Is it really surprising though that the difference between the Chamberlainites and the Churchillians is so slight ? I've always found the Chamberlainites to be a bunch of disingenuous liars and hypocrites anyway who put little stock in anything approaching actual principles. They just wish to lull those who disagree with them into a false sense of security.

Frankly I find their attitude profoundly insulting. Dawkins may be a clueless dunce about so many things but at least he is willing to take a stand on what he thinks rather than behave like the weasels at the NCSE such as Eugenie Scott who want to assure people that "evolution and religion have no conflict" while herself being an atheist.

And of course, as you noted, you never hear them say boo when their co-religionists go off on a rant, except to say, "This is counterproductive" to our shared goals.

But this is clearly more of that vaunted and superior "atheist ethic" in action.

Thus it looks to me like the effort to 'educate' Americans out of their beliefs and preferences hasn't worked. In fact, it's worked counter to what the culture warriors would like. The more they know, the less they trust it. In Europe where people don't know that much, there is more blind trust.

Hmmm…..

You write:

Still, I imagine it may well be the case that the prime problem some may have with the Churchillians is that they're making scientists seem - get ready for it - human. Just when some atheists were itching for scientists to be the priests of a new (anti-)faith.

I'm probably in the minority in believing that, even if the Churchillians keep up their attack, the result isn't going to be a public that frowns upon science. Instead we'll have a public that has the same, or even greater, interest in science as ever - but scientists as individuals will be placed firmly alongside politicians, pundits, salesmen, and sectarians in terms of trust.

It will be interesting to watch how the Internet changes perceptions over the years. Remember this line from the Wizard of Oz?

Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven't got: a diploma.

When we turn to the Internet, more and more "˜great thinkers' are blogging and many of them clearly have a social, political, or metaphysical agenda. Yet they also prominently display their credentials and university affiliations. It's as if they want everyone to know they are a Professor of this or that, or a Scientist with a Ph D in this or that. It gives them authority and thus serves their cause. But I think as time goes by and people read the rants and see the biases of many "˜great thinkers' in the blogosphere, the message from Oz will become even more common "“ they have one thing you haven't got: a diploma.

Is that Laden as in Osama bin?

Chris Laden.

Try not to fight too much over science and religion; and do not fall prey to the tyranny of small differences when basically we're on the same side as Laden and PZ about almost everything.

Is that Laden as in Osama bin?

Still, I imagine it may well be the case that the prime problem some may have with the Churchillians is that they're making scientists seem - get ready for it - human. Just when some atheists were itching for scientists to be the priests of a new (anti-)faith.

I'm probably in the minority in believing that, even if the Churchillians keep up their attack, the result isn't going to be a public that frowns upon science. Instead we'll have a public that has the same, or even greater, interest in science as ever - but scientists as individuals will be placed firmly alongside politicians, pundits, salesmen, and sectarians in terms of trust. A world where science is celebrated but atheism doesn't run parallel in popularity is probably a nightmare scenario for a chunk of the Chamberlainites, and all of the Churchillians.

The key point is where they choose to "leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's argument against religion." Of course, they don't just leave it aside for the moment; they push it off the radar screen completely.

Huh?