Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coragyps · 04-09-2002, 09:08 AM

<a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,680219,00.html" target="_blank">From the newswire.</a> Oolon, don't quit yet, but at least the Brits seem to give a damn about their schools.

Oolon Colluphid · 04-09-2002, 09:14 AM

Wey-hey! There is some hope yet! Thanks for that, Coragyps!

Oolon

Nic Tamzek · 04-12-2002, 04:49 PM

Hey, so Dawkins sees the advantages of being ecumenical (stretching the definition of the term a bit)...

Nic

copernicus · 04-12-2002, 07:15 PM

Nic, I think that it is the other way round. Many theists are willing to join with non-theists in endorsing the investigation of natural causes for natural phenomena. This does not mean that the theists are compromising supernaturalism or that atheists are compromising naturalism. It only means that both sides value the scientific method. Creationists do not.

Nic Tamzek · 04-12-2002, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by copernicus:
Nic, I think that it is the other way round. Many theists are willing to join with non-theists in endorsing the investigation of natural causes for natural phenomena. This does not mean that the theists are compromising supernaturalism or that atheists are compromising naturalism. It only means that both sides value the scientific method. Creationists do not.

Agreed, I was oversimplifying. Generally it is Dawkins who is, or at least is criticized as being, intolerant of theists. So kudos to him for teaming up with them for once. Whether the (current!) Bishop of Oxford has spent much time bashing atheists I have no idea.

It takes two to be ecumenical (by which I meant, simply, cooperating on issues of agreement and not treating differences as overwhelmingly important). Sagan was the model of this, I'm just observing that Dawkins may be beginning to follow this approach...

Nick

Kevin Dorner · 04-12-2002, 08:27 PM

From what I have read of Dawkins, when he does "bash" religion, the words might say "religion" but the points made all seem to say "fundamentalism." Perhaps he will now start making that distinction instead of leaving it as implied.

04-09-2002, 09:08 AM	#1
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Some encouragement.. <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,680219,00.html" target="_blank">From the newswire.</a> Oolon, don't quit yet, but at least the Brits seem to give a damn about their schools.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2002, 09:14 AM	#2
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Wey-hey! There is some hope yet! Thanks for that, Coragyps! Oolon

04-12-2002, 04:49 PM	#3
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Hey, so Dawkins sees the advantages of being ecumenical (stretching the definition of the term a bit)... Nic

04-12-2002, 07:15 PM	#4
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	Nic, I think that it is the other way round. Many theists are willing to join with non-theists in endorsing the investigation of natural causes for natural phenomena. This does not mean that the theists are compromising supernaturalism or that atheists are compromising naturalism. It only means that both sides value the scientific method. Creationists do not.

04-12-2002, 08:27 PM	#6
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	From what I have read of Dawkins, when he does "bash" religion, the words might say "religion" but the points made all seem to say "fundamentalism." Perhaps he will now start making that distinction instead of leaving it as implied.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.