Skip to main content

Sunday Times - nasty piece on Camp Quest

The Sunday Times has run a very poisonous piece against Camp Quest - a kid's summer camp run by Samantha Stein, to which kids of all faiths and none are welcome.

Go here.

Dawkins did not set up the camp, and has nothing at all to do with it - other than he donated towards it (not a huge amount, I know).

The word "grooming" applied to children (other than hygiene and neatness) is of course used to indicate child sexual abuse.

A fairer report here.

Camp Quest looks excellent to me. Samantha Stein is fantastic (nb.. having talked to her about it - the camp is open to all faiths, and focuses on thinking skills and a skeptical approach to answering questions, not on religion-bashing per se. It's about immunizing kids against purveyors of snake oil and bullshit - be it religious, atheist, or otherwise). And it's a bargain too.

NSS sets the record straight here: "Camp Quest Under Attack. Dawkins' response here.


anticant said…
When I was growing up, "grooming" referred solely to beauty parlours and stables. The insidious employment of this weasel word in relation to child abuse - it has even surfaced in legislation - is of course a two-edged sword. When I recall the legally enjoined daily school prayers, Sunday school, and compulsory attendance at church services long after I had decided I didn't believe a word uttered by these sly and fatuous parsonical persons, I would like to see the lot of them successfully prosecuted for mass child abuse and brainwashing. If anyone is guilty of 'grooming' children, it is priests, rabbis and imams.
Paul said…
Odd - seems the same journalist wrote the nasty piece and the fairer report.
Grumpy Bob said…
Paul - perhaps the final line ("Additional reporting: Philip Connolly") is relevant in the difference between the two articles?
Sally said…
Stephen, I agree. What appalling journalism from the Times. RD's letter to them is a very dignified response under the circumstances.

Personally I would rather send my kids to a science/philosophy camp that didn't mention religion at all - in a positive, negative or even neutral way - but all power to Camp Quest for their efforts.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o