The children’s program sounds great. The group I visited was all about exposing the children to nature. Not your typical Sunday School.

Noell is exactly right, too, that they attract very liberal-leaning members - which isn’t a problem for me since that describes me perfectly, but it would definitly make a conservative feel uncomfortable. They can also tend to appear as quite elitist.

I brought it up because you had asked about raising children and how to articulate the spirituality you impart to them. A joke I often hear about UUs is that the definition of a UU is “an atheist with children.” …Which is exactly when/why I joined. It gave me a name for them to relate to that didn’t conflict with my own spiritual beliefs but didn’t pin them down yet either.

And just so I don’t feel too guilty for highjacking Noell’s discussion on evolution, some claim that Charles Darwin was a UU.

Their religious-styled symbols and rituals do not necessarily point to an existence of a god. They are there to meet the needs that humans naturally have for them (those needs are one reason humans cling to religion so tightly).

For example, what I loved most was the “prayer” aspect of the meeting, which was not like a typical prayer at all. Instead of saying an actual prayer to a god, they called the prayer time something like, “Service Is Our Prayer.” During that part of the meeting, there was no addressing anybody but the congregation. What the person did was describe a situation of people in need and gave information on how members can help that situation. The idea was that, rather than pray and ask for an unseen power in the sky to solve the problem, we take that time to learn about a problem ourselves and make the commitment to take a step toward solving it.

I loved their approach. I don’t know if these particulars vary from congregation to congregation, but I doubt it. While I chose not to be a part of UU, it appeared to me that atheists could fit right in; as long as your views and politics are liberal that is.

That’s how we do it, anyway…

In order to inculcate an appreciation of the secular view, it will be necessary to teach the basics on a wide scale. That will not be easy as there are few decision makers in the country’s educational systems who would be disposed to the inclusion of targeted secular classes. Further, there would likely be few parents who would support such an inclusion. It would be preferable to work with adults at the outset.

What strikes me as a little funny here is that this all sounds so nefarious - as if we are figuring out how to brain wash the masses. Of course, it is my opinion that that is just what religious organizations do. Almost from the moment of birth religious groups virtually smother their children in religious dogmatism.

TLS

conjecture: An opinion, or judgment, formed on defective or presumptive evidence; probable inference; surmise; guess; suspicion.

“Conjectures, fancies, built on nothing firm”. –Milton.

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”.

On the other side of the coin, I recently attended my first Humanist Association meeting and was shocked, to say the least, at the audience who clearly had no foundation in the fundamentals of secular basics (metaphysics, ontology, epistemology or any other “ology”) that would enable them to articulate their motivation for the secular viewpoint in a discussion with a well trained/educated creationist (like a priest or Rabbi) or any other prepared religious person. (One member of the audience kept saying that Jesus was the answer to all our problems!! What was he doing there?)

I think we, as secularists, have a massive educational job ahead of us and it should be on a respectful level. As the old saying goes, “If you really want to learn your subject, teach it.” At the same time, the message needs to be in a form that reaches to the masses. I applaud the “Brights” for their interest in marketing ploys like the name and the logo that are geared toward that “appeal to the masses” concept. I don’t like the name “Brights” (It sounds like a division of Mensa.) but that is not the point. I suspect that a significant portion of the reason so many people are religious is simply because they do not have the educational background to understand the science involved. Now that is a serious challenge!

Finally, for those interested, there is a good article in the December issue of “Scientific American” on one aspect of the evolution of animals leaving the water for the land. This article addresses the development of feet from fins and is a great example of how science develops a theory and learns more over time and realizes that the original theory was wrong and develops revisions.

Hmmm!

TLS

As if the word theory has to mean of these two things! Did it occur to this person that perhaps a theory is something else entirely? And that if it were the same thing as a fact or a belief, it might not need a separate term like that?

Personally, I have a Ph.D. in Math, specializing in “Number Theory”. My husband is a professor of Number Theory, and has written several books on the subject.

I would like to see this creationist attend one of my husband’s lectures and (during the Q&A at the end) ask my husband if “the Theory of Numbers” (i.e. Number Theory) is a “fact” or a “belief”.

Of course the person would never do that because the question is obviously not intended for people who have some idea of how research works, but rather is calculated to persuade lay people mistrust scientists and other researchers (as is the rest of the email).

People who cling tightly to their religious beliefs cannot fathom this. What they believe is chiseled in stone. There is no evolution (no pun intended,) no movement. Noell, as with Jazzy Cat’s answers to my queries, wherein he reverted back to the bible, and voiced no thoughts of his own, it is troubling, as that tends to stifle meaningful discussion. My question to him was “What’s in it for god?” Perhaps he thought it would be hubris on his part to attempt discerning the mind of god.

TLS

PS - By the way, actually, I doubt there are many Bunson burners still being ignited anymore, but it made for a decent allusion.