In essence, you are claiming the non-existence of something without defining what it is that you claim doesn’t exist.
In other words, if I say purple, seven-legged camels with three humps do not exist in Central Park in New York, I’ve defined my terms and you can agree or disagree.

Claiming that absence of some unspecified belief in some unspecified form of unspecified deity is atheism is in itself somewhat specious. Granted, in there somewhere, there may be some absence of belief in one kind of a deity or another, but I doubt that you’ve analyzed any of the characteristics of belief in a deity.

I say that because, you speak of science as though it were a deity.
Some of the characteristics of belief in a deity are…
It requires belief per se, as opposed to certain knowledge,
It can do what you can’t by yourself,
It isn’t generally tangible, except in the case of idols,
It is generally bigger than you, in one respect or another.

You believe in Science. You don’t know for certain that it is of value; however you are convinced that it is of value.
Your situation is the same as that of a person who has unknowingly received counterfeit currency, convinced of the value but lacking certain knowledge. As a matter of fact, you could even test the value of the currency among like-minded people, and based on your observations, reach an even greater conviction that the counterfeit is real.

You may claim the scientific method is rational, but you have not applied the scientific method to the scientific method, i.e. you have not generated a repeatable, testable hypothesis followed by experimentation.
The reason? You can only think of one possibility as an alternative to the scientific method and that is merely what you consider the opposite of it.
However, there may be other alternatives, currently unknown.
Interestingly, if the scientific method were faulty, testing the scientific method by using the scientific method would produce faulty results. That leaves you guessing, and hoping that the scientific method really is valid.

You cannot change the minds of everyone on earth by yourself, so you believe and hope that Science and scientists working together will do it. That’s what religionists do, too.

Science isn’t tangible.
Some of the items under test and some experimental results may be tangible. Conclusions aren’t tangible, and they require belief since they could be wrong and often are.

Science is greater than you or any scientist.

In addition, the corollary to atheism is that you know all things and have searched everywhere while seeking proof of something and have still failed to find it.
I am very skeptical that any atheist, or all atheists put together, know all things.

Agnostics may claim rationality, but atheists for sure cannot.

On the other hand, you may be a materialist and be claiming atheism on that basis.
You’d still have a problem in that rationality itself is not material, so your foundational belief would be faulty.

Ultimately, the real failure of atheism is the underlying claim to know what is not known, to know how much is not known as well as to know the relative importance of what is not known, and all while it is yet unknown.

Skepticism allows for not knowing, is not materialist (although many claim to being skeptics on the basis of being materialists) and, in some respects, considers that some future knowledge may be of greater importance than present knowledge.

Thus, an agnostic skeptic allows for the possibility that there may be a deity, pending proof or evidence, and that the potential future proof may outweigh current knowledge.
The religious skeptic allows for the possibility that Science may be correct in spite of the constant change in scientific theories and disagreement between scientists and that there may be some future evidence of, say, evolution that proves it beyond a shadow of any doubt.

In the meantime, claims of rationality without any actual rational thinking are a waste of everyone’s time.

First, the presumption that ethics are a metaphysical or transcendental concern is not a given. If, as Sam Harris argues (and as some-but-not-all Buddhist types and Epicurean types other freethinking types have argued for centuries), ethics are about the happiness and well-being of people, then clearly there’s a role for science in the understanding of ethics and values (both how they came to exist in human culture, and how to shape them to maximize the health and happiness of individuals and societies). The idea that ethics is a field beyond empirical, scientific study is a philosophical prejudice, not a given fact. It’s a prejudice most people come by honestly because the language of transcendental values is everywhere, but nevertheless it is not a given.

Second, religion as most people practice it is not about metaphysics. Religion generally becomes metaphysical only when philosophers and theologians treat it in the abstract. For everybody else it is about the truth of empirical and historical claims: the “fact” of the resurrection of Jesus, for instance. The “facts” of miracles performed by various prophets in evidence of their claims to know about god what they claim to know. The “fact” that prayer heals disease. “Facts” which, if expressed in a non-religious context, we would be happy to say that science can either disprove or show to be almost infinitely unlikely.

Now it’s true that science cannot disprove the idea that there might be a god, or an afterlife. But a specific religion will claim that its god and its afterlife have specific qualities, and that we can know this because specific people have been empowered with specific revelations, and that specific miracles and powers granted to those people prove the revelations to be true. What science can do is assess the likelihood of a given miracle; what science can do is show us how and when the ideas of a given religion emerged into the world, and relate them to the culture from which they came; what science can do is show the competing claims of different religions side-by-side along with the nature of the evidence offered for each claim.

So the sciences of microbiology, chemistry, physics, archaeology, and anthropology can cast doubt on, for example, the resurrection of Christ and the historical accuracy of the Bible — and thus the accuracy of the Christian religion — in the same way that evolutionary theory can cast doubt on the 6-day creation written in Genesis. Of course the 6-day creation claim, just like a specific god-claim, can be made “metaphysical” by redefining a day as some elastic but very large period of time. In the same way, philosophers redefine for the sake of argument a specific god as an abstract creator of unknown origin and intent, thus making it metaphysical. But that’s not the religion most people actually practice.

(Put another way: if science had nothing to say about religion, then there would be no niche for the philosophers and theologians who spend their lives trying to make religion more rational and humane by making it more abstract and less contingent on the prejudices of the ancient men who originally brought their faith into the world.)

It seems to me, then, that the claim that science has nothing to say about religion, and nothing to offer people in a “spiritual” sense, is false, but only because I appear to share a different set of starting philosophical assumptions about what qualifies as a metaphysical or ethical belief. To me, most ethical and religious claims do NOT qualify as metaphysical, transcendental, or immune to empirical and logical investigation. The claims of the religion I grew up in — a very liberal, pro-evolution, Episcopalian Christianity — are certainly not metaphysical or abstract, in my opinion.

Therefore if I wanted to include an inclusive, nonthreatening statement about religion in a book on evolution, I would simply say that the vast majority of religious people have little or no difficulty recognizing the truth of evolutionary theory. This, after all, is an empirical fact, not a (highly debatable) philosophical assumption.

I suppose this might seem like a desperately pedantic quibble, compared to the urgency of getting good science education into the hands of modern children and parents. But the idea that skeptics and nonbelievers have nothing to offer in the realms of ethics and the “spirit” (the realms of emotional health and aesthetic joy reserved by many to religion) is used to batter and belittle atheists every day, and I think it is neither militant nor shrill to object to the appearance of that particular meme in a book about science.

All points presented are valid I think, and I was really confused at the fact that I couldn’t make up my mind! Now, I feel I am more at peace because of Daniel’s explanation and Seth Manapio’s brilliant (if not always nice) counterarguments.

I have to agree with Seth and disagree with Daniel in the essence of the argument which is that science has nothing to say about religion. For me that is not true and for that, that comment should not have been included.

Separately, there is the issue of addressing religion in a science book for kids. Well, I think that is right for this country, as the polemic about evolution does not stand here on its own merits, but only in contrast with the religious view of the creationist myth. In that sense, Daniel’s intention of leaving religion to those close to the child makes sense. However, I am now convinced that it is not true that science has no business in religion. I wish Daniel had not said that in that way and had found an accurate assertion to positon that religion is a PERSONAL issue and we don’t mean to rock your boat here, just teach you science.

Hopefully, the viled statement will get the book in schools and in libraries where it belongs,while we grown ups will continue to debate the finer points of its insertion in the book at all and its accuracy.

Finally, I did get the book this week and we started reading it with my reluctant son. Even though I said I was going to read only the first page, we got to the fifth before he requested to read some comics. I will consider that VICTORY! Cudos to Daniel for writing the book in the first place and thank you from the bottom of my (bleeding mother) heart.

But that’s a separate issue from the ones that Daniel brings up here. The discussion started because he brought religion up. And some of us felt that, in making the statement he made about science and religion, that “Science, as a whole, has nothing to say about religion”, he misrepresented both science and religion. I appreciate that he had a subtler point he wanted to make, but since the people reading the book only get what he actually said, I, and others, feel that he should just not have mentioned it at all.

The second issue that he brings up is that science has nothing to say about ethics or metaphysics. And again, I think that this is a misrepresentation of science, ethics, and metaphysics. He’s just factually wrong when he says this. We can, and must, have a skeptical approach to ethics, to human behavior, to justice, to politics, and to the place of humanity in the universe. That doesn’t mean that the existence or non-existence of God has to be in every conversation, or even in a significant number of conversations. But it does mean that we can’t ignore issues that are important and significant because we’re afraid of offending those who disagree with us.

As for keeping things separate… for me, skepticism is not about a movement or about what is expedient, it’s the principle upon which I construct my worldview. I’m not a part of an atheist movement and I have no interest in being a part of any atheist movement, because atheism is not a principle. But as a skeptic, I don’t see how I can keep separated from issues like whether God should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those who want to keep it in are saying things that simply are not true in order to support their case, and if I don’t stand with truth as a skeptic, where the hell do I stand?

I think it’s more disrespectful to give the message, “Well, I’m too rational to believe in God, but it’s okay if you aren’t. I just don’t want you to hurt yourself with your stupidity.”

Honestly, I wouldn’t advocate for directly attacking religious beliefs in most cases. I just don’t see any reason to give them a special status. It sends the message that it’s okay to exclude beliefs from scrutiny as long as those beliefs are central to your personal identity or worldview. It de-fangs the skeptic and reduces him/her from a disciplined and careful thinker to an annoying know-it-all.

But is it so bad to keep them separate? Like mentioned in the post, you put on your “skeptic hat” or “atheist hat” when doing outreach? I think it’s useful to do that with pure science outreach, and it may be so for skepticism as well. I think Loxton’s book is more of the former anyway (but I haven’t read it yet… sorry, no kids!), however, if it’s harming the outreach that you want to do with skepticism to lump atheism into it, it may service both movements to keep them separate. After all, you don’t want to keep hearing, “well I agree with you on the vaccine issue, but I don’t really want to get involved with skepticism because you guys talk about how there’s probably no god, and I’m uncomfortable with that.”

Whereas we can point to many great skeptical investigations into pseudoscience to back up our outreach, we can’t do so with the existence or non-existence of gods. Although cosmology and biology have put limits on what god can or has done, that’s not going to convince a believer who can leave a little room for miracles and deities and whose moral code is attached to these beliefs. As an atheist, I disagree with such exceptions, but as a skeptic, I can’t test it further, so I’d best leave it alone. I know some have said that there are a few who believe in aliens and Bigfoot with the same religious fervor, but I’d say a skeptic isn’t going to convince them either, and can only do his or her best to test what evidence is available.

I understand that no one wants to be told what they can and can’t say. All I am saying is that each person has to look at the goal of their outreach or activism and see if it’s going to be helpful or harmful (or indifferent) to their message to include religion. I think I agree with Daniel that keeping them separate is the best thing, although my first reaction was just glee at the reminder that I’m not the only skeptic who doesn’t want to get into religion all that much.