Is the school part of the LA public school system ?
If so, has there been any controversy about use of public facilities to support religion ?

Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/

PS - I guess I should state my position for the record - I am OK with that type of church/state contract, i.e. use of state facilities during times (such as weekends) when they are not being used for their state purposes, so long as there is no discrimination among groups requesting (or bidding for) such use.

And I really admire all the churches who reach out to their neighborhoods. I noticed St. John the Divine church in NYC really did a lot of this when I visited there a few years ago.

Second, what is it about youngsters and religion these days? I mean, I was a teenage atheist too, but back then it was a rare thing. Sister Fraley made a fuss over me and called me the “ape man”. Nowadays it seems almost fashionable. I need a young-un to explain what’s up.

Nowadays I’m an classic intellectual agnostic, with a fair bit of theology under my belt. I have a lot of sympathy for the religious impulse, even if I fear any deity/designer would be as likely malevolent as indifferent, and most unlikely compassionate.

So given all that, I’m struck by the rise of aggressive atheism. As I wrote to PZ Myers (he ignored me), it’s a scary, nasty, harsh, cruel, relentless universe out there. What’s wrong with sheltering in a comforting story? Heck, if I could do it I probably would.

I hope you know that a lot of us who read you here wouldn’t want it any other way. Wonderful post.

–Q.

It turns out humans have artifacts that have nothing to do with facts, explanations, beliefs or the greater good. How irrational humans are!

Fundamentalist opposition to topics in physics and astronomy may not be as frequent or as fervent as their attacks on evolution, but I wouldn’t call it negligible.

On the whole I think that the science v. religion issue is a bit of a red herring in the larger context. In a sense I disagree with Ron Knop that most of the anti-science forces out there are religiously motivated - my understanding is that the opposition say to physics from religion is pretty well negligible and most of the opposition comes from rationalists (i.e. those who over-sell the role of their logic and common sense). Obviously biology is a different matter. Overall I think religious morality is a much more powerful force for the bad than religious intrusions into science - mainly because religion actually has credibility in many people’s eyes in the former realm but not the latter.

In summary - I think the conflict between science and religion is the least of the problems with religion - though it’s natural that it’s the one that troubles honest and well-educated religious people most because for such people well backed up scientific theories are among the hardest things to disagree with.

Sean’s point here is the conundrum, for those of us who are activists, who do not believe as so many others in our communities believe. As someone who spent decades studying the histories, philosophies, and phenomenologies of religions, i have my own views of what religion is and is not. I do however set some of that aside these days, so that i can use what know about these religions to interact with congregations, in order to increase their participation in protecting the environment of the planet. I confess that i take advantage of what i know of these mythic belief systems to tweak changes in social and civic behaviors. We cannot underestimate the sheer numbers of those who hold them (the vast majority of citizens in the US), their economic and political impacts on our world from just their day-to-day choices and behaviors. Encouraging them to care for creation, as they see it (greening congregations of faith as i see it) is a greater good in the long run. Clifford’s choice to present his talk, likewise can encourage a better future; and even if only one single person is awakened to the possibility that he or she can become a scientist, we all benefit.

I withheld my comments many times. Maybe that’a good thing to some?

While I watch Sean’s post on atheistic approach, I noticed that some people were absent in the conversations, as to the opinion’s they might have. I mean, it might appeal to them not to say anything and watch from the sidelines like I did. I was always curious though, as to what they thought about religion and such, from a scientists point of view.

While subjective and opinionated each scientist could be, having considered the responsibility of stepping out front, having assumed the biographical scketch of Sean let’s say religious upbringing, what was the most appropriate course of action, now stepping on stage and speaking to society?

Deep down the mission statement seems tangible as I look over the way things are being done here in CV. Find it very useful, yet, because of the uniqueness of the individuals approaches, different, just as K.C Coles points out the relevances between, the scientific cafe and categorically not, was there such a place where there would exist no divisons in thinking? Ultimately, what was that missions statement saying? Only the best for society and from varying points of view?

This was a truly civilized/humanistic thing to do in a growing/maturing society. So again, wonderful.

(He had lots of other idiosyncratic terminologies as well)

So preach on preach!

Best of luck with your talk.

Thanks. I’m puzzled as to why you think that everything I wrote in the post was meant to be in opposition to your position. It is as though if I wrote somewhere later in the post that the sky is blue, it would imply that you were in opposition to that position. I find myself quite surprised by your interpretation. My remarks about things you wrote in the past -often excellent things- were quite specific. And then I moved on to frame the issues about which I wished to speak. (The playground remark was an attempt at humour.)

Cheers,

-cvj

I am in the camp that thinks religion is a waste of time and that, in those areas where faith, belief and dogma make claims about the material world, that they face being disproved by science, as so many claims already have been. I don’t need to believe in a “higher power” to have a strong moral compass and, as we see in the millions of evangelical Christians in the U.S. who support many of the more obnoxious policies of the Bush administration, belief in a “higher power” does not necessarily result in god morals, at least as I see them.

This is entirely different from saying that one shouldn’t talk to religious people - I do it all the time - and who would be against trying to convince kids of any kind that they can be scientists?

Who would care about going to a church? We all go to weddings of good friends, which often take place in them.

That isn’t the case, I think. Those ideas can be looked upon and used to create other ideas while not being used as such. But it isn’t even that they may be used to make ploughshares. They are wrong - the gun explodes if used.