Michael Ruse has a new article up on creationism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There's not much new to those who know his work, but the following comment resonates - dare I say thunders - in the Science Blogs Atheism Wars:
Unfortunately at the moment, those opposed to Creationism are spending more of their energies quarreling among themselves than fighting the opposition. There is a new crop of very militant atheists, including the biologist and popular writer Richard Dawkins (2006) and the philosopher Daniel Dennett (2005) who are not only against religion but also against those — including non-believers — who do not share their hostility. At least since the time of the Arkansas trial, many fighting Creationism (including Gould 1995) have argued that true religion and science do not conflict. Hence, evolutionists (including non-believers) should make common cause with liberal Christians, who share their hatred of dogmatic Christian fundamentalism. Prominent among those so arguing include the author of this piece, as well as Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. This has brought on the scorn of the militants. In The God Delusion , Dawkins refers to Ruse and Scott as belonging to the "Neville Chamberlain" school of Creation fighters, making reference to the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler. Ruse and Scott respond that they were better known as the "Winston Churchill" school of Creation fighters, after Chamberlain's successor, who was prepared to make a pact with the devil (in his case, Josef Stalin) in order to fight the Nazi menace. They argue that in their hostility to religion, the atheists get close to making their own views quasi-religious — certainly they argue that Darwinism is incompatible with religion — and hence ripe for the Creationists' complaint that if Creationism is not to be taught in schools (because it violates the US Constitution's separation of Church and State, then neither should evolution be so taught.
So, duck and cover!
- Log in to post comments
[Girding loins] ... I haven't a clue what that entails but it sounds like it might be pleasurable ...
BTW, I've heard that Churchill/Stalin trope somewhere before ...
Shouldn't that be '...no true Scottish religion should conflict with science.' ?
This position leaves the issue even murkier than it was before. So, where are atheists supposed to draw their lines when it comes to debunking creationism/ID?
"Hello, we have destroyed through logic and argument your fellow churchmember's cherished notion that God was necessarily involved in the creation of Life, the Universe and Everything; however in order to avoid offending you and in the interest of keeping the peace, we are compelled to just shut up and sit down now."
The answer is not necessarily "42" but something that you would likely arrive at should you multiply 6 x 7.
Since the people Ruse is talking about agree that scientific evidence will not show that God was necessarily involved in the creation of life (certainly not in a simplistic "poof, you're here" sort of way) and given that science cannot show the God necessarily was not "involved" at all, what more is there to say as far as science is concerned?
So you could just draw the line at the limits of science. If you want to go on to preach your philosophy at them, that's fine ... as long as you clearly label it as philosophy and not science. Otherwise, you're no different than the creationists when it comes to misrepresenting science. For the rest, I don't know what you think may count as scientific evidence against God's involvement in the creation of the universe and whatever else Everthing might involve, but I'd recommend the same line.
You "destroyed through logic and argument" what now? That it is not commonly known to be impossible that God was not involved? (What is remarkable is what logic and argument have done to commonly cherished notions of arithmetical truth recently, but that's another story:)
Ooo can I see the logic and arguement please :o)
ID/YEC etc are not science, that is rather trivially true. But as for proving that the Universe or Metaverse or whatever wasn't created by God or Gods that is simply your belief/worldview and naff all to do with science.
Please don't mis-use science to try and bolster your beliefs.
IMHO, it is fair to say that most theistic evolutionists are willing to make common cause with others who oppose antievolutionism, even if our partners do not share our religious beliefs. However, it is very difficult for us to work as partners in promoting evolution with those that are simultaneously attacking our religious beliefs. Those who do this are actually making it less likely for evolution to gain widespread support since most of the opposition to it is theologically based & not scientific. (Ok, there are lots of pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution, but Im not counting these). Dawkins has been called Gods greatest gift to creationism I wouldnt articulate it like this but the point is valid.
On the Churchill / Stalin analogy I might agree but Id probably disagree on who was Winston and who was Uncle Joe :-) .. A better analogy on the faith / science dialogue however would be the insistence of Al-Qaeda & the American Oil-ogarchy that the dialogue is actually a war.
I have a simple request for all of you who think that atheists should "hush-hay" on the "odlessness-gay." Find out exactly how many people seriously take hurt feelings as a reason to deny the science of evolution. I think we need to have some kind of study, much more clear than the one that Chris Mooney referred to at Intersections
This "religion should be set aside in favor of fighting the creationist hordes" seems to me the same crap that I get from True Americans who tell me that I shouldn't criticize the president because we are at war with the terrorists.
And Steve, I don't think that the point is valid at all. While Dawkins has become the popular whipping boy for creationists who mangle his ideas in favor of showing scientists in a bad light; I don't think that the numbers showed an appreciable rise in the number of people who reject evolution in the time since Root of All Evil was released.
For all of the years that the NCSE and the inestimable Dr. Scott have been insisting that we let them work with the NOMA aspect have you seen any movement in popular acceptance of evolution among the not-so-fundamentalists? Have we seen any movement on global warming from them? I would venture to say that not much change is appreciably noticeable.
If you could show me that the numbers of formerly waffling deniers moved solidly into the denial camp have increased due to the release of The God Delusion, the move of Pharyngula to Scienceblogs, the publishing of The End of Faith or any real challenge to the hegemony of religion in the last two years, you may have a case. Until then I can only chalk it up to whining and patronizing, not only patronizing atheists, but also patronizing the religious who should be able to defend their faith on their own without agnostics patting their heads and saying "We will stand up against those meanie atheists for you."
Dawkins, especially, has clearly said that he is open to the possibility of their being a Creator, but in order to accept it he would not be able to rely on faith. He would need a clear, unequivocating sign, message or indication of any sort that God exists.
The agnostic equation for the meaning of life seems to be 7 x 6 = 41.999987. As atheists we round it up, which you may think sloppy.
btw - on my first post this morning I had used the wrong word, and didn't realize it until I got to work. We can't post from there per corporate policy, unless we are on intranet blogs. I had meant to write "logic and evidence" rather than "logic and argument."
And of course, science has "naff all" to do with proving or disproving God. But, if we expect to be able to use the same reasoning process for exploring the natural world as we do to demonstrate the "spiritual realm" it hardly seems like a stretch to subject religion to the criticisms that astronomers subject astrology, tarot, crystals and Nostradamus' predictions.
No ... and why isn't that an achievement when, during that same time we have seen politics in this country move much closer towards accepting the religious right's agenda? And, just out of symmetry, it has to be asked if there is any evidence that Dawkins and the rest have caused any movement in popular acceptance of evolution among the not-so-fundamentalists. Or are you saying insulting people with things like "Neville Chamberlain" appeasers and "deluded believers" is justified in connection with science education simply because it somehow makes you feel good, or superior or whatever?
If you want to limit yourself to religious belief that operates on the same level as astrology, tarot, crystals and Nostradamus, you're free to. If you are saying that applies to all religion or even an overwhelming majority of it, then you are just displaying ignorance of the subject you choose to pontificate on.
Oh, BTW:
Naw. We think it's sloppy that you think the answer is a number at all.
Blaming the atheists is an old and stupid game, John. If I think that religion is as stupid as astrology, then someone who is religious can tell me that atheism is as stupid as being a ufologist. That's fine, and I can handle it without being a crybaby. But then we can move on to other things, and still make common cause against creationism. We don't all need to do it from your turf.
Did Churchill suspend parliamentary debate to defend Britain against the Nazi's? Did all of the Republicans cease criticizing Roosevelt because we were in World War II?
Cowboy up a little bit. I don't think religion has as much value as is placed on it. I think it is a societal parasite rather than a symbiont. Defend that it has value, and even defend that it has verifiability more solid than astrology. Make it a separate argument if you must, but don't sit and claim that atheists are the reason that people don't like science.
The larger problem with accepting science is that it takes more effort to figure out than creationism does. Creationism can be accepted on religious authority, and that is all it has. Vapidity in our popular culture is a far larger problem than atheism.
It's not a stretch here.
Are you completely humorless? Big Thought demands the right question.
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing adult reactions here, not "Mommy, he started it" blame games. I don't give a damn if "they" started it or "you" started it. You atheists loudly proclaim that you're the rational, thinking end of the debate. Then act like it.
Damn! Whenever there is all that wailing and gnashing of teeth on the atheists blogoshere about how they are discriminated against and how they can't get elected to public office and so forth, all anybody had to do is say "Cowboy up a little bit" and y'all would have shut up? Who knew?
Frankly, whenever I hear someone claim that common courtesy and simple respect for the other person's viewpoint is unimportant, especially when it comes to "common causes," more often than not I find someone who I wouldn't think of actually working with because s/he is insufferable, a liar or delusional ... if not all three. If nothing else, it is a position blind to the evolutionary origin of and necessity of social lubricants -- rather like denying that gravity needs to be taken into account.
Ah, I see. You want science education to be like politics! No ... that can't be right. You think politics is the highest form of debate and we should emulate it in all fields! I find that hard to believe. No, I can't for the life of me figure out what you think that proves.
Here's a challenge ... show where I or Ruse said atheists are the reason that people don't like science.
Are you completely metaphor impaired? I gave you the question.
I think you are purposely being obtuse and misstating my positions The issue is whether or not atheism hurts science in its public acceptance. Ruse wrote this:
Challenge met. As for the civil rights issue, that is real; however if it is not necessarily as damaging as racism and homophobia, you are basically telling atheists to get back in the closet and we are saying back off.
Yes, atheists are hostile towards religion. It's part of the reason that we are atheists. Your remark about politics indicates that you are using an argumentum ad absurdum to make my position look untenable. It should be obvious that my point was analagous to the fact that in politics people can debate against each other in politics about one issue while remaining in league on another issue. It had nothing to do with elevating politics, it had to do with the fact that people do not need to be in lockstep on all issues in order to recognize and protect science against a common danger that we all recognize.
We can argue like this about agnosticism v atheism in public, but if creationists use this as a reason to claim that evolution is quasi-religious, then they will get no further than they did in Peloza. It is not a logical reason for atheists to hush. That would be allowing the overton window to shift back towards creationism. We are pushing it towards reason, you are safely within the pane for now and can afford to take your position without discomfort. All I'm saying is, don't try to push it the wrong way.
Hi Mike,
The main thrust of the post & article was that combining virulent attacks on religion with promoting evolution actually hurts the cause of science. Whether evolution logically implies atheism is beside the point. I & other TEs strongly believe it does not; Dawkins & perhaps yourself strongly believe it does. However, all of us also strongly believe that antievolution is bad for science. (I also think its bad for Christianity, but thats my problem, not yours). What is the benefit of tying the atheist argument to the promotion of evolutionary science when we know this will alienate a vast majority of the people that currently oppose evolution? I guess the real question is, what is more important to you: a) convincing society that evolution is true or b) convincing society that atheism is true? If b) is the answer, thats fine but then you need to accept the fact that getting to a) just becomes a lot more difficult.
One further point on your comment:
On global warming, evangelical Christians have made a huge shift in the last 5 years. Still a lot of opposition to accepting the problem, but the opposition / support is now pretty evenly split. And those that do accept it as a problem are doing something about it. Im hoping (and I may be dead wrong here) that well see significant change to Evangelical opposition of evolution as well. Time will tell.
Steve, I strongly the support the efforts of the religious who are also scientists in their efforts to present the NOMA. I support the efforts of E.O. Wilson, and the scientists who took some evangelists to the Arctic to show them the real effects of global warming. It opens a dialog.
My problem is not even so much with TE's such as yourself; I have one of my best high school friends who is an evangelical Christian debate back and forth with me about atheism/Christianity. I can defend Dawkins' position against his detractors on my friends' blog and while it does get heated, on the next post we agree on the shame of the state of pollution of rivers in Indonesia.
My problem is with the agnostics who don't think that atheist scientists should logically extend the same procedures that they use in examining evolution to their beliefs on whether or not God exists. The appeasers tag comes from the agnostics' position that if we just don't talk about religion negatively then everyone will jump aboard the evolution bandwagon.
It's okay to have an argument about whether or not free agency and money have hurt baseball; but it's not okay to have an argument about the existence of God? Since the existence of God is unverifiable and rests as a matter of faith, there is more to argue about than whether or not The Red Sox have become the new money machine of baseball. Keeping the channels open doesn't require atheists being quiet.
Considering that most evangelicals think that the church next door may as well be atheist since they have interpreted scripture incorrectly, agnostics may as well be atheists as well. Trying to say "Well, look at us, we aren't as bad as atheists, at least we admit to the possibility of you being right," makes agnostics look like sycophants to the evangelicals as much as it does to atheists.
Yes, there are some atheists who are assholes. I can think of some commenters at Pharyngula who insist that scientists who also happen to be religious are only technicians. They aren't helping much, but Dawkins isn't in that crowd, and both he and PZ have gone out of their way to say that they don't think that TE's are stupid. They just don't but the position. And for that they are referred to as "militant atheists?" Come on.
I'm a theist and I find this entire 'controversy' tiresome and counterproductive.
In reality, even those who like to style themselves as 'radical nonbelievers', who regard religion as inherently wicked, end up making common cause with those who hold less restrictive views on religion. They do so for a simple reason: because they wish to be effective. The views articulated by Dawkins and PZ Myers with respect to how we should regard religion are not science per se and they do not in any way impel science educators to swear allegiance to any imagined 'fundamentalism' on either side. They are simply their personal views, more or less, and (agreeing with Mike above) holding those views doesn't make them any more or less 'militant'.
Critics often allege that lay people will not make the above distinction, that they will conflate such views with evolutionary biology and that will make the task of educating the public and defending evolution education that much more difficult. This is, of course, true---but irrelevant. Creationists will 'quote mine' and misrepresent all manner of notions as science--that's the nature of creationists. Muzzling Dawkins etc. in the name of protecting evolution education is a means that undermines our hopes about the ends, and (in my judgement) is a response unworthy of those who profess to value intellectual liberty.
As a final observation, I remain unimpressed by these arguments in no small part because I've corresponded with Ruse, Darwin, Myers et al and found them all helpful and willing to make common cause and assist yours truly. At the core, we all know our common foe, and the sensible and well-spoken among us know how to set aside some of our personal views in order to be effective. Ruse's riposte in the SEP is but another parry in a private fencing match between 'gentlemen of the club'. There is no scorched earth, there is no march to Savannah. I refuse to become animated about this, or jump on it either way as a talking point, and I urge other believers and non-believers alike to take a relaxed view of the whole affair.
Scott writes: I've corresponded with Ruse, Darwin, Myers et al...
You corresponded with Darwin? And your blog pic doesn't make you look a day over 80!
Anyway, what's Ruse doing wasting Stanford's ink on such trivialities? Everyone knows the big bux and everlasting fame are to be found by meeting the Tripplehorn Challenge.
I know a couple of people who have made atheism their religion. There are God-fearing people whose company I enjoy more.
Nope. That's not the same as what Ruse said and certainly not what I have said anywhere. Creationists have been complaining that that Darwinism is incompatible with religion (as in that quote from Ruse) long before there were any "new atheists" to speak of.
What we are saying is that your needless hostility hurts cooperation among people who already accept science or at least the importance of teaching it well. The harm, if any, to public acceptance of science is only secondary by reducing the effectiveness of that group. Your constant claims about what others have said which do not match the reality raises doubts about the objectivity of your thinking. I see below you have two more:
I haven't a clue where you get that from. Atheists are, as far as the agnostics of my acquaintance are concerned, perfectly free to base their beliefs on any damn fool thing they like, just like theists are. What they haven't got is the right to claim that what they are doing in furtherance of their beliefs counts as science, any more than the Discovery Institute has that right.
One more time ... we don't give a damn what silly claims you make about atheism and religion, we care when you make the dumb mistake of claiming that what you are doing is science. And we care when you sow discord among people who want good science education, out of nothing more than some sort of need to wave your atheist totem in everybody's face.
As to your claim below that "one of your best friends is one of them," do you regularly call him delusional or a coward?
[Chuckle] Mr. Gore ... your ox is ready!
That's stuff direct from the south end of that ox. Neither I nor Ruse have told you to do anything other than to stop confusing your philosophical beliefs with science (in exactly the same way creationists do) and exercise a little common social restraint in your interactions with people on our side in the issue of good science education, instead of indulging yourself in chest thumping name-calling.
And that usually works out so well, of course. And how often does cooperation follow "debates" when they include nasty name-calling? The simple fact of the matter is that human cooperation is much more likely and much more effectively done in groups where, if actual mutual respect is lacking, at least the forms are maintained. More importantly the "cost" of refraining from juvenile name-calling is so low -- it costs you nothing but the false sense of bravado it brings -- compared to the value of the goal of good science education, that it makes atheists look really foolish when they risk the one just so that they can act like cock-of-the-walks.
Oh, there ya go ... and here I thought you didn't have any empiric evidence of atheists advancing the cause of science education! Now where are the scientific studies showing just what this "overton window" is and how it has been causing creationists to retreat ...
Wait! Let me get my shovel first ...
I'll get on my knees and thank you guys for preventing me any discomfort ... right after I stop rolling on the floor.
Scott:
That's a quite sensible attitude ... if unlikely to be a popular one.
Aw crap. The preview didn't really show the missed close tag. I hope you all can follow it.
Fixed the closing blockquote.
There was a time back on TO that I actually liked you, Pieret, but you have become such an ass on this issue.
I'll type slowly so you get it this time. No one is claiming that atheism is based on science. They are claiming that the God hypothesis is entitled to as demanding a proof as any other claimed causal relationship in the natural world. ...if anyone is to convince us of God's existence they need to do much better than any religion has done.
That being said I will repeat myself, again. I get along with Christians. They get my viewpoint, even if it is opposed to their cherished beliefs and even if they tell me I am wrong for being an atheist. But they don't blame atheists for not buying into evolution; they believe that the whole process of science fails to account for non-material causes.
I don't know how you can't see in Ruse's commentary that he thinks that atheists shouldn't be as vocal as they are. And I don't that we need to accept Steve's a) or b) choice unless you concede that atheism itself is what is preventing people from accepting evolution. And, obviously I don't see that it is; apathy towards science education is the biggest problem and that is driven by a culture whose headlines have more to do with celebrity phobias, trials, dwi's, child custody hearings or American Idol winners.
The little time that they allow for questions of origins are then given over to their clergy, and if we are lucky their clergy are theistic evolutionists. If not, then they learn a completely fouled version of origins.
So, you can keep jumping all over atheists if you want. It is misdirection and you are buying into the creationist frame that if atheists are militant it could lead to evolution being declared a religious position and Peloza would be overturned. And that is exactly what Ruse is implying.
What? In order to avoid offending you and in the interest of keeping the peace, I am compelled to just shut up and sit down now? Do you think agnostics shouldn't be as vocal as they are?
Cowboy up a little bit. We're still on the same side and all that.
Hmmm ... funny how that advice doesn't seem to travel well ...
OK, this is embarrassing, but I meant to type 'Dawkins' (the good Doctor sent me a helpful email once) but I (Freudian slip?) typed 'Darwin' instead. This is what I get for being a shameless namedropper, I suppose.
Mike,
why didn't you answer the suggestion John was making ?
You may be vocal. You should be vocal.
But be *polite*.
Apart from the reasons John has already mentioned:
a) Insulting, ridiculing or thinking that you have always the superior intellect leaves you no graceful way out if you are embarassingly wrong with your statement. Hurting other people leaves you no option than a serious apology.
And you as a human *will* be wrong sooner or later. PZ, Moran or Dawkins have areas where they have scarce or no knowledge at all and they have said pure garbage. Worse, almost all people have cherished beliefs where their exhibited rationality immediately cease.
b) The Red Ample effect. For stereotypes people use the most conspicous persons of a certain group. And see how the typical atheist must look like if people look for the character of the most prominent writer or blogger. If other atheist don't speak out against mean actions of the prominent people, people will assume that the prominent viewpoints have full support in the atheistic community.
c) "The Judean People's Front" & "The People's Front of Judea". The problem is not only if people are accepting evolution or not, it is a sad story repeated again and again in history that people with supposedly equal intentions begin to fight each other more fericiously than against the enemy.
d) Poisoning the debate. With increasing ferocity people will divide into several factions which see their viewpoint
as absolute contrast to the other viewpoint when in fact it isn't. You can be a gun lover and environmentalist who is strongly opposed against war and gay marriage.
But such people will be grinded down between the factions and if not outright rejected, viewed with suspicion.
While the medium was the message in what preceded, the message was still valid, in my opinion. So just to answer Mike's points:
As to "no one" claiming that atheism is based on science, that is clearly not true. While you may not be, Mike, you have only to read the comments section at Pharyngula to find plenty of people who do. Or take Larry Moran, who thinks science and virtually all theism are incompatible.
bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html
Indeed, according to Larry, the only group other than atheists (Larry lumps agnostics in with atheists) who are compatible with science are deists and pantheists, who he defines as those who "fully accepted the scientific version of evolution but ... wanted to proclaim that they were not atheists." In other words, to Larry, the only religionists who are "really" scientists are those who only pay lip service to the vaguest possible notion of god. Larry very much mixes up atheism and science.
TSK's point about the "Red Apple Effect" is well taken (it is, after all, the basis of much of atheists' attacks on religion, where they pick out the most venal or silly or dangerous people or beliefs and take them as exemplars of all religion). TSK's truism of human nature is the basis of people (both legitimately and illegitimately) taking it on themselves or recommending to others that they be "credits" to this or that group. Certainly, though, anyone bearing a professorship in the Public Understanding of Science should have some consideration of the image they project, as perhaps should others whose main claim to fame is the fact that they are both atheists and scientists.
While PZ may sometimes say that theistic evolutionists are not stupid, he will also turn around and gratuitously ridicule Francis Collins' religious beliefs out of the blue:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/yooou_wiiiiill_coooonverrrrrrr.php
... or post his little exercise in ridicule of those who believe in angels, for some unknown reason, on The Panda's Thumb, even though it is not relevant to either science or creationism (other than a crude correlation that both creationists and believers in angels are mostly made up of religionists):
pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/10/little-imaginar.html
As to Ruse's take on the Constitutional implications of the religion-like attitude of many atheists (which I agree with), he's a philosopher, not a lawyer! The status of teaching creationism in public schools as unconstitutional is in serious, if not necessarily immediate, danger but the vehicle of overturning Edwards v. Aguillard, et al. won't be to declare evolution a religion. But the public impression of the nature of science will have an effect on the Court.
You are conflating speaking out with the manner of speaking out. I could have put all those arguments I made before in ways not calculated to be insulting. Ruse is saying that atheists need to consider doing likewise. Your personal good relations with theists does nothing to address what Ruse is pointing out.
And why add to that apathy by giving people who might be willing to support good science education the impression that scientists are ridiculing them?
John -
Good points and apologies made for the nasty things I said. I still like and respect you.
I shouldn't have allowed myself to get so emotionally attached to this thread, it is not the way I usually deal with issues. I'm not backing from my position, just trying to move it from the personal. I am going to wait a few days to formulate my response.
Mike
Apology accepted to the extent needed -- I took no offense since I was out to make a point. Indeed, if anything, I apologize for that maneuver ... the devil must have made me do it.
YEAH! But which one? Azazel, Beelzebub, Baphomet, Lucifer, Angra Mainyu...
Blue.
Bastet?
Come on this is an Aussi blog it has to be Tasmanian!
Oh, and Matt, here are a couple of more data points:
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/11/chalk-up-one-for-intelligent-design.html
Larry Moran cites Jason Rosenhouse's opinion on theodicy wherein Jason criticises Ken Miller's "sophistry" (as if an atheist offering an opinion on matters of theological dispute between believers isn't pretty much sophistry to begin with) and Larry calling Miller a "Intelligent Design Creationist" in a stunning act of equivocation.
And I hope Matt, whoever he is, takes that to heart!
Sorry, Mike ... it's been a long week.
...by one hour here in the US, if I'm not mistaken.
As Congress has so generously granted me an extra hour of sleeplessness this morning, I am ready to come back to this for another comment. I hope that I am able to more clearly make my point.
Tangentially, but still connected, the Bill Donohoe Catholic League recently requested that parents not let their children see the forthcoming theatrical release of His Dark Materials. Even though the studios toned down the atheism, The Catholic League had this to write:
The studios accommodated those who would be offended, and it still isn't enough for the likes of some of the more extreme crowd. Whether our moderate Christian allies will respond to Donohoe, I don't know. But it does teach a larger lesson on the value of atheist accommodation. Now, Pullman still stands to make a large new audience for his series (it's one of the gifts that I will be giving my 12yo son for Christmas,) so it may not hurt him much.
But I can see the parallel to acceptance of science and its relation to the "New Atheists." It's not promising no matter whether Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or the rest pull back. The forces that fight against science for its appeal to a naturalist methodology will conflate it to a naturalist philosophy no matter what relationships that religious scientists and agnostic scientists use to point out that science is neutral about religion.
So, I maintain my position, and I managed to remain polite. And if Ruse has a pipe, he now has smoking materials.
As one who has seen the effect of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum up close (and seen its effect -- never great in the US -- decline into insignificance), the producers of His Dark Materials will be, if anything, most grateful to that dork Donohoe (nobody said you have to be nice to dorks out to organize book or movie bannings, even voluntary ones) for the free advertizing and the cachet of illicitness.
Whoa! When did the promotion of atheism become a fight they are your allies in? On the issue of censorship, however, there definitely will be some who will be against it ... even in Boston.
I'm sorry, I don't see how, in effect, joining in the conflatation of naturalist methodology with naturalist philosophy from the other end will solve the problem either.
The movie shaved the atheism from the book, and The Catholic League are still agin' it. It's no longer about "promoting atheism" although that is what the Catholic League would have you believe. It's about fear of atheism being available to their children, and so they don't want their kids to experience anything remotely related.
You realize that atheists and religious people are meeting together this weekend and having drinks and working to defeat intrusions of religion into government? Even the hated PZ is there, with full acceptance that the president of Americans United is a reverend. He wasn't barred at the door for what he writes, nor was Phil Plait.
Yes, they are allies in a common cause, and they haven't told PZ he has to tone down his atheism for fear of offending someone.