If scientists want to consider “science” a faith based ideological stance for atheism, all power to them. But, this is clearly a breach of separation of church and state laws, IMO, as this philosophical belief system is no different than any other faith based religious belief system.
Gosh, this type of article just lays the ground work for opening the door to Intelligent Design and Creationist theories. If Darwinian evolution supports this new atheism movement they’ve got going on, then ID definitely deserves equal time in the classroom.
From the article:
Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.Um....Wow! They seem to be admitting that they are “losing out in the intellectual marketplace”, but what is with the big push of the atheist agenda? Do they think that is going to help their position? Or have guys like Dawkins, Weinberg, Harris, Dennett, et. al. simply decided to lay all their cards on the table and push the rest of the scientific community to come out of the closet and start a scientific movement of sorts to rid the world of religious belief? What the heck is going on here?
...Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.
Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.
She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”
...With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”
...Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
...With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace, most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology?
“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”Sounds to me like desperation here. I think the Intelligent Design movement has them completely flustered as to what to do. Their philosophical beliefs are being tampered with and that doesn’t feel so good.
Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.Dawkins is such an extremist it is truly frightening.
“She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she’s getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she’s gone, we may miss her.”
Dr. Dawkins wasn’t buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”
I must say, in the last few months I have been completely amazed and bewildered at the turn of events. Last year, it seemed that supporters of Darwinian evolution were trying to convince the public that science did not promote atheistic views, and in fact said nothing about religious beliefs at all. We were told that those who support the Intelligent Design movement were right wing religious fanatics who were trying to shove their religious beliefs into the classroom and that the ‘scientific community’ was merely interested in promoting “good” science.
But, within the last 6 months or so the tide has sure changed! Dawkins & Harris have new books on the best sellers list, and many other scientists are jumping on board with them in declaring that science supports their atheistic beliefs and that the rest of the country needs to be purged of our “mythical” beliefs, denounce our faith, and stop indoctrinating our children with bogus religious beliefs. We need to join forces with the church of the godless!
My gosh, Ann Coulter was right!!!
They are not just concerned with teaching “good” science anymore. They are aimed at teaching our students that science is the only source of truth, and that truth will ultimately lead to “The End of Faith”.
I truly wonder what theistic evolutionists think about all this...
