Home » News » “Kids Without God”, Courtesy of the American Humanist Association

“Kids Without God”, Courtesy of the American Humanist Association

The American Humanist Association has launched a new website directed at kids. Few websites on the internet are so ripe for parody. The website perpetuates the common myth that there exists a dichotomy between science on the one hand and belief in a Creator on the other. What about those of us, like myself, who enjoy science and have a scientific education, but who also think there are robust intellectual grounds on which to base belief in a Creator?

The website makes no attempt to hide the connection between atheism and Darwinism. Of course, Darwinism must stand or fall with the scientific evidence irrespective of the theistic or atheistic beliefs of its adherents — but it does strike me as somewhat hypocritical that we proponents of ID are not afforded the same grace.

David Klinghoffer has already weighed in with his comments at Evolution News & Views. Also be sure to check out Melissa Travis’s article regarding the website.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to “Kids Without God”, Courtesy of the American Humanist Association

  1. That has to be the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I’ve ever seen. And I say this as someone who tends to think Christian attempts at this sort of thing tend to be pretty damn bad. Ugh.

    Yes, I know it’s for kids, but man, that’s no excuse. And to name the dog Darwin of all things? Way to live up to the stereotype.

  2. I think atheists, on a very deep level, are fooling themselves when they say don’t believe in God because of science. Here’s why:

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    and apparently this seeing purpose in nature is ‘wired’ into us from the beginning:

    Young Children Think Like Scientists – 27 September 2012
    http://www.livescience.com/235.....tists.html

    Children are born believers in God, academic claims – 24 Nov 2008
    “Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....laims.html

    moreover science cannot be rationally practiced unless Theism is held as true:

    Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website
    http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 debate available on the site
    Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://theresurgence.com/2012/.....-god-exist

    In fact the presupposition of God was necessary for the founding of science:

    The Origin of Science
    Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle.
    ….The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise.
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/aug.....rigin.html

  3. Telling kids to be nice to each other because it’s the right thing to do seems to go against ‘survival of the fittest’ does it not? Shouldn’t they be telling them to bully others so we can weed out the weak? ;-)

    Funny how even atheists can’t get away from God’s Golden Rule

  4. Wow, truly stunning for me to realize that their are still people in this advanced country who have all the evidence at their fingertips, yet fail to come to a plausible, rational answer for their own existence. It is appallingly arrogant for christians to throw insults at this website, considering how many children they brainwash on any given Sunday with almost no scientific facts to back up their own claims. I almost don’t know where to begin to point out the hypocrisy of the religious when they make fun of people trying to educate children. But I will start with what I believe to be the most obvious.
    Christians seem to think they have some sort of monopoly on morality. I have often heard the argument that without the bible, there is no basis for “doing good”. No binding law that forces people to avoid killing, raping and generally destroying each other. What an incredibly silly and at the same time irrational assertion. First of all, surely you are not referring to the bible that I have read? You know, the one with the laws about stoning a young girl if she is found to not be a virgin on her wedding day? Or the one with all the god – commanded genocides, rapes and murders? How about god telling hezekiah to marry an adultress? Oh. You DO mean that bible? Strange, people have been treating each other rather decently both before that book was written, (else we wouldn’t be here at the height of civilization of this planet) and during the existence of the book without actually using it. Mammals generally assist each other, and have been, for millions of generations. How is it even a stretch to understand that our laws today are merely extensions of that familial assistance? We help each other, are good to each other, in order to survive better. It works. Always has. And always will, long after the foolishness of religion passes to dust. Like any other superstition.

  5. Ok, just read Melissa Travis’ posting concerning the “kids without God” website. Her jeers ring a bit hollow. Her first wrong move is stating that “science cannot investigate the supernatural realm”. Um. More like will not. Just like scientists WILL not investigate Superman. Because he doesn’t exist. Just like the supernatural realm. If he did, scientists would be all over it.
    She also states that there are scientists who are also bible believing christians. ok. So what? There are short guys who are professional basketball players, doesn’t stop them. You do not have to be perfect in all logical areas to perform well in a particular scientific endeavor.
    That being said, Theism DOES negate science. Every miracle that Jesus or God performed in the bible is by definition the suspension of a law of nature. Science tells us every day that this sort of thing NEVER happens. Not sometimes. NEVER. Where are the miracles now? There are none. Could all those bronze age illiterates have been making up stories?!? no way!
    Another mistake is claiming that there is no “GOOD” without god. Ridiculous. There are plenty of people who are sane enough to not require the threat of hell or the promise of heaven in order to be a morally good person. Besides, what kind of child do you prefer, one who is always good to his siblings because he wants presents from Santa, or one who is good because he genuinely wants to see his brothers and sisters happy and fulfilled? It is high time the American people chose good behavior for the right reasons, and not because some archaic, backward, poorly cobbled together collection of myths and fables tells you to.

Leave a Reply