You are correct, my friend.
Most of the Founding Fathers were advocates of the separation of Church and State.
1 Like
Would you support or oppose someone like Richard Dawkins teaching evolution in the classroom and saying in the classroom that evolution disproves the existence or need for God?
2 Likes
It would be great for any school to have Richard Dawkins come and talk about evolution. Two of his books are geared for children.
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True: Richard Dawkins: 9781451675047: Amazon.com: BooksSY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40&dpSrc=detail
What Richard would say to a US Public school class is that the is NO NEED to invoke God to explain the wonders of the natural world and evolution. And he will go on to explain rainbows,biology, evolution beautifully. This is exactly what our US Constitution requires and exactly what both TIES and NCSE is doing.
1 Like
Could someone define for me the word religion? Depending on how you define it, atheism could be described as a religion. For example if religion is a unified effort to explain the origins of the world, atheism is a religion. If religion is a unified effort to solve the problems of the world, then atheism is a religion. If religion is simply a belief in some sort of deity, then atheism is one of the few beliefs that isnât a religion.
I do not think the NCSE would agree with this statement. One of its most prominent members, who was a big figure at the Dover Trial, is Ken Miller, who is a TE/EC. He was never labelled as a creationist by Eugenie Scott or the organization. (Ken Miller also had some strong words for Jerry Coyne when Coyne started attacking the religious position of Francis Collins, even though Coyne was also a member of the NCSE at the time.) I have no doubt that Coyne and a good number of NCSE members privately regard TE/EC as just a half-hearted compromise between creationism and good science, but that is not, last I heard, the official position of the NCSE on TE/EC. Last I heard, the NCSE remains neutral regarding the TE/EC, since TE/EC does not oppose evolution.
1 Like
Yet since Richard Dawkins is very well known, even to the average member of the public, as a virulently anti-religion person, any appearance by him in the public schools could easily be taken as implying a tacit endorsement of the public schools for his religious views. I think there would be a strong constitutional case for banning Dawkins from speaking in public schools, given that context.
If you think that Dawkins should be allowed to teach about evolution in public schools as long as he agrees not to mention religion, that might sound fine in principle, but remember the case of Bertrand Russell and the City College of New York. A judge in a lawsuit involving Dawkins might rule the way the judge ruled in the Russell case.
I would not consider atheism a religion; on the contrary, it is a philosophy. A religion would be Christianity, Judaism, or Islam that would consider the philosophy of theism as defining the deity of the religion. The philosophy of atheism has no deity and cannot be considered a religion but a philosophy. Even Phillip Johnson of the Intelligent Design Movement would consider theism a philosophy but Christianity the religion in which one form of theism is practiced.
Charles Edward Miller, BA in German; MA in Religion and Philosophy
Dear Faithdefender:
If you are new here, welcome!
Iâll pitch in my thoughts, since I was trained in a Religious Studies department and the definition of religion is a constant topic of discussion among religion scholars.
Scholars regularly dispute over the proper meaning of the term âreligion.â The conventional, popular religious usage is that religious belief involves accepting God or gods, but for various reasons, many religion scholars find that definition too narrow. (For one thing, many Buddhists do not believe in God or gods, yet very few would deny to Buddhism the label of âreligionâ.) Some scholars, perhaps the majority, argue that âreligionâ should include all large, overarching views of reality that are used to decide what is real and unreal, true and false, and which provide a story or narrative giving purpose and meaning to individual human lives and to social and political life.
Under that broader definition, Marxism (in its full and original form) would count as a religion, since it offers a total view of reality, including a âtheology of historyâ meant to replace the previous Western theology of history provided by Augustine. Atheism â at least in the aggressive form which states that one can know that God does not exist and that there is no meaning or purpose in the universe other than what human beings give to the universe by their personal and collective choices â would also count as a religion. (On the other hand, a merely agnostic atheism (e.g., âI donât claim to have certainty that God doesnât exist, but I see no evidence that he does, so I act as if he doesnâtâ) which is simply a lack of belief in God and makes no grand pronouncements about the meaning of life, no endorsements of scientism or materialism, etc., would not count as a religion under this definition.)
I am not an expert on the legal history, but I am told by people who are that for at least some legal purposes, courts have ruled that atheism counts as a religion. This would mean that in the teaching of science, atheists must keep their personal atheistic views out of the lessons and textbooks, or they would be just as guilty of violating the constitution as creationist teachers of science would be. And I think that is a reasonable way of handling things.
1 Like
Thanks for the answers. The reason I asked is if atheism were a religion, then why doesnât separation of church and state apply? Hasnât atheism created its own church that began with a scientific theory instead of a god? Especially when you consider that church as it was originally used in the Bible referred to a group of believers rather than a fixed building or location.
NCSE certainly agrees with the above statement that TE (Theistic Evolution) and EC (evolutionary Creationism) are forms of creationism and are against everything that NCSE stands for. Dawkins and Coyne and many other groups (Christian and secular science groups) support NCSE. NCSE is for advancement in the teaching of Evolutionary Science. TE/EC are not Evolutionary Science and canât be considered science because science is neutral on the question of the existence of a creator, a God, or a Intelligent Designer. I challenge anyone to post anything from NCSE that is supportive of TE/EC.
No, it hasnât.
Atheists are a diverse lot. And scientific theories are accepted by many Christians, not just by atheists.
2 Likes
As an life-long atheist and now an activist atheist I would like to answer your question. No atheism is not a religion. Atheism has no doctrine, no dogma, no commandments, no sacred texts, no person(s) of authority, Atheism is merely the opinion that there are no God(s). In my case, it is an opinion reached after examining the evidence and the sacred texts of many religions and coming up with the opinion that since they are canât be true, they may all be false. Given the divisiveness world religions cause, I feel my opinion is more in line with secular humanism of the Enlightment. But it is an opinion, and I could be wrong. However, I highly doubt that I am mistaken.
I would like to mention that you are what is called a 99% atheist. You donât believe in Zeus, Apollo, or any of the ancient Egyptian Gods, do you? You think the stories about these gods are myths, correct? What about Allah and YHWH, are they the same at the God you believe in? or are they false Gods? So you and I are similar about disbelief in most Gods, I just go one God further than you (or three as I never know how to count Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 3 into 1 never could grasp that). Also perhaps you can answer a question for me, if your God is the one true God, why is there 12 Christian Churches in a little NJ town with an area of less than a mile square and a population of under 6000 people, 75% who identify as Christian?
Please note that I donât mind being asked probing questions. Please, if I can help you in any way with science or atheism please fire away.
Atheism canât be taught in school either. Science, US Government, secular institutions must be neutral on the existence or non-existence of a Creator or God. Do you see the difference between neutrality and atheism?
Youâve provided no links from the NCSE website to support your claims.
Ken Miller is or was a member of the NCSE. A number of other TEs are members of the NCSE. I think Sy Garte has been a member, and possibly Steve Schaffner as well. For all I know, Joshua may be a member, but you could ask him. In any case, he could probably name several more.
I have seen no evidence that the atheist members of the NCSE want to oust the TE members.
It was always Eugenie Scottâs policy to build a âbig tentâ of support for teaching Darwin-only in the schools, and she was very grateful for the help of Christians like Ken Miller in that regard.
You seem to be unaware of all this, so I get the sense that your knowledge of the NCSE is based on hearsay rather than on reading documents from the site and talking to its members.
I did not say that the NCSE was âsupportive of TE/ECâ. I said that they did not consider TEs like Ken Miller to be âcreationistsâ in the sense that the NCSE means when they denigrate creationism.
Hello @Faithdefender there are many types of atheists, and some of them can be classified as a type of religion. Science textbooks are not supposed to promote atheism regardless, but to remain neutral on the question of God.
I give you the whole NCSE website https://ncse.com/ to support my claims.
No atheist members (not Coyne or Dawkins or any atheists members that I know) of NCSE wants to oust the TE members or any other members (Christian or otherwise). When joining NCSE, no one asks for your religious affiliations are.
Where did you get come up this claim?. NCSE is a secular organization dedicated to the advancement of science education in the US. I would venture to say that there are many active and productive members who are Christians. Where is the problem regarding NCSE?
I agree. They have actually done a lot to be supportive of Christians that affirm evolutionary science. Look here:
Despite its name, evolutionary creationism (EC) is actually a type of evolution. Here, God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to Godâs plan. From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and theistic evolution lie not in science but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (Evangelical) Christians, who view God as being more actively involved in evolution than do most theistic evolutionists (Lamoureux, 2008).
The Creation/Evolution Continuum | National Center for Science Education
From their point of view, this is a complement. They have tried to make a distinction between affirming doctrine creation and rejecting evolutionary science.
1 Like