Richard Dawkins funds atheist summer camp (aimed at changing the way children think)

The First Post ^ | 7/1/2009 | Rachel Helyer Donaldson

[SeekAndFind]

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, has helped launch an atheist summer camp for children. Alongside the more traditional activities of tug-of-war, swimming and canoeing, children at the five-day camp in Somerset will learn about rational scepticism, moral philosophy, ethics and evolution.

Camp-goers aged eight to 17 will also be taught how to disprove phenomena such as crop circles and telepathy. In the Invisible Unicorn Challenge, any child who can prove that unicorns do not exist will win a £10 note - which features an image of Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory - signed by Dawkins, Britain's most prominent atheist.

Dawkins is not personally involved in Camp Quest, which originated in the United States, but helped subsidise the cost of the camp through his Richard Dawkins Foundation. The former Oxford professor said Camp Quest provided children with a summer camp that was "free of religious dogma", unlike many adventure breaks which are run by the Scouts and faith-based groups. All 24 places at the camp, which runs from July 27 to 31, have already been filled and more camps are planned for next year, including Easter.

Camp Quest was founded in America in 1996 by Edwin Kagin, an atheist lawyer from Kentucky and the son of a church minister. The woman bringing the concept to Britain is a 23-year-old postgraduate psychology student from London, Samantha Stein, who was inspired to work at an atheist summer camp in America after reading The God Delusion.

Stein said the atheist adventure breaks were "not about changing what they think, but the way that they think. There is very little that attacks religion; we are not a rival to religious camps."

[SeekAndFind]

Another possible grounding would be human nature. For example, it seems to some that we humans evolved in such a way that we need to be both cooperative and competitive in order to best succeed in this world. This is the basis, I believe, of why democratic free market governance is better than dictatorship or anarchy.

Given a universe where we are all but products of chance collision of atoms ( as per Dawkins ), why would NOT wanting to cooperate and live with each other be deemed "evil" ? It is simply different. After all the ultimate destiny of every single living thing in this world ( you and me and this planet included ) is to deteriorate and eventually disappear. Accelerating the process isn't anymore evil than allowing it to occur slowly.

You are going to die, and so am I. What does it matter in the whole scheme of things if I help you achieve your ultimate destiny today or 80 years later ?

[Travis T. OJustice]

(aimed at changing the way children think)

In order not to be hypocritical, wouldn't any camp with a specific teaching goal be the same?

[Blackacre]

You are going to die, and so am I. What does it matter in the whole scheme of things if I help you achieve your ultimate destiny today or 80 years later?

Even if there is no God, I value my own life and would prefer to keep living out my natural lifespan. A society that does not have rules against murder would very quickly spiral out of control.

Rules protecting life are a neccesity for any functional society.

[SeekAndFind]

Rules protecting life are a neccesity for any functional society.

And what is the intrinsic value of a functional society? You function for a few million years and then you cease to exist.

If a mad man (even the word "mad" is now relative with Dawkin's philosophy) wants to destroy the world with nukes, I see nothing that is intrinsically "evil" in what he wants to do.

Everything is simply a matter of preference if we subscribe to atheism.

[Blackacre]

And what is the intrinsic value of a functional society?

That's a silly question. Most people prefer to not live in a society where barbarians roam the hills and the only law is who has the most weapons.

If a mad man (even the word "mad" is now relative with Dawkin's philosophy) wants to destroy the world with nukes, I see nothing that is intrinsically "evil" in what he wants to do.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean others won't try to stop him, seeing as the rest of us don't want to die.

[SeekAndFind]

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean others won't try to stop him, seeing as the rest of us don't want to die.

Yes, and as I said before ( see above ), if Dawkin's worldview is correct, Hitler isn't really evil, just different. Your using the words -- stop him -- says it all -- the group with the stronger weapons win, and if whoever wins gets to establish what is right or wrong.

You can try to stop the next Hitler but he can also stop you and if (God ( who doesn't exist) forbid ) he wins, killing Jews and gays would be the norm. Not evil mind you, just the norm. In fact, not persecuting Jews would then be evil.

That HAS to be the conclusion if Dawkin's worldview is correct.

[SeekAndFind]

Most people prefer to not live in a society where barbarians roam the hills and the only law is who has the most weapons.

Translation -- what most people prefer is good and vice versa. So, you are simply saying that if most people prefer something, that *something* is good in itself ?

[Blackacre]

Translation -- what most people prefer is good and vice versa. So, you are simply saying that if most people prefer something, that *something* is good in itself ?

What I'm saying is that rational people can look at the history of societies and how they functioned and use that as a basis for their own rulemaking. Not surprisingly, functional societies (the US, Japan, Monaco) end up having many of the same rules while dysfunctional societies (Somalia, Zimbabwe) do not.

You don't need religion to tell you that a society that allows people to kill each other without consequences is one no rational person wants to live in.

[OldNavyVet]

“If a mad man (even the word “mad” is now relative with Dawkin’s philosophy) wants to destroy the world with nukes, I see nothing that is intrinsically “evil” in what he wants to do.”

Any attempt to destroy the world is both irrational and evil.

[SeekAndFind]

Any attempt to destroy the world is both irrational and evil.

NOT IF DAWKIN's WORLDVIEW IS CORRECT. You may call it evil, but that's just YOUR opinion. The one who wants to destroy the world will call YOUR opinion evil. Who then ultimately decides who is really evil ?

[SeekAndFind]

You don't need religion to tell you that a society that allows people to kill each other without consequences is one no rational person wants to live in.

Remember, in a Dawkinsian worldview, we are all but chance products of the accidental collision of atoms. "Rational" and "Irrational" are simply NATURE working itself out. Is there anything irrational about a tsunami or an earthquake or a hurricane ?

Same principle applies to HUMANS ( the mere product of cosmic collisions ).

[Zionist Conspirator]

Alongside the more traditional activities of tug-of-war, swimming and canoeing, children at the five-day camp in Somerset will learn about rational scepticism,

Of what? Of a self-existent, self-created universe?

moral philosophy, ethics and evolution.

What is it with the atheist fixation with morals and ethics? Why don't they just say "to blazes with it all?" Oh, that's right, their atheism is based on their superior ethical sensibilities. They don't believe in G-d because he's "so mean."

[Blackacre]

Yes, and as I said before ( see above ), if Dawkin's worldview is correct, Hitler isn't really evil, just different.

Dawkins is entitled to his opinion, but that's just academic navel-gazing. Rational people, religious or not, don't sit around discussing whether people like Hitler are "really" evil, they use whatever means they can to protect themselves from people like him.

Your using the words -- stop him -- says it all -- the group with the stronger weapons win, and if whoever wins gets to establish what is right or wrong.

Historically, that's true. I just want my group to have the stronger weapons, rather than people like Hitler or Saddam Hussein. I'm happy to have my group write the rules, as I consider them to be better for people to live under.

[OldNavyVet]

“Who then ultimately decides who is really evil ?”

Rational people.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You don't need religion to tell you that a society that allows people to kill each other without consequences is one no rational person wants to live in.

And of course, we all know that the whole point of morality is social utilitarianism, don't we?

Something tells me you would be less than careful in carrying out an animal sacrifice.

[Zionist Conspirator]

“Who then ultimately decides who is really evil ?”

Rational people.

Who's that? The people who outnumber the people who disagree with them?

[Blackacre]

And of course, we all know that the whole point of morality is social utilitarianism, don't we?

I can't think of any other reason, but I'm an Agnostic.

Something tells me you would be less than careful in carrying out an animal sacrifice.

There's no reason for me to carry out an animal sacrifice.

[SeekAndFind]

I'm happy to have my group write the rules, as I consider them to be better for people to live under.

Notice you are appealing to personal preference again, not to what is INTRINSICALLY good or bad.

Let's say that Hitler won the second world war, would gassing Jews be considered evil ? If it is, on what ultimate basis do we ground our saying it is ? It becomes his personal preference against yours. There is nothing evil in what Hitler did then, it all becomes a matter of personal preference. As long as you agree that this is so ( if Dawkins is correct ), then I have no further arguments with you. You would then be logically consistent.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I can't think of any other reason,

Well that's obvious, isn't it? So, you think "victimless crimes" are unimportant?

There's no reason for me to carry out an animal sacrifice.

Of course not, since there's no "magical sky fairy," right?

[OldNavyVet]

“Who’s that? The people who outnumber the people who disagree with them? “

Rationality (”the quality of being rational; reasonableness, or the posession or use of reason”) shows.