Are we are more compassionate society, post-Christianity, than we were? At the very least it's something that can be debated.

People latch on to the way I have mentioned faith and religion, as if these are the things I'm trying to argue against.

Well you are arguing against them aren't you? Not arguing that they don't exist, but arguing that they are of very little value. Or am I misrepresenting you?

can I add:

4. "jeering mob" Who is the jeering mob? Where is the jeering?

5. "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? On Mumsnet? What sort of thing? IMO it seems to be YOU who are convinced that theists are unthinking sheep with psychological needs (I don't think that is too crude a summary?)

And yes, theology as a subject would be so much more satisfying than religion as a subject.

Onagar, thanks for the warning . . . this is my first posting experience in this topic, and I will seek to be clearer in the future.

I think somebody, perhaps Unstrung, did pretty well summing up what I should have said . . .

Something to the effect that the moral values in our society did, for the most part, arrive through Christianity, and that since they are now a part of the social fabric, that dc will be exposed to them in secular settings.

Unstrungharp - that is the distinction. Thank you for making it.

morningpaper - not so much here, but elsewhere (I can name fora, but they may not mean anything to people) and in RL. All right, maybe "jeering mob" is a bit emotive. Pick me up on that one thing, why don't you?! Any surprise I am feeling got at?

Zazizoma, it may be that we are oversensitive on that particular bit so don't let it put you off.

Some really have posted in the past that atheists must have an awful life without love or appreciation of beauty or any of the finer things of life. I'm sure the vast majority of religious people know that's not the case.

Pick me up on that one thing, why don't you?! Any surprise I am feeling got at?

UQD has an Atheist persecution complex.

Pick me up on that one thing, why don't you?!

Pick you up on... your post? Where you describe theists as a jeering mob terrified that you are ransacking the place with your rationalism? Which came right before your post where you cheerily compared theism to a belief in tea leaves? And you feel "got at"?

Surely it is simply intellectual honesty to compare one "thing which people believe in without evidence" to another "thing which people believe in without evidence". Tealeaves may be a slightly flippant example, but the principle is sound.

I'm curious about the claim that our cultural mores, such as compassion, being disseminated primarily through Christianity requires evidence.

What evidence does one need to see?

It would be impossible to disprove, as I think one would be hard pressed to find a modern civilisation with a contemporary morality which did not pass through at least a period of religious focus.

Anyone?

UQD, I think the debate is rather on the acceptability of various sorts of evidence. The scientific method, as guvk points out, is founded for the most part on empirical evidence. Subjective or anecdotal evidence have varying degrees of scientific validity, from some to none. I agree that religious sensibility, belief or faith may not be scientific, but being scientific is not a necessary condition for being valid or true.

mockery schmockery. Why is it so necessary for people to respect my beliefs? Atheists believe I am stupidly wrong, as stupidly deluded as any other 'superstition' they care to name.

It really doesn't bother me in the slightest. I believe what I believe, and am quite happy with the evidence level for it. I think it's probably the same evidence level that other people have when they hear 'experts now think' etc.

I do believe in sharing my faith, but sharing my faith means leaving myself open to ridicule and I'm ok with that.

A camp like this for kids is all fine by me if it's under the auspices of 'humanism' which strikes me as a rather positive sort of idea, even though I'm a wibbly-wobbly theist myself. If it was mainly focused on 'not believing in a deity', then one would imagine it's going to limited and boring.

And in case this now sticks out like a sore thumb, no I haven't read the entire thread. I've been in hospital for crying out loud, cut me some slack.

Surely it is simply intellectual honesty to compare one "thing which people believe in without evidence" to another "thing which people believe in without evidence". Tealeaves may be a slightly flippant example, but the principle is sound.

UQD: This particular analogy doesn't work because it is clearly easily verifiable using the scientific method (predicts the future therefore can be tested). Your favoured analogy of the celestial teapot (which is Russell's) is better, because the conclusion is that we must all be agnostic about the teapot (and therefore also divinity). However, the teapot analogy fails because there are no empirical or theotetical or philosophical reasons for believing in the teapot. Many humans, however, are persuaded by arguments for the divine. (philofreligion.homestead.com/files/theisticarguments.html Here) are some fun lecture notes on the subject which I expect you to ignore in favour of banging on about teapots/fairies in ten minutes or so.

DP, I'm a catholic and I think the church is WRONG WRONG WRONG about a lot of things, homosexuality included.

UQD you said "It's interesting that Dawkins only goes as far as it is possible to go philosophically, i.e. to say it is "vastly improbable" on the current evidence that there is a god."

May I quote one of my heros, Sherlock Holmes "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer."

rhubarb;

do you know the catholic childrens society have pulled out of adoption due to labours sex and orientation regulations...they were being forced to asses same sex couples as potential parents...how could they do that?..the catholic church are being forced to accept political views it just doesn't hold.

And what is all this about believing without evidence? UQD - tut! We've discussed blind faith before and I can honestly say that I don't think a single person on this thread believes without evidence.

Many intellectual people believe in God, many scientists, many Mathematicians, would they do so without evidence? I don't think so. Many people have studied the Bible and other historical texts and have concluded that logically, to them, there is enough evidence for an intelligent source. Others have gone on witness statements.

Let's see it like a court case - the witnesses are the disciples. Now when examining testimony the biggest giveaway is if all the testimonies are identical. I think we can safely say that none of the 4 gospels are identical. People remember things in different ways, see things differently, attach different meanings and so on. So examined in that way, they sound plausible.

How about under cross-examination? Well of the 12 Apostles, only John died in his old age, the rest were subjected to violent deaths. They knew as much, for when Jesus finally went into Heaven, they hid away in their room, afraid to preach the word, afraid of suffering the same fate. But they did preach and they did suffer for it. Why? Why would they do that? They didn't receive any payment. These were just fishermen for the most, only Peter amongst them could read and write. They saw what had happened to Jesus, they saw the violence of his death - why would they wish that upon themselves? Mass hypnotism? Were all 12 deluded? And not just 12, there were many other followers of Jesus.

How would that stand up in a court of law?

but DP that was their choice - either to obey the law or not. Would it have been okay if they refused to consider black people for fostering? No, because the law of the land says that is the case.

(For the record, I think that most of the catholic agencies are continuing to operate, but have officially cut ties with their diocese, so are now operating under different names with similar ethos.)

daftpunk, I don't give a shit. The catholic social services have put children with members of my family when they were not fit to even look after themselves. Catholic Social Services have allowed my evil 70yr old mother to foster teenage boys, even when it meant sharing a bedroom with my vulnerable brother who has SEN.

They are bloody hypocrites.

that's what's wrong with this country...you can't object to anything anymore....i've been called a racist because i said we have to look at the immigration problem..we can't keep letting people in when we have no jobs/ a housing shortage/ etc, etc....it's common sense!

Nice to see daftpunk hasn't changed. Well, I say nice...

MP - I did complain, but I didn't get a satisfactory outcome (which would have been a lesson about the Big Bang). My situation is rather like the one Fennel describes below. I have considered making a bigger fuss - I'm going to wait to see what happens in Y2. But basically, as this is an infants' school and my DSs will be moving on somewhere else for Y3, I've glumly accepted that in this particular aspect, the school is (for me) inadequate. (The Vicar is on the board of govs, the children have big church services every term, say a prayer to 'God' every day in class, most of the teachers are Christians - I know some of these things are statutory requirements, but it all adds up to a 'Christian' school, which I would never have deliberately chosen. So I'm cross about the misrepresentation.)

I asked around among my fellow parents to take the temperature, and the overwhelming majority are very happy with the school's quasi-faith school status, and became very prickly when I suggested that the local church was over-involved. So, to be fair, the school is giving the community what it wants - it's just not what I want.

Yes you can object, but in this instance I think you are wrong.

I object to the catholic social services placing vulnerable children with messed up people. I think they have double standards.

I think immigration laws should be tightened too - I lived in France for 2 years and we weren't offered a translator. We had to find things out for ourselves, we had to learn the language, accept the culture. Fair enough.

Objections are fine DP, it's when you tar everyone with the same brush that it becomes wrong.