Intolerant atheism on the rise?

All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

Will schools start penalizing faculty who are not?

Students who are not?

Admissions seekers who are not?

That's not at all what he's talking about, and his so-called "militancy" is only that.

Come to that, all he seems to want from scientists is that they be frank about the total secularity of their enterprise and view of what goes on in the world.

Not needing to hypothesize a God or any gods in scientific explanation is not actually atheism, however much it may seem it to the general run of believers for whom divine concern, providence, divine influence, and even miracles seem to be integral to their faiths.

Recall why the theology of Epicurus has seemed so profoundly objectionable, so completely on a par with atheism, to believers of all times.

Still, he is anyway on the right side about the Kim Davis controversy.

The job is the job.

If your religion prevents you doing it, get another job or get fired.

Republicans and Christian leaders blathering about religious liberty are talking rot, and most of them know it.

Krauss takes it as a question about people being allowed to break the law for reasons of religion, but it's more a question of whether and when or in what cases (if any) to allow religious exemptions.

I never agreed with draft deferments for religious pacifism, or even for non-religious when the courts went in for that, though I think the draft in America has always been a dreadful imposition dragging innocent people into bloody conflicts of no, or no sufficient, importance to themselves.

Come to that, the US could and in all good sense should have skipped all its wars, without exception.

Yes, the Civil War and even the Revolution not excepted.

All the same, this has no bearing on the question whether a doctor in his own employ, or a hospital not belonging to the government, can reasonably be required to perform or offer abortion or any other services the doctor or the hospital owners may wish not to.

Think of vegan restaurants.

And government interference in provision of public accommodations, hiring decisions, etc. has always struck me as overreaching, even when it was only about race.

Portrait of a Fanatic

Williamson has this right, anyway, about the Davis thing.

The question is not whether religious people should be permitted to violate the law, but to what extent and in what way the law and our public institutions should accommodate people’s religious views. 

For example, those who decline to perform military service when drafted and claim conscientious-objector status are not trying to “break the law,” as Professor Krauss insists, but rather are trying to comply with §6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act — that, too, is the law. 

Quite so, and I have stated my view, above.

As for Hobby Lobby, that employer sought freedom to ignore or violate its employees' rights to insurance coverage under the law on religious grounds.

Phooey.