(1) You were the one who insisted in bringing up the issue of what I “don’t like” about religion.
(2) I’m not sure it isn’t at least peripherally relevant to Ecklund. Such behaviour might give atheist scientists a perfectly rational fear of conservative Christians.
I don’t see that at all. Rather, she does dispute the strident atheist atheists, but so do many secular scientists. That approach is not effective outreach. Making that point is not throwing atheists under the bus, but advocating for secular science.Deceptively minimising the impact of non-religious scientists, which she did in the Rosenhouse quote, certainly counts.
And if she wants to seem even close to even-handed, she’d need to “dispute” the frequently far-more-strident conservative Christians, who are forever telling us that secular society is the cause of all our ills, tornadoes, hurricanes, disease, and what have you, and that we need the biblical death penalty for homosexuality.
And I would suspect that the “strident atheist atheists” are more concerned about “outreach” to unbelievers who feel oppressed by Christian Privilege, who they are giving courage to stand up for their constiutional rights, than to any Christians who might be clutching their pearls at what they’re saying. Differences in perspective. Their target audeience, and their important battle, may not be yours.
Not accurate at all. Before commenting more, you might need to read the book. If not, please refrain from confident commentary about it.
As I said, I’ve only skimmed it. I have read enough of it (and particularly its citations) to see that it is about almost entirely just Christianity (with as far as I can see, one brief mention each of Muslims, and of a Hindu scientist, and a comparison between Christian and Jewish concepts of stewardship) , not “faith” more generally (read the religious affiliations of the interviewees in the citations, if you don’t believe me), and that it contains little of secular science’s view of Christianity.
Given this rather truncated viewpoint of hers, I don’t see much “need” to read it further. I would note that Neil seems to share my less than enthusiastic opinion of her output.
Addendum: actually, I’m not even sure if it’s Christianity, more generally, as Catholicism only gets mentioned in passing in collections of statistics, and Methodism doesn’t get mentioned at all. Evangelicalism is mentioned a lot. And given that Evangelical/Born Again makes up less than 1% of my nation’s population, I really don’t need to worry about how they see science.