But… Will They Accept Verses?

The new journal Science, Religion, and Culture is announcing a special issue focusing on “Atheism, Secularity, and Science”. It suggests the following topics:

• Identifying and outlining Lakatosian research programmes in current atheism and secularity research – their advantages and limitations.
• Philosophy of science critiques of current research on atheism and secularity.
• Conceptualizing types of atheism and secularity.
• Atheism and secularity’s role in the separation of church and state around the world.
• Can atheism or secularity be understood without juxtaposition to theism or religion?
• The role of activism in atheist and secular communities.
• An examination of the rise of Sunday Assemblies or, ‘atheist churches’.
• Developing/advancing ‘secular studies’.
• Developing a comparative terminology for studying atheism and theism together.
• Can atheists be ‘spiritual’?
• Atheism and the rise of the Internet.
• Atheism and ‘analytic thinking’.
• New atheism’ and Scientism.
• Atheism, health, and wellbeing.
• Why are the majority of elite scientists ‘atheists’?
• Why are scientists in general less religious than the average person?
• Atheism, a next step in human evolution?
• Identity politics in Western atheism.
• Atheism, secularism, and children.
• Atheism, secularism, and Transhumanism.
• Science, an ‘alternative to religion’ for atheists?
• Explaining atheism in the cognitive science of religion.

Thing is, I think I have written verses on the vast majority of these topics.

Anyway, they require the “full name of the author”, and I doubt they would accept “Cuttlefish”, so once again, mollusk can’t buy a break in the vertebrate world. Entries are due by December 31st, for those of you willing to play by their rules.


  1. CatMat says

    “Explaining atheism in the cognitive science of religion.”
    I’m sure those words mean something, just not maybe in that order…
    I wasn’t aware that religion was a science, let alone a cognitive one.
    “Atheism, a next step in human evolution?”
    No, that’s a step already taken, a bit after the second ‘sapiens’ got tagged on to the species name.
    The archetype still persists, though, given that the atheist phenotype doesn’t provide sufficient selective advantage. Yet.
    And what’s with all the projection?
    “Science, an ‘alternative to religion’ for atheists?”
    “Religion, an ‘alternative to science’ for theists.” No question there.
    “Atheism, secularism, and children.”
    “Theism, catholism, and children.” Wait, no… Just no.

  2. CatMat says

    “Sepia Officinalis” is the Common Cuttlefish – would
    “Sepia Digiteuthis” work for a Digital one?

    Not that I have the latin to back that up.

  3. Linda Grilli Calhoun says

    “• Can atheists be ‘spiritual’?”

    How about, “Can theists be realistic?” L

  4. marcus says

    I do love sin and I have many favorites. I exclude those that cause harm to others and focus on those that bring pleasure. Yay sin! (Vice is nice also.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *