This is ironic - they label any ideas put forward by "believers" as blind faith (no matter how rational) and any ideas put forward by "scientists" as purely rational (no matter how superstitious). As an example, pro-abortion supporters must at some point make a leap of faith as to what is human and what is not based on nothing but a statement of faith (based on an arbitrary physical definition of what is human). The pro-life position is based purely on science.

How can they claim to be "rational" when they don't realize that any system of thought must make some metaphysical claims that cannot be supported by any data - and hence their so-called "rational" way of life is just as much a religion as any other with its own god(s), dogma, etc.

Frankly, these "scientists" are EXACTLY the same types who persecuted Galileo - they just wear the white lab coats rather than white vestments.

Their worldview is already the cause of the decline in math and science scores and our childrens' ability to think. Why should we want more of it.

A similar (non-think tank) group you may want to keep on eye on in this vein is SEforA. I've read that they reformed from a group called "Scientists and Engineers for Change", which supported Kerry in the last election; their Bill of Rights may make a bit more sense in that context.

Their agenda is also under some scrutiny.

"We cannot hope to convince those in other countries of the dangers of religious fundamentalism when religious fundamentalists influence our policies at home."

Bizarre thinking, even apart from the implicit equation of the "religious fundamentalism" of western Christians and of Islamic terrorists. Islamic cultures spawn terrorists out of hatred for the West, but they don't hate us for our religious fundamentalism (and if they loathe individual fundamentalists, e.g. Bush, it's not for their religious fervour). They hate the West, among other things, for being too decadent and secular. The new thinktank wants the US to set a good example by being even more secular, when even a large chunk of the US (let alone the muslim world) would regard this as an example of how to have a moral shipwreck. That's not going to be an selling point for liberal democracy in the muslim world.

(Disclaimer: am british. Arguably not my business what, or how coherently, your tanks of thinking think.)

(And all on the feast day of St. Albertus Magnus, no less... Actually, come to think of it, more Albertus Magnuses (Alberti Magni?) would be pretty useful for the west: people who love learning for its own sake, are curious about everything, learn logic and philosophy, and don't have an "us vs. them" attitude to science and religion.)

"Their worldview is already the cause of the decline in math and science scores and our childrens' ability to think. Why should we want more of it."

I'm a believer myself, so no skin off my nose what secularists get tarred with; but, uh, how does secularism lead to children being unable to think? I wanna know.

(All the nonreligious eastern europeans I know are pretty smart, despite coming from very secular countries... although that's probably more to do with working in a university than anything else.)

James A: Great point about the feast day of St. Albertus Magnus :-)

How does secularism lead to being unable to think - properly or well that is....

It starts at the root of the definition of how we know what we know (ontology). If we don't get that right (In this case understanding that there are things we "know" that cannot be proven scientifically and knowing that you have to orient your thinking around these unprovable things as a north pole). These things usually consist of answers to who we are, why we are here, where we are heading, and how we should live to get there. Secularism generally ignores these questions, states them as irrelevant, or contradict themselves.

The result of this is that so call "reason" can be used to arrive at all sorts of false conclusions about reality (see communism, for example). This is where much of western civilization is at today with the (self-contradicting) belief that everything is relative and everyone has their own truth. With this, an invetiable slide "downhill" begins where next feelings are the sole judge of what is good and bad, which then pulls us down to more animalistic levels where every instinct is to be followed, on and on into the abyss.

Christianity, properly understood, pulls us up out of sub-humanity to be true humans who are rational and use reason to understand our world to help us in our calling to be "little Christs". Secularism inevitably leads a society into more and more sub-human behavior over time - not that there are individual secularists who are shining examples of humanity themselves in many respects.

If you want a true master on this to read more, head to http://onecosmos.blogspot.com

It would be funny if it weren't so stupid - and so damaging to a cause I share.

If they had been against superstition in areas addressed by science, I'd applaud. And yes, that would include vigorous advocacy and explanation of why "intelligent design theory" qualifies as religion and not science.

As it is... they're going to do tremendous harm to their cause, and mine, by working to separate faith and reason at the very moment when both pillars of the Compact of Ages need to be seen as part of one great and overarching framework in the pursuit of different but important aspects of the real goal - truth.

Declaring jihad on religion as your approach to promoting science and rationalism is the act of a moron who has not looked at related experiments and considered the evidence. In other words, a non-rational actor.

What were they going to instruct us on again? Oh yeah, rationalism in public policy. They could start by showing some.

I never really understood CSICOP. I have a lot of respect for Martin Gardner, but shooting down Roswell aliens and Loch Ness monsters seems like an awful waste of high-powered ammunition.

"What do you think: useful? tendentious? or irrelevant?"

Harmful. But not very, because with any luck their influence will be slight.

People are all for science, till you till them to choose between science and heaven. Then they reject science.

It's foolish and harmful to make that the choice. It's bad to sour people on science. So this is a foolish and harmful project.

This is just more people trying to get everyone that doesn't think inhibited in participating in public life. It's intimidation by litigation, motivated by bigotry.

Meanwhile I don't see Christians engaged in any similar project to drive out everyone who doesn't think like them. Not at all.

So I think this is not only foolish and harmful, but discreditable, and an attack on those who don't deserve it.

Joe spot on and it takes us even further to another point on the nature of thought and belief systems. You can have either a complete system or a closed system.

A closed system is one that answers all questions. This system does not allow any other conclusions outside of itself. Sound familiar? Islam and rationalism fot this bill.

A complete system does not provide all answers. It is still open to inquiry and change. Christianity and mathematics belong in this classification. Hard to believe? But true.

The present situation in the world is due the lack of a real ability to think because we have lost the basis for the moral underpinnings of the society. Without faith we cannot reason clearly and substitute anything in it's place.

Progressive thought replaces faith in G-d with faith in man and is a false doctrine. We are doomed if we forget the basis for our society or replace it with false dogmas.

And to think I used to be a progressive socialist.

JMO is all.

The Hobo

Look,

Pure science is rational, but doesn't actually exist. But the second you add people, everything rational dies, because we are not rational. The classic "Gulliver's travels" story applies, we are all yahoo's prentending to be whinnems. So socialism, which was a system theoritically rational, fails abruptly. On this note Alan (#4) Christanity is also not rational, but instead generates a moral compass based on your feelings and emotions. If everyone is given the same blueprint for feelings and emotions it may feel rational, but that does not make it so.

I had alot more written about this, but I'm not sure it's important.

I'll say that the problem with math and science in this country is not politics or religion. It's that nobody cares. Who on this website can name any of the last 5 nobel prize winners in science? 50 years ago our heroes were Einstein and Buzz Aldrin, Kennedy's and the Manhattan Project. Now, you'd be hardpressed to find many teenager's who even know what the manhattan experiment was, or who was Buzz Aldrin. Our heroes are Lebron, the Mannings, the Britney's, the Lohans. We embrace the shallow over the intellectual OR the faithful.

Was this problem caused by science? I highly doubt it. I see this as the formation of capitalism, especially american capitalism, which sees personal freedom as it's greast achievement. Every good comes with bad, and so it's no surprise that many of our peronal freedoms have led to gluttony and temptation. However I highly doubt that people are going to accept greater restrictions at this point. I certainly don't want organized religion telling me what to do.

So now what? I think I've just talked myself into realizing that science and religion are facing the same conundrum, that a decline in thought and faith are killing both of us. I'm going to have to sit and think for a little bit...

These are simply lobbying groups that formed as a check to the myriad of Right Wing lobbyists that pervade the government in some parts of the USA.

Last time I checked, lobbying is legal even if it goes against your beliefs. When the theory of evolution is not compared to creationism as just another worldview, then these groups should have no reason to exist.

Whether it happens to be banning online p0ker, fining TV stations $1 million for a nanosecond of a nipple shot, or setting US research back a decade, some people are fed up with the government kowtowing to fundamentalism.

It's funny when fundees take post-modern word games on how science is as flimsy as religion and make them thus equals in discourse.

In the current political climate there is a large movement devoted to replacing empirical results obtained by application of the scientific method with something else obtained by some other method that calls itself faith-based. Creationism is only the most egregious of these. Just today, for example, I see that Bush has turned over family planning to someone who thinks too much sex is bad for you. He's a leader in abstinence education (which you will recall is now recommended for all unmarried young adults, not just sixteen-y-o Suzie). Prisoner rehabilitation has turned into proselytizing on the taxpayer's dime, instead of a study of what works and what doesn't. (If you think religion works to reduce recidivism, ask yourself if you would be willing to fund a study to see which religion works best.)

This group's anti-religious bent can seem somewhat extreme. But the truth is, it's not as if more faith necessarily makes for a better society (cue the Taliban). Secular principles are ones we can all agree on without giving up something of ourselves. Religion, not so much so.

darn it, I need preview to catch my unclosed tags!

Alan, #4: I'm not convinced. Most secularists seem pretty interested in reason and science to me. It's not been my personal experience that people leery of religion were significantly less logical, or less keen on science and reason, than the evangelical Christians I've known. I'm not all that convinced that secularists are to blame for moral relativism, either. I think that just kinda happened for... well, reasons along the lines of what alchemist stated, which sound about right to me. People don't care anymore. I am tempted to blame television.

#10: "Last time I checked, lobbying is legal even if it goes against your beliefs. When the theory of evolution is not compared to creationism as just another worldview, then these groups should have no reason to exist."

Absolutely. I'm not sure why you're bringing up whether it should be legal when no-one's suggested making it otherwise, but it helps to have even obvious liberties gratuitously defended from time to time, so I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I thank you for pointing this out.

"Whether it happens to be banning online p0ker, fining TV stations $1 million for a nanosecond of a nipple shot, or setting US research back a decade, some people are fed up with the government kowtowing to fundamentalism."

Ah, these would be your wacky american "talking points". That's right, the US government went out with axes and destroyed a decade's worth of science on the urging of Jerry Falwell, yes? ...no? Oh, yeah, they imposed a ban on any and all research that's expected to take ten years to overturn, didn't they? ...no? Right, my memory's hazy, but I think I got it this time: they allowed a contraversial research area to remain legal but refused to give it government funding? I can see there's room for criticism for that, but it's hardly a "setting back". Especially when the promised cures from said research would most certainly be an enticement to private sector funding as well...

(I'm with you on the nipple thing, though. That was exceedingly silly.)

#11: "Secular principles are ones we can all agree on without giving up something of ourselves. Religion, not so much so."

An interesting definition and worth pondering, but as stated it assumes a very secular population. You might be able to discard religion and areas of morality traditionally championed by religion, and think you've lost nothing important; but that doesn't mean everyone else does.

I agree completely with Joe and David Blue. To blame declining math and science fluency in the US on religion, faith, or religionists is bizarre, counterproductive, and just plain wrong.

Liberal ideologies -- socialism, secularism, multiculturalism -- are more responsible for a greatly decreased emphasis on those studies or subject matters that lead naturally to the hard sciences and math.

Those who learn in America have been less and less likely to pursue Math and Science, because they've been spoon-fed, spoiled, and discouraged from hard learning. Rote memorization had a use, as did detailed and specific history.

Reading of great literature, including the classical canon in virtually all areas, exposed students to the great ideas and the legacy of Western Civilization. Latin and Greek fostered an understanding of grammer and linguistics.

As we've become more secular, and politicized the very methods of learning, surprise, we aren't learning anything of permanence, but rather boatloads of platitudes, emotions and attitudes that tell us nothing of importance.

Hence, every liberally educated boob thinks they know what the Constitution says or doesn't say by what "feels right," rather than the logical constructs of the document itself. Ignorant scolds act to remove books like Huck Finn from the library because it includes the word n****r without any awareness that Twain's book speaks eloquently about the condition and humanity of a primary African American character. They likewise want study of Washington or Jefferson diminished and distorted based on valuations that prevail today, but ignore serious discussion of arguments and debates then.

You see all around us what might have once been a shared "common floor" of education obliterated in favor of shared feelings. Almost worthless, and a smokescreen to hide the fact that most children do not learn how to learn, nor learn how to think. Rationality expires, killed with tears and an embrace.

Science needs to reinsert itself into public life, especially as reflected in public (and private) education. Likewise, congregations of faith should be encouraged to do likewise, as there are few aspects more meaningful to the human condition for the eternal questions, that all revolve around: Why? What's our purpose?

Science and Religion are more parallel means to an end, one can inform the other, but each must tend to its own first fruits, rather than waste time throwing brickbats at each other's perceived shortcomings. Funny how essential that perspective proves, no more for the individual, than to the society, or those societal institutions that connect us all.

What I mean by secular principles being easier to give up: we can all agree on methods to test whether heavier objects fall faster than light ones. We could probably all agree more-or-less on protocols to test whether Colson's Prison Ministry reduced recidivism more than a Buddhist ministry or just joining the prison chess club with the same level of commitment. But we can't give up on, say, the divinity of Jesus or the unique status of Mohammed without renouncing something that we've accepted for ourselves despite its anti-empirical nature. Is that, perhaps, why a question of the latter type must be warred over?

Irrelevant.

They'll waste a lot of money to make themselves feel self-important and likely accomplish squat.

Any single season of Mythbusters will have done more to further critical thinking and scientific interest than these stuffed suits will accomplish in a lifetime.

Science is always at it's best with the nuts and bolts, not the grand existential questions.

Personally, I attribute the decline in math and science to the media. For those of you out there who are professionals (in any field), when was the last time you read an article in a mainstream publication (not a specialized one), on your area of expertise, where they got the facts even close to accurate? I'm not talking political anything here, just basic how it works stuff.

Not to mention the general technophobia of the media. Everything causes cancer, birth defects, or hair loss it seems.

#14 from dadmanly: "Rote memorization had a use, as did detailed and specific history."

I couldn't agree more.

I find myself unpleasantly jolted from time to time by how little people know of history, and how willing they are to bluff and make stuff up.

#14 from dadmanly: "Reading of great literature, including the classical canon in virtually all areas, exposed students to the great ideas and the legacy of Western Civilization. Latin and Greek fostered an understanding of grammer and linguistics."

I agree with this too.

The court of final appeal in science is the data. Make a prediction based on a theory, prediction turns out wrong, theory is tossed out.

Religion, on the other hand, tends to rely for a court of final appeal on three-thousand-year-old books translated several times, always by someone with an axe to grind.

I know which I'd prefer to trust, thank you.

I know which I'd prefer to trust, thank you.

Ironically, that means you trust that which is inherently untrustable, as it is constantly prone to being thrown out tomorrow.

Treefrog,

Better to guess, find out the truth, try again, they too constantly believe something wrong without any investigation at all.

To all

We-people in the whole wide world are having only ONE GOD! The GOD who has not come from a human! Not Buddha, not Jesus Christ, not Allah or not any Cults. As we can see those so-call GODs do not have any power as their people believe-in at all, unable to protect their people from any kind of disaters such as earthquake, tsunami, volcano, winstorms, fire, flooding, sickness and all kind of accidents, even churchs and mosques have been destroyed.
Religions and Cults have come from human's dreams and imaginations; combining of good & bad, true & false, smart & stupid in their commandments.
Religions seperate people in the whole wide world and create wars that have not been ended for more than a thousand years.
Our Unique God is the NATURE who will do anything by its own and never accepts any kind of prays from anybody. So why don't we forget Religions and join love together around the world, our world will become a PEACEFUL-WORLD. Leave the Religions for the history.
Save money and time by not spending them for religion-ceremonies. Considering; this is the world's huge economic-loss. Buying junks for gifts to each other is a cool-trick of the rich-merchants so they will get richer.
Remenber, we only have one life to live; make our world a good place to live, the RELIGION-FREE-WORLD!!!
Tanks for reading, pleace tell your friend.

From an 0ldkid