Are Atheists Delusional? Thoughts on Skepticon3
Yes, a provocative title. When I see a question like that, I presume that the author has already concluded in the affirmative and is about to explain why I should believe as s/he does. However, I only put that title there for a reaction. I don’t believe “atheists are delusional” and I think the question is rather silly.
However, there’s a talk scheduled for Skepticon3 entitled “Are Christians Delusional?” and while I don’t know what presenter Richard Carrier will present there, I do know that he’s an outspoken atheist and critic of Christianity. I have no problem with Richard or his work. In fact, what little I know of it leads me to believe that we agree on most things. But the name of the event is Skepticon, and I’m unsure about that topic’s relationship to skepticism.
No matter, let’s look at some of the other topics being presented:
- David Fitzgerald: The Ten Thousand Christs and the Evaporating Jesus
- Victor Stenger: The Abuse of Physics by Theists and Spiritualists
- J.T. Eberhard: Dear Christian
Well, wait a moment. I obviously haven’t seen these talks, and I can see how Vic Stenger’s talk could be appropriate for a skeptics conference, but this really looks like an atheist conference to me. In fact, take a look at this flyer. Again, looks like an atheist conference. In fact, it looks like an anti-Christian conference.
But then look at THIS flyer. That looks much more like a skeptics conference to me, despite the overwhelmingly atheist line up. A few weeks ago when I first learned of Skepticon, I wrote to organizer JT Eberhard about my confusion. Here’s our correspondence:
Jeff to JT:
Hello.. I just moved to the Midwest and was looking for things to visit, and I came across Skepticon. As a skeptic, it sounded like something I should definitely attend, but when I looked at the schedule and listened to your video (posted on Hemant’s site) I learned that it was actually an atheist convention.
I have no problem with that at all, I’m just curious why you named the event “Skepticon” rather than “Atheistcon” or something that would better describe the content.
Thanks,
Jeff
JT to Jeff:
Jeff,
Skepticon touches on a myriad of skeptical issues, but focuses primarily on religion as we are in the Midwest where religion is thick and problematic. What’s more, unlike some other organization, it is the opinion of most of our organizers that skepticism leads directly to some brand of atheism/metaphysical naturalism, so the name “Skepticon” fit in with precisely what we were wanting to do with the conference.
Hope that helps clear things up. :)
JT
And I find this reply very, very disheartening. I don’t believe the schedule shows “a myriad of skeptical issues.” The e-mail is an admission that the organizers of Skepticon believe that Skepticism = Atheism and that the event is designed to combat religion, specifically Christianity. I believe that if you equate skepticism with anything other than science, you’ve missed the point. As for Christianity, skepticism has nothing to say except about testable claims associated therein. Bleeding statues? Yes, skepticism comes into play. Jesus rose and is in heaven? Seems unlikely, but there’s not a lot more to say.
I want to be very clear on this following point. My hat is off to JT and the other organizers for putting on what will be the largest event of its type ever. With 1800 people, it’s larger than any skeptics conference I’ve been to, including TAM and CFI’s World Congress. To have such numbers in only three years is a truly remarkable accomplishment. They have a stellar line up of speakers, and I’m sure much good work will be done towards fostering the atheist community. The politically-active religious right in this country need to be opposed, and Skepticon3 looks to do that in spades.
But it’s not skepticism.
The pro-atheist cause is an entirely different endeavor with a community that overlaps strongly with the skeptical community. Skepticism is about drawing conclusions that are proportioned to the available evidence. That’s it. And I think keeping the two things separate if vitally important.
As Reed points out in his IndieSkeptics article, atheists (and free thinkers and secularists and scientific naturalists, etc.) are fighting a cultural war in this country. It’s a very important war, and I’m a combatant as well. Atheists have been bashed and had religion forced on them forever, and it’s shameful to allow it to continue in a country purporting to be “free.” But to conflate atheism with skepticism dilutes atheism and destroys skepticism.
And I fear the damage has already been done. I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they’re uncomfortable with the tone and disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.
I’ve been shouted at and lost friends over this issue. I’ve been told that I’m being pedantic and that I’m “harming the cause” with my navel gazing. That could be, but I have no choice. I’m a skeptic, and I don’t see that skepticism must lead to atheism. I’m convinced that a litmus test over who’s a skeptic and who isn’t based on religious belief is harmful to both movements.
To conclude, I want to reiterate: Bravo to JT and crew. I hope your event is successful and continues to grow. It’s an important event, and it could do a lot of good towards promoting a secular world. But again, I urge you… please change the name to AtheistCon or something more accurate.
Reader, your thoughts are always welcome in the comments below.
Comments feed
Atheists are not delusional. The do not believe in god. Christians are delusional. They believe in something which they have no evidence for. They have no proof yet still believe. That is delusion.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
That looks remarkably like an anecdote, Jeff. Not very skeptical of you.
This is what I want to understand myself.
How is conflating atheism and skepticism a problem? Is it any worse than conflating skepticism and not believing in homeopathy/UFOs/psychics? Why is skepticism towards religion, which leads to agnosticism and/or atheism, not considered skepticism? Why is skepticism to arguably the most detrimental and pervasive unfounded belief considered a less valuable topic for a skeptic convention than talking about UFOs and bigfoot, ideas that don’t really harm anyone? Who is actually “leaving” and are they worth “keeping” if the skeptic movement continues to get bigger and bigger?
“Is it any worse than conflating skepticism and not believing in homeopathy/UFOs/psychics?”
May not be any worse, but it’s just as wrong. One can disbelieve in homeopathy, Bigfoot, etc. for the wrong reasons, e.g. because one is just following the crowd, rather than because of any result of critical thinking.
More importantly, though, one can fool oneself into thinking that one is a skeptic or a rationalist on the grounds that one disbelieves in God, while thoughtlessly absorbing woo such as alt-med and anti-vax nonsense. Take Bill Maher as exhibit A. Skepticism is about how to think, not what to think, and confusing the two leads to all sorts of trouble.
“Skepticism is about how to think, not what to think, and confusing the two leads to all sorts of trouble.”
Since when is atheism about what to think?
“Since when is atheism about what to think?”
Since when atheism has been about what to think of claims about deities.
If you think skeptically, god belongs in the same set as Bigfoot, UFOs and homeopathy. When you try to make god a separate case, you lose all credibility.
“Since when atheism has been about what to think of claims about deities.”
So atheism is never about how to think of claims about deities? It just jumps straight into what to think of it?
“So atheism … just jumps straight into what to think of [deities]?”
No, atheism simply is what to think of deities. There’s no jumping involved. Atheism, unlike skepticism, is not a reasoning process in and of itself. It is simply a belief or lack of belief.
So… if you had a skeptic conference that focused on disproving homeopathy rather than disproving religion, calling it skeptical would be wrong?
I’m saying P implies Q, not the other way around. Skepticism applied to religion leads to agnosticism/atheism. Of course, you can make what conclusions you may from the contrapositive.
“I’m saying P implies Q”
No, you were suggesting that conflating skepticism and atheism wasn’t a problem, that is, it would be okay to act as if P and Q were the same thing. That was the point of your rhetorical question, “How is conflating atheism and skepticism a problem?”
As the example of Bill Maher shows, no, it isn’t okay.
@J.J. Ramsey:
Indeed, Bill Maher is not a skeptic about many other things, like alternative medicine. Nobody claimed that all atheists were skeptics. However, many skeptics are atheists, and it’s not difficult to see why.
But here’s my problem with you bringing up Bill Maher: How does the fact that not all atheists are skeptics make atheism an invalid conclusion of applying the skeptical method to religious claims? Does the existence of people who don’t believe in UFO’s, but believe in alternative medicine like Bill Maher does, make non-belief in UFO’s an invalid conclusion of skepticism too? Does it make belief in UFO’s an unsuitable topic for skeptical discourse? Of course not. Then what’s the difference when it comes to atheism? Why bring up Bill Maher as if it proves something?
Nice red herring, J.J.
As you say, one CAN believe in homeopathy, Bigfoot, etc. for the wrong reasons.
Oddly, nobody is complaining about people “conflating” skepticism with aBigfootism or aHomeopathy.
When you start complaining about people conflating particular skeptical positions other than atheism with skepticism, I’ll take your objection seriously.
I don’t think anybody on the pro-atheism is actually conflating atheism and skepticism.
Saying that P implies Q is not conflating the propositions P and Q.
Saying that T is a subtype of U is not conflating the categories T and U.
Atheism is a kind of skepticism, just like aBigfootism, aUFOism, and aHomeopathism.
Of course, that’s not necessarily or STRICTLY true, because you can disbelieve in bigfoot, homeopathy, UFO’s or God for relatively credulous reasons.
And certainly some “skeptics” do; some skeptics tend to accept the “skeptic” line on one or more of those subjects without being personally well-versed in that subject.
If you point out that problem with atheism, and only atheism, it seems to imply that you think atheism is particularly problematic in that regard—worth singling out. If so, say so, and make your case.
If not, what’s your point?
“Nice red herring, J.J.”
Um, Ashley F. Miller explicitly asked, “How is conflating atheism and skepticism a problem?” I addressed that.
“I don’t think anybody on the pro-atheism is actually conflating atheism and skepticism.”
Would that it were true. Again, Bill Maher is an example. In one of his New Rules segment, he lazily equated “nonbelievers” and “rationalists,” and he’s not the only one to have done so. By contrast, there haven’t been similar lazy assumptions where it is presumed that skeptics are merely anti-homeopathy, anti-Bigfoot, etc.
J.J., perhaps I was unclear.
I thought it was a “nice red herring” because Ashley followed you in using the word “conflating” without putting it in scare quotes.
I don’t think anybody on the pro-atheism side HERE, in this discussion, is actually CONFLATING atheism and skepticism. They’re taking the former (done right) as an example of the latter. Atheism is a kind of skepticism, as are aBigfootism and aUFOism. (Unless of course you’re disbelieving for the wrong reasons.)
I dunno about Bill Maher. I’m not defending him, and I certainly don’t consider him a great example of a “skeptic,” but I’m skeptical that even HE was actually CONFLATING rationalism and nonbelief. Do you have a quote, in context?)
I do think that nonbelief (in God) is more rational than belief. That doesn’t mean that I CONFLATE (or equate) nonbelief and rationalism or skepticism. Saying that one thing follows from another just isn’t the same thing as conflating them, even if the statement is false.
Paul W.: “I thought it was a ‘nice red herring’ because Ashley followed you in using the word ‘conflating’ without putting it in scare quotes.”
Ashley used “conflating” in this thread before I did. Note where she first asked, “How is conflating atheism and skepticism a problem?”
“I’m skeptical that even HE was actually CONFLATING rationalism and nonbelief. Do you have a quote, in context?)”
Here’s a link to the relevant New Rules segment: http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00803/atheist/bill-maher-a-rationalist-new-rules/
“Atheism is a kind of skepticism”
I disagree completely. Atheism is a lack of belief (or outright disbelief) in gods, period. If one adopts the stance that atheism is a kind of skepticism, then one can come to the rather bizarre conclusion that one can disbelieve in gods and yet not be an atheist, simply because one didn’t come by that disbelief through rational inquiry!
JJ : “If one adopts the stance that atheism is a kind of skepticism, then one can come to the rather bizarre conclusion that one can disbelieve in gods and yet not be an atheist, simply because one didn’t come by that disbelief through rational inquiry!”
Through what else did one come by that disbelief? Revelation?
Neat evasion, J.J.
I already agreed with you that saying that atheism is skepticism is speaking loosely—not ALL atheists are skeptics, and not ALL atheism is skepticism. I grant that.
I agree that saying “atheism is skepticism” is not quite right—it’s only approximately true, all other things being equal, and only as a shortand that fails to distinguish between processes and products.
I don’t think that’s your real point, though, and it’s certainly not what most of the disagreement here is about.
I don’t see you jumping on the people who say “atheism is not skepticism” in the same nitpicky way.
Surely, atheism is not literally skepticism. Atheism, like abigfootism and aUFOism, is a typical PRODUCT OF applying skepticism to a particular domain.
But as I pointed out before, you don’t seem to worry if people say or imply loose things like “skeptics don’t believe in bigfoot” or “skeptics don’t believe in UFOs.” That’s not on anybody’s radar. There is no terrible fear of people “conflating” skepticism with specific skeptical stances OTHER THAN atheism. Funny, that.
You’re pretty clearly saying something stronger than that people are speaking colloquially and a bit loosely.
The actual claim some people are making is that rational skepticism applied to religion does typically result in some variety of atheism—and, many of us think, rightly so. Atheism is a legitimate product of rational skepticism, like aBigfootism and aUFOism.
That’s what I think most people here take the controversial claim to be, whether it’s expressed precisely or not.
You seem to be disagreeing with THAT claim, without being willing to say so clearly. Instead you quibble about loose talk, and seem to want to imply that it’s much more than a quibble.
Nobody here thinks that all atheists are skeptics, or that all atheism is grounded in rational skepticism. Like believers or disbelievers in pretty much any proposition, reasons vary. So the hell what?
That’s just not what the argument is about.
The argument is really about whether the atheist movement is a skeptical movement, on the whole.
I say it is. Most people who are atheists disbelieve in gods for pretty good rational/skeptical reasons, including lack of extraordinary evidence for quite extraordinary claims.
That’s the best you can hope for in any particular interest area within skepticism. Not everybody who’s anti-anti-vax is against anti-vax nonsense for the right reasons. Some are too trusting of certain authorities, too prone to groupthink within the “skeptic movement,” etc. It happens.
But I don’t see anybody complaining about that. Nobody complains that debunking anti-vax nonsense “isn’t skepticism” just because not ALL people who do it do it the right way or for the right reasons. (Or because it’s failing to precisely distinguish between processes and products. Everybody in the movement knows that there are consensus views on a variety of subjects, or something close to them, within skepticism, and that most of those consensus views are justified.)
Clearly, atheist skepticism is being held to a different standard than other manifestations of skepticism such as aBigfootist or aUFOist skepticism.
The statement that “atheism isn’t skepticism” is no more true than “disbelief in Bigfoot isn’t skepticism” or “disbelief in UFO’s isn’t skepticism.”
So you’re right that “atheism is skepticism” isn’t literally true. It’s just shorthand for “atheism is a valid product of skepticism, like aBigfootism and aUFOism.”
I think pretty much everybody here except you gets that, and got it a logn time ago.
But we HAVE been hearing “atheism isn’t skepticism” from the “purist” wing that’s worried about mixing atheism and skepticism.
They clearly DON’T just mean that it’s a loose shorthand for the more precise statement.
At least some are clearly implying that atheism, in particular, isn’t rightly included in the products of rational skepticism in the same way that aBigfootism and aUFOism are.
That’s false.
It’s one thing to argue that it’s good political strategy to keep the atheist movement distinct from the “skeptic” movement, and special-case religion. I think there are good arguments both ways.
It’s quite another thing to argue that it’s true that atheism isn’t a valid experession of skepticism in basically the same way that aBigfootism and aUFOism clearly are. It is.
Paul W.: “There is no terrible fear of people ‘conflating’ skepticism with specific skeptical stances OTHER THAN atheism. Funny, that.”
There’s no “terrible fear” in the other cases because there’s been no tendency in the other cases to conflate skepticism with “anti-Bigfootism,” “anti-antivax,” etc.
Paul W.: “The argument is really about whether the atheist movement is a skeptical movement, on the whole.
“I say it is….”
And I would disagree strongly. Take the book The God Delusion … please. Dawkins clearly did not bring his A-game to that book’s arguments. He credulously repeated misquotes of the Founding Fathers, cut corners on some of his counters to various arguments for God, and introduced the “Neville Chamberlain” atheist nonsense that has corrupted discussion to this day even though “accommodationist” has replaced the original “Chamberlain” label. We have Hitchens credulously repeating an urban legend about Jews having sex through holes in sheets in a book with an overly broad and practically unprovable claim, that religion poisons everything, for its subtitle. We have poor arguments from Sam Harris and others about moderates somehow enabling extremists. We have Brian Flemming largely given a pass for the pseudohistorical claptrap in his documentary The God Who Wasn’t There. (David Fitzgerald is probably being given the same pass at Skepticon for his Jesus-myther presentation, but I’ll give him a slight benefit of the doubt.) We have PZ Myers claiming that “witless wanker” Michael DeDora’s footnote, the one about science not having much to say about Last-Thursdayism and a vague formulation of theistic evolution, somehow is reassuring to creationists, and further trying to use that same footnote for a justification of the bizarre claim that DeDora would have to accept “a few thousand years old” as a correct answer to a test question on the age of the Earth. The atheist movement is not at all focused on clear thinking. Rather, skepticism is all too often used clumsily or even selectively.
I’m an atheist because I’m a skeptic. That is, based on my background knowledge about the world, skepticism suggests that I should reject the notion of gods. That is so for many people.
Yes, it’s possible to be an atheist and not to be skeptical. Yes, it’s possible to be a skeptic and not be an atheist (but only if you refuse to be skeptical about religion; otherwise, you’d quickly run up against “whereof we cannot speak; therefore we must remain silent”).
But there’s a large segment of the community who think their atheism and skepticism are two facets of the same crystal. Who are you to tell them they’re wrong?
Congratulations, you have quoted in Comic Sans with Gumby background on Pharyngula.
Yeah, well that jerk Myers isn’t very skeptical about Marxism. I say we have the next Skepticon on that topic. Then maybe he can explain all his admiring comments on Marxian ideology. Also a skepticon where we mock the poorly supported beliefs of global warmists like him would be appropriate also. I wonder how big his house is and how much CO2 he wastes on his job. I understand that fish tanks require lots of fuel to operate.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones wrapped in mockery.
BTW, Myers banned me from his blog after I pointed out his promotion of Chimp/Human hybridization experimentation in rebuttal to some rant he was having against someone elses irrational beliefs on the grounds that they were being inhumane. Bringing a humapanzee into the world seems a lot more inhumane than what he was ranting about.
I’d pick my heros carefully because he’s an ignoramus on many of the topics he regularly rants about like libertarianism, and skeptical issues in climatology.
This post is very dissapointing to me. Many skeptics are interested in hearing from speakers who use their time to speak on issues that deal with atheistic topics. People are not forced to attened these speaches if they don’t want. This is giving people who attend this con more choices of skeptical topics to hear about. You can’t ask a person to turn off the skeptical part of their brain when it comes to religion. Skeptics don’t have to be atheists but those that aren’t need to understand why some view religion skeptically. There is a place for both sides at the table but posts like this don’t help bring the two sides together it just pushes them further apart.
Gerdsrevenge: Isn’t Jeff’s point exactly about something that pushes the two sides apart and how we shouldn’t be doing that? And where is Jeff asking that people turn off their skepticism WRT religion?
As far as I have seen there is only one person taking issue with the nonsense that because someone is calling B.S. on one form of the supernatural that they should change the name of their con. Saying that the two need to be separated is pushing the two sides apart. By saying that skeptical institutions and conferences should take no stand on religion is asking them to check their skeptical thinking at the door. We are free to be skeptical about all aspects of our lives and we should be. If someone finds that they believe in a deity good on them but they need to understand that many skeptics, if not most, will come to a different conclusion. These should be talking points and not points that should be muted.
Gerdsrevenge: “Saying that the two need to be separated is pushing the two sides apart.”
So are you of the option then that skepticism and atheism are the same thing?
How is distinguishing between the two divisive?
Again, where is Jeff asking that people turn off their skepticism WRT religion?
So Bytor what two sides would you like to see come togeather. By your rational only two sides can come togeather and one is left out in the cold. I’m saying skeptics, believers, and nonbelievers can all come togeather. Everyone needs to be understanding of the other side. He is saying skepticism needs to be turned off at these cons or they need to change the name of the con. That is total crap. Should Dragoncon have to change it’s name because there are no dragons there? I guess the next time I go to a con I wont express my views on anything so I won’t offend anyone. We need to be able to grow some thicker hides and talk to each other and not just bitch and wine about it.
If 4 of the 15 topics of discussion were on ghosts, would you have emailed to complain that this wasn’t a skeptics convention but an anti-ghost con? ‘AGHOSTACON’ would be more fitting? Clearly that would be conflating a disbelief of ghosts with skepticism right? The death of skepticism to conflated disbelief of ghosts with skepticism if your oft repeated mantra is to be taken seriously.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief and should be the default skeptic position. A skeptic believes only when presented with credible evidence. This is true of all other topics under discussion. Bigfoot, ufo’s, vax & autism, intelligent design, etc. The skeptic position: If you want me to believe, show me the evidence.
Jesus rose from the dead?
The skeptic position – I don’t believe you, show me the credible evidence
Jeff’s position – “Seems unlikely, but there’s not a lot more to say”
Jesus went up to paradise in an unspecified location to live forever?
The skeptic position – I don’t believe you, show me the credible evidence
Jeff’s position – “Seems unlikely, but there’s not a lot more to say”
Jeff, resurrection and immortality and godhood don’t “seem unlikely.” They are proven false by pretty much all of science and rational inquiry. If you feel like becoming a skeptic, we’d welcome you back.
Matt: I would argue that agnosticism is a better default position for skepticsm. Whatever the topic – UFOs, religion, Bigfoot – before you start the search for evidence you have to say “I don’t have any evidence one way or another, thus I cannot say whether X exists or does not exist.
Starting off immediately with atheism as the default position is not being skeptical as it would jumping to the conclusion of “there are no gods” before any evidence is gathered.
I am not a fan of the trope “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. While strictly true in a very limited logical sense, IMNSHO if you’ve made a decently thorough search for evidence of X but have not found it, then darn right the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. And the longer that search goes on the more that holds true but it’s asymptotic and never actually reaches zero.
Skepticism is not only about proportioning one’s beliefs to the evidence but also about giving provisional acceptance of the evidence. We understand that it may happen that some evidence will be uncovered that shows we were wrong on some belief (e.g. finding a fossilized rabbit in pre-Cambrian rock). However, similar to absence of evidence, the more time that passes without that disproving evidence turning up the less and less likely it is to ever turn up, but again asymptotic
An atheist who is a skeptic would, I feel, give that kind of provisional caveat to their atheism – that some evidence may potentially be found in the future that would be evidence for a supernatural being.
To say I know the full reach of a person’s opinion on this topic merely from reading their comments to a blog post would be foolish, but here and in other fora I feel I have seen many who are more passionate than skeptical about their atheism.
I would have thought that the skeptical position would NOT be to go with the knee-jerk response, “I don’t believe you”. “Show me some evidence” would be very reasonable, however.
If you read an article about a scientific discovery, should you start with “I don’t believe it?”. It seems more skeptical to say, “I don’t have enough information to form an opinion yet. Can I evaluate the evidence?”
Skepticism as naval gazing is a solitary endeavor. Skepticism as activism is groups of people applying and encouraging critical thinking where they perceive the greatest lack or the greatest harm. There is much overlap but both individuals and groups have pet projects. Right now the “anti-organized religion” group has a few more speakers.
Being anti-organized religion isn’t precisely pro-atheism. Organized religion uses human nature and intuitive thinking to do great harm. You can believe in god and still be able to perceive the flim-flam of your own church. Just because a speaker is an atheist and is speaking out against the abuses perpetuated in the name of religion, doesn’t mean that they are promoting atheism. They are promoting critical thinking with religion as the example.
A group of crows is called “a murder,” with lions, it’s a “pride.” These names are often based on the perceived characteristics or lore of the animal. I propose “A squabble of skeptics.” It’s the crowning achievement of skepticism, after all. An ever-expanding group of people who, even as the movement becomes larger and more popular, will insist on thinking for themselves because that is the most rational thing to do.
I would suggest that those who find the anti-religion thing objectionable should not use this as a reason to leave organized skepticism. If they do, it will only make the movement more anti-religion.
Organized skepticism and the direction it takes is largely dependent on its active members. If those are tolerant of religion all leave it, there will be less tolerance to religion in the movement.
I’d suggest that it might be better to change things from the inside than outside.
<>
To be honest, I don’t know how much less tolerance for religion there COULD be in the movement. It seems that anyone with “accomodationist” leanings is being drummed out of it by the most visible members (PZ and his ilk). Lately I’ve seen more snide, vicious and personal attacks aimed at fellow skeptics than at Deepak Chopra.
I actually saw the fire go right out of a fledgling skeptic once. She stumbled upon the Daniel Loxton/Chris Mooney Inquisitions, and it really affected her view of what it means to be a skeptic. She had expected a bunch of tolerant, friendly, smart people talking about cool stuff…and was really turned off. She’s a religious believer, and felt quite unwelcome and unwanted. I think she’s more skeptical now than before, but now feels like “only atheists need apply”. And she never discusses anything of substance with me anymore…I think she feels like I’m looking down on her.
I’m sure PZ considers her no loss, but to have seen a young person turned off like that was tragic.
<>
I’d have better luck talking a Mormon into joining CFI. The new path of the movement is clear, and tolerance ain’t in the cards. Which is why I still do what I consider to be skeptical outreach, but no longer consider myself active in the “the movement”. And again, I’m sure most see me as no loss.
I hope that an emphasis on atheism is not the future of skepticism, as PZ Myers loudly proclaims. While I am very passionate about secularism, I have no interest in the whole atheist/antireligion thing, and I don’t think it will endear us to the majority of Americans. If atheists want to dump on religion, let them do it at an atheist conference or on an atheist Website. Personally I am left a little cold by the standard definition of skepticism that it deals only with testable claims. What I am most concerned about are irrational beliefs and practices that do real harm. These would include using Homeopathy rather than legitimate medicine to cure cancer, antivaccinationism, injecting creationism into public school science classes and a religious and political agenda into history classes, and denying gay people the same right to marry that heterosexuals have. These issues concern me much more than people’s beliefs in God or ghosts or bigfoot.
The purpose of skepticism can’t be to endear any one to a majority of non skeptics. That would be very silly.
While you seem to care about homeopathy and the harm it can do, teaching creationism instead of evolution has all sorts of consequences in terms of how people view biology/medicine. In this case caring about one issue and not the other means you haven’t thought much about either and how they are both inter-related.
Bingo…If I can take a believer in God from the point of disbelieving in evolution to realizing it’s true but they still think God did it, I consider that a success. I’d love it if they dropped their belief in an imaginary deity, but I’ll take their support at the next school board meeting. Maybe later they will question their faith, but I’ll take the increase in rational thinking.
And while some may say the point of the movement is not to endear us to most people, I say, “No, the point of the movement is to use the most effective means to increase rational thinking.” I think this means to meet them where they are and not shut down the conversation before it begins by ridiculing their most cherished beliefs. Research shows that people tend to become less likely to listen when their most cherished beliefs are mocked and attacked. This point is utterly ignored by many, who whine that “It’s not doctrinally pure! We must rub their faces in the truth and be honest about everything at all times!” One wonders what they say if their spouses ask “Do you think I’m fat?”.
I did not become an atheist because of the “loud and proud” atheists I knew, but despite them. I became an atheist after being slowly convinced of lots of scientific truths and really understanding how the knowledge came about. At some point I finally applied that thinking to my faith. But it took a long time, and I honestly believe that had I read today’s skeptical websites at the beginning of this process, I’d likely have retreated back into my faith.
People are not naturally rational, and it’s a huge mistake to act as if they are.
Only someone who has no understanding of what atheism is would ever say, “I don’t see that skepticism must lead to atheism.” Of course skepticism doesn’t lead to atheism. That’s nonsensical. Skepticism BEGINS with atheism.
–Skepticism BEGINS with atheism.–
So only after one stops believing in God can one be skeptical of religion? I assume you deconverted instantly and THEN began to question the existence of God. Impressive.
“These would include using Homeopathy rather than legitimate medicine to cure cancer, antivaccinationism, injecting creationism into public school science classes and a religious and political agenda into history classes, and denying gay people the same right to marry that heterosexuals have. These issues concern me much more than people’s beliefs in God or ghosts or bigfoot.”
Richard, your comment makes no sense whatsoever EVERYTHING you listed as a large concern of yours IS religion, even the ones that aren’t overtly religious get much of their power from religion. Antivax wouldn’t be a problem if parents couldn’t get around mandatory Vaccination of their kids simply by having a religious exemption. Homeopathy gets its strength from the anti science agenda of the religious.
I don’t know of any atheists who care if people believe in god or not, atheists only care when they start trying to bring the big sky daddy rules to everyone else. It becomes a problem when we have senators who actually say that we don’t need to worry about the environment because big sky daddy will take care of it. It becomes a problem when not only do they want to teach their kids that the earth was made by a genocidal tyrant 6000 years ago, but they want to make sure ALL children are taught it.
I make one additional comment due to the stunning and fundamentally rude column my PZ, a man whom I thought I got along with when I introduced him at TAM. I’m sorry, but I can’t fail to stand up for my friends when they are unjustly attacked, and Jeff was very unjustly attacked.
Simply put, PZ said “good riddance to those people,” meaning people like me, who are not atheists (I’m a deist) and who find the atheist drum all too continuously beaten within some parts of the skeptical movement. I announced at TAM 8 that that was my last TAM. My departure was due to a mix of two factors, the atheism creep into the JREF and skepticism at large, and what at the time I called “professional differences about the future of the organization” with the new leadership. So, PZ bids me good riddance. He seems to posit that those who fail his purity test (now apparently including Jeff) are not welcome in what I always thought was the large tent of skepticism. So be it. But perhaps he might think twice about this purity requirement should he happen to find himself at a checkpoint in Iraq or Afghanistan, when he notices the local guard checking for bombs with a dowsing rod. He would be in deep and profound physical danger, but at least he would know that only his purists were involved.
Again, this is likely overly harsh, and again, PZ was polite to me. But his wrongheaded attack on a great figure within the skeptical movement to score some kind of debating point truly rugs me the wrong way.
I have commented about feeling pushed out of the skeptical movement of late. PZ now adds a swift kick in the backside.
I have no purity test, I impose no anti-religious requirement on skepticism.
What I said was that if someone abandoned the movement because they felt discomfort at the lack of religious belief among their colleagues, then clearly their commitment to that movement was weaker than their devotion to their superstition, and their departure is no loss.
You can pretend you’ve been crucified, but remember–you hung yourself on it.
Could you please, then, enlighten us on where anyone said that they were going to leave the skeptical movement because, horror of horrors, some skeptics were atheists? Because that’s what the paragraph above actually says when we parse it according to the standard rules of English, but that really doesn’t seem to be what you said in your blog post, and doesn’t seem to relate to anything that anyone has said in this or any of the other threads.
Okay, quick clarification (since I’m reading bottom up): something in what Hal said could be interpreted that way. I think only with a lot of finagling, but possible. But I still don’t think that was what was referred to in the comment I replied to.
A deist skeptic is a contradiction in terms.
If you’re a pantheist I can sort of accept the word game assigning the vague term of God to the whole universe but that’s as far as I can get without cognitive dissonance kicking in.
Still you can be harsh but others can’t be rude…
This is all meaningless tone BS (someone is being rude, I will tell my Mom…) I was 6 the last time I used it.
Hal,
I don’t think your checkpoint scenario was a good choice of illustration to support your argument.
Why would Iraqi or Afghan soldiers be checking for bombs? Why, because large numbers of people in their countries are willing to murder crowds of random strangers, based on deeply held religious beliefs.
These beliefs, which I see as supported by nothing more than arguments from authority, antiquity, and popularity, lead them to kill people who don’t agree with them, in the hope that they can then impose those beliefs on everyone else.
I am an atheist, and I will happily join forces with any religious people who want to fight the good fight against homeopathy, psychics, alternative medicine scams, etc.
I will not, however, tiptoe around the sleeping dogs of religion to spare their feelings. I’m not going to accost random people in the street about it, but at skeptical venues it’s fair game. Organized religion (not deism, which is so rarified as to have few consequences in daily life) kills people. It is entirely appropriate to subject it to skeptical analysis.
Quite frankly Bidlick, if you are not willing to contribute anything more worthwhile that tripe like this no one will miss you.
Maybe you should reflect that the reason you might not feel so welcome amongst sceptics is that you do not seem to value truth and honesty. Lying is not trait that is appealing to sceptics, yet you seem to engage in it.
Matt, a little bit of research will show that Hal has contributed a LOT more than “that tripe,” as you word it.
I think you missed Matt Penfold’s point. I think that it was that if Hal doesn’t return to form, and contribute something better than the “tripe” he’s contributed in this discussion, he won’t be missed.
I don’t think Matt was saying that Hal can’t contribute something other than tripe, just that he’s not impressed with Hal’s current performance, irrespective of his past performance.
I mostly concur. If Hal gets huffy about atheists including their atheism under the rubric of skepticism, that’s just too bad.
(I am not much impressed by citations of Kurtz or Randi’s narrow concepts of “skepticism” or the skeptic movement, either. I have great respect for both of them on certain grounds, but zero inclination to let them define “skepticism” or “testable” to conveniently exclude central tenets of popular religion.)
You’re not alone, Hal. I’m an atheist but it is not my primary defining characteristic, which seems to make me part of an increasingly small minority at skeptical gatherings.
Technically he didn’t say good riddance to atheists. I think “The Age of Reason” counts as a skeptical take on religion. How the hell did you become a Deist without being skeptical about Christianity? It’s ridiculous to keep religion off topic when it comes to skepticism. I think we should move into politics and economics too. Marxism is a load of crap, as is socialism. We can also be skeptical of historical economic claims like “FDR got us out of the Great Depression”.
But as your comment about “atheism creep” suggests, apparently you consider that tent too small to include atheism. You almost seem upset that your attempts to push atheism out of skepticism has been answered by a push back.
Wow. May I suggest you count to 100 and proof-read your comments before posting if you are feeling particularly passionate about a topic. That was awkward.
Hal,
Bit of a mis-characterization of what actually happened there and what was said and done.
No one cares about deists its a non issue, you believe in a god who may as well not exist, good for you, no one gives a fuck and you well know it. Most of the gnu atheists make a point of this. they aren’t talking about deists.
When deists start to strap bombs to themselves and murder children or try to get creationism into the schools or deny people civil rights because of your delusion we will bring you into the discussion until then just shut the fuck up about your untestable non interfering god, no one cares.
The only comparison between your deism and actual religion is that you seem to want to be a martyr.
and, QED.
I find it really interesting that many of the commenters who express opinions similar to “Skepticism leads to atheism otherwise you’re not a real skeptic” seem to be basing their comments on Jeff saying that religion is off limits for skeptical inquiry.
I don’t see that anywhere in his original post (quite the opposite, IMNSHO) and he explicitly says more than once in his own comments that he is not saying religion is off-limits. He even gave examples of which claims he thinks are testable and which ones he thinks are not testable. (One may disagree as to which are which, but I’m fairly certain that is a discussion that Jeff would be more than willing to entertain.)
I find that mistake to be a very common one in this community-wide discussion of what skepticism is and how we think it should be described and/or defined. Even P.Z. Myers makes this mistake in the second last paragraph of his own blog post responding to Jeff.
I prefer not to attribute this mistake to malice, as many of of the people making it are honest individuals who are passionate about their ideas. Surely the ones I have actually met are like that, but I cannot help but fee that there are some who are doing it out of malice (and I don’t mean those who trollishly blow the bagpipes), though perhaps that’s me being cynical.
So my question to “the other side” is this: Why do you keep saying those who express opinions similar to Jeff’s are saying that religion is off-limits and then ignore it when they repeatedly point out they are not saying that? I do not understand – is there a part of the debate that I am missing? Can you help me to understand?
Either you think religion should be vigorously debated within skepticism, or you think it should be handled with kid’s gloves, or maybe you even think it should be ignored all together. If you claim to be in the first group, then why are you having problems with atheists talking about religion in a skeptical context? To the point of writing articles about it? Either you’re fine with it, or not. Pick one, and be honest about it.
Another issue appears to be a difference of opinion on how untestable claims should be treated. Jeff Wagg, Daniel Loxton, and others here seem to think that skepticism can’t say anything about untestable claims. Nothing at all. Therefore, skepticism should stay quiet on untestable claims, and in particular on those that many religions have retreated into.
PZ and others, on the other hand, appear to think that skepticism should lead you to not place any belief in untestable claims. Untestable claims are not right, they’re not even wrong, as they say. Therefore, unless testable claims are made that are supported by evidence, you should reject all religions, even the untestable ones. Religion would then also be a perfectly fine discussion topic for skeptics.
This, at least, is how I understand the disconnect. I hope that cleared up the matter some.
Deen,
All you did there was restate the same misinterpretations that Bytor is commenting on.
I don’t think that anyone is saying that talking about religion in a skeptical context is a problem. I think that the whole point is that talking about religion in a skeptical context does NOT mean concluding that the only propery skeptical stance on religion is atheism. That can be argued, but not simply assumed or made by definition. In short, it is not obvious that skepticism can, in and of itself, lead to atheism as a function of skepticism, nor that someone could not use skeptical methods and still at the end of the day properly and rationally hold a belief that God exists.
The untestable claims part is just as bad. Jeff Wagg, here, seems to be saying that, as a skeptic, once you say that it isn’t testable and therefore you can’t say one way or the other if it is true, there’s nothing more than skepticism qua skepticism can say on the matter. Here, you bring in another point, which is about what someone should or shouldn’t believe about untestable claims. But I’m not sure that follows from skepticism itself, and if you want to use that to justify talking about religion shouldn’t you prove that first?
Ultimately, religion is a perfectly fine discussion topic for skeptics, but that discussion need not and should not be presumptively anti-religion. There is room for skepticism on all sides of the religion/anti-religion debate, and even the athiest/theist debate.
Having spent a little time with both of you, Jeff and Hal, on the Alaska JREF trip, this feels to me like a very sad parting of ways, yet probably inevitable. I greatly hope to see this pass with diminishing rancor.
I am startled with
a) how personal PZ’s nontargeted response is being taken,
b) how inaccurate the interpretation is that he’s called for atheist purity among skeptics.
The only explanation I can see for this mischaracterization of PZ is that a long-held, deep-seated resentment was brewing, needing only some sufficiently visible moment to create, well, a kind of excuse.
I would urge that this split be executed without making it personal, without blaming any individual. Let’s accept that at its core this disagreement transcends persons and personalities. Reasonable attempts to persuade each side have been made.
It’s this simple: A minority within the skeptics movement has called to place religion off-limits to skepticism. The majority feels utterly incapable of turning off their skepticism at will; it would feel to us intellectually dishonest.
NEITHER side is demanding that the other be theist or atheist in order to be considered members. That is just not true.
If this subset feels the need for a religious exemption, I understand though disagree… but I don’t understand this need to distort the other side’s position, to claim victimhood because the rest of us disagree fundamentally with the very concept of special exemptions.
I don’t understand this rhetoric claiming we’re “equating skepticism with atheism.” That makes no more sense to me than it would to you if I were to claim you equate skepticism with vaccination. Obviously skepticism is far broader than either.
Please, let’s put an end to demonizing so very many good people and good skeptics who understandably cannot simply turn off their skepticism at will upon request.
It seems sad and unnecessary to lose such friends to our movement as yourselves. We will alway have members who hold apart personal beliefs they’re uncomfortable subjecting to skeptical scrutiny.
well said
Bo: From my perspective, Dr. Myers rather missed the point that Jeff was making, and that is shown in his second last paragraph where he gripes that religion is being made off-limits.
It’s like Dr. Myers never even read what Jeff actually wrote or any of Jeff’s follow-on comments to various people. Where did Jeff say that religion should be off limits to skepticism? Was there some hidden paragraph that had the text the same colour as the background?
Dr. Myers made a strawman and attacked it, rather than what Jeff really said, and it’s a strawman that I find quite common amongst the outspoken and passionate atheists in our skeptic community.
Bo: Also, which people in the skeptic community have said that religion is (or should be) off limits for skeptics? Please give me an example or two, for the so-called “accomodationists” that I have read never say that one should turn off one’s skepticism for a particular topic. That’s a strawman, IMNSHO.
Also, if you ‘don’t understand this rhetoric claiming we’re “equating skepticism with atheism”’, then what do you think it is when one skeptic says “If you’re religious and a skeptic, I’m sorry to say that you’re shitty at both”? That sounds an awful lot to me like equating skepticism and atheism, and it seems to me to be a common sentiment amongst the more passionately out-spoken atheists in our skeptic community.
I don’t think you can be a consistent skeptic and believe in homeopathie. Does that mean I’m equating non-belief in homeopathy with skepticism?
I don’t care if people believe in a “sky-daddy, ha ha ha ha ha, isn’t that stupid!” I don’t even care if people believe that homeopathic remedies can cure their headache. I do care when people try to impose their faith-based beliefs on society at large, but we can deal with this problem without attacking their beliefs per se. And if acceptance by nonskeptics isn’t our goal, why not just forget about outreach and bask in our own superiority. But if we want to win people over to our side, calling their most cherished beliefs delusional isn’t the way to do it.
“Jesus rose and is in heaven? Seems unlikely, but there’s not a lot more to say.”
Really? Skepticism is about accepting this kind of claim unless it can be proven to have never happened? That’s how skepticism works? There is plausibility at work here? I am floored by the assertion that skepticism is about accepting any and all implausible claims unless they can specifically be experimentally invalidated. So the burden of proof is no longer on those making implausible claims? I guess I was wrong about how critical thinking works. Tom Cruise, I owe you an apology. I thought I didn’t have to give credence to any of your claims, but I actually can’t prove that an evil galactic overlord never threw a bunch of brainwashed aliens into a volcano, and I have no call as a skeptic to call those claims ridiculous. Turns out, I’ve been doing skepticism wrong this whole time.
There seems to be a lot of concern about losing “good people” who are turned off by the rampant atheism in the skeptical community, but no one seems concerned about alienating the many good people who are new to the skeptical community, or had been thinking about becoming more involved, and whose critical thinking has led them to godlessness. “You’re doing it wrong,” they are told. “You’re mean and arrogant.” “Your ruining skepticism and diluting atheism.” “Have your own conferences and stop ruining ours!” Be careful what you wish for, maybe, because there is only so much people can stand being told they ruin everyone’s good time before they take your advice and stop showing up. So much for those record attendance records when everyone heads over to “Atheistcon” where they can’t hurt your movement anymore.
Jen: Since when does “but there’s not a lot more to say” equates to “accepting this kind of claim unless it can be proven to have never happened”? I think you’re misunderstanding Jeff’s point.
I think it’s more likely that “but there’s not a lot more to say” means “there’s not a heck of a lot of evidence for this in either direction so a skeptic cannot say ‘true or false’”.
Of course, as a skeptic I must also allow for the possibility that I, too, have missed his point.
In the context of the sentence the implication is that there are some claims where skepticism comes into play and some where it doesn’t, and that this is a claim where it doesn’t. To me, the fact that’s it’s so unlikely is exactly why we should be skeptical. And to say that there is not a lot of evidence in either direction is being disingenuous. We have plenty of evidence the people don’t rise from the dead.
I am skeptical about the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, and see no compelling reason to believe that there is one, even though I cannot prove 100% that all of the claims made about it are false. But if I proclaim that at a skeptical conference, no one will tell me I am being unreasonable or “delusional”. Ditto psychic powers. Or UFOs. Or Ghosts. Or even Indian Gurus wih Christ-like powers. But if I apply the same standards to biblical supernatural claims, suddenly I am hurting skepticism? If I say there is no compelling evidence to justify belief in a supernatural deity and that the burden of proof is on the believers, I am not being skeptical. If I say there is no compelling evidence to justify belief in bigfoot and that the burden of proof is on the believers, suddenly I am skeptical again, like magic. It is this double standard that is inspiring the rancor.
Jeff and Hal, I don’t think that leaving the movement is the answer. If all the moderates leave, the fundamentalist atheists will take over the movement; and I, for one, do not want that. If these people want to have an hour-long religion-bash, let them move to Atheistcon. That would be a better fit for them.
Nice smear of fundamentalism.
I’ve left both my local “skeptics” group and stopped supporting the national group I used to belong to. They are emphasizing atheism to the exclusion of everything else and to the detriment of the larger cause, increasing rational thinking in society.
They insist on being as offensive and insulting as humanly possible to believers in the delusional assumption that this will change society by force of will. I can name 4 members (of a local group) who were beginning their skeptical journey, and were starting a process of questioning that would likely have led to their dropping their religious beliefs, who stopped attending after constant and mean-spirited attacks by “skeptics”.
This flies in the face of the research on how people maintain and change belief systems. It does not happen instantly. It happens when people become convinced of a number of scientific facts that eventually reach a sort of critical mass, and they realize that accepting these facts means that their religion is unsupportable. Acceptance of science and questioning and demands for evidence eventually lead to atheism. Not the other way around.
But there is obviously no room in the movement for “accomodationists” like me. Not to worry, no loss.
Jeff, you fool! The only thing that can ever be excluded from skepticism is evolution!
Oh, wait. Atheism, too. You can’t be skeptical about atheism, either.
You propose a title for the next Skepticon “Are Atheists Delusional?”. I’m an atheist and I’ve got no problem with that. There are all sorts of atheist ideologies we could cover, like Marxism, Buddhism, and the like. I think is should be phrased more gently though like “Marxism: Confrontation or Accomidation?”
“I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they’re uncomfortable with the tone and disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.”
Really? What kind of person would do that? Who would decide that questioning assertions and expecting people to provide evidence when they make them is something no longer viable because some people seem loud or rude when they do the same thing? Why should any community care if they lose that kind of person?
But we’re not talking about simply “questioning assertions and expecting people to provide evidence.” Back when there was a to-do over Phil Plait’s “Don’t Be A Dick” speech, Stephanie Zvan pointed out that Pamela Gay got hate mail telling her that she can’t be a “real skeptic” because of her religion. As Ms. Zvan put it, “That stopped being attacking the idea an awfully long time ago.” That’s the sort of hostility to which people like Bidlack and Podblack object.
PZ gets hate mail too, and we have people here telling atheists that they are not skeptical about their atheism either. What does any of this prove one way or another?
Also, did any of the organizers or speakers of Skepticon send such hate mail?
Deen, if you cannot understand the sentence, “That stopped being attacking the idea an awfully long time ago,” that’s your problem.
I understand perfectly well that hate mail is beyond reasonable discussion. I also understand that you are implying that this hate mail has something to do with Skepticon being too “atheistic”, or that it says something about why atheism should stay the hell out of skepticism. But if you think it’s appropriate to judge atheism and its place within skepticism by the trolls who sent hate mail to Pamela Gay, it’s you who is having a problem, not me. I don’t suppose you’d support judging Christian skeptics (and their place within skepticism) based on the hate mail PZ gets, would you?
Deen: “I also understand that you are implying that this hate mail has something to do with Skepticon being too ‘atheistic’, or that it says something about why atheism should stay the hell out of skepticism.”
You understand wrongly. What I was doing was pointing out that Amii Lockhart’s idea that theistic skeptics were merely being offended by fair criticism rather that irrational hostility doesn’t hold water.
PZ sends hate mail also. I got one when he didn’t like what I had to say on his site.
Amii,
Me, for example. I don’t object to having testable claims questioned (I don’t make testable claims about my faith). But I do object to being told I’m stupid, having atheists try to save me from myself (as happened often after my TAM speech. One even had pamphlets.)
As to “Why should any community care if they lose that kind of person?” I guess you have to make that call. If skepticism is better off without me, I guess you win.
I said my say at TAM 4, and then again on Skepticality.
I think I’ve said too much already. I vowed a couple years back never to engage in atheism v faith discussions again, and only allowed myself to get sucked into it by the attacks on my good friend Jeff. I know there is nothing I can say, nothing I can advance, that will in any way change anyone’s minds, so I again will withdraw. PZ and the extremists win (and will no doubt have something to say about my “self expulsion” and how that’s no loss).
Poisoning the well.
Just to add: did it ever occur to you that you’re getting flak from new atheists, not for being a deist, but for saying they are extremists and things like that? Just wondering.
Hal: “But I do object to being told I’m stupid, having atheists try to save me from myself”
That sounds like special pleading to me.
I suspect that Bill Maher doesn’t like it when skeptics tell him he’s stupid about buying into anti-vax nonsense. I wouldn’t be surprised if he objects to people who try to “save him from himself” about that mistake.
So?
Hal,
Not totally on track, but I wanted to thank you for the fantastic work you’ve done, on TAM and elsewhere, all these years. I, for one, was deeply saddened (though not at all surprised) when I heard rumours about your motivation for giving up the MC job. I explained the story to my girlfriend, a fairly new skeptic (two TAMs and two years of dating me!), who couldn’t give a damn about these internal flame wars. She just looked deeply depressed and slowly shook her head.
That’s pretty much my feeling on the issue.
If you’re at TAM next year, I’d feel privileged to sit with you or share a beer.
My issue is with the metal of the skeptics that are conjured: “…they’re uncomfortable with the tone, and disappointed with…the lack of skepticism…”
I don’t argue that these hypothetical people aren’t good people, but they don’t strike me as people that any movement needs.
Your example of hate mail fell flat for me. Anyone that rises in any movement will get hate mail. It should be expected, perhaps even relished as a marker that one’s voice is being heard in numbers large enough to warrant response from the crackpot element. To actually leave a movement when one is seeing signs of one’s success therein implies a softer constitution than is necessary for activism.
Also, if someone in the skeptic movement sees a lack of skepticism in their own community, their response should be challenge, not flight.
there is a certain irony in accusing me of having “a softer constitution than is necessary for activism,” but I’m sure you are a fine person, and I’ll just agree to disagree about the current situation. And no worries, I’ve left the movement, as it were. My best to all involved.
Hal –
I didn’t accuse you have having too soft a constitution. You assumed I was talking about you. You assumed PZ Myers was talking about you (I didn’t think so).
In the case of Myers, he used an if, then statement (in his blog), so you’d have to be correctly defined in the “if” in order for the “then” to apply: If you are a so-called skeptic (the meaning of so-called established earlier in the blog as, “that they have the only acceptable definition of skepticism, and …religion is excluded from skeptical criticism.”), if you would leave a movement because you don’t like people to question your beliefs, then you don’t seem committed to cause and no loss losing you.
Even after you interpreted Myers to be talking about you, I didn’t think he was. And even after you assumed that I was talking about you, I wasn’t.
However, given that you know yourself better than I, given that you “vowed a couple years back never to engage in atheism v faith discussions again,” and indeed that you have left the movement, I think I may have to defer to you on this one.
I have a big issue with being completely shut down in conversation, which your vow effectively does. It is not necessary to walk away from a debate having changed a mind or changed your own. That almost never happens, no matter the topic. Shouldn’t the faithful be able to stand in the face doubt and skepticism and disbelief even if no one is persuaded? Leave the movement or whatever you want to do, but please reconsider your vow.
As far as skeptical events go, I’ve only been to Dragon*Con’s Skeptrack a few times. But I typically avoid the atheist panels. Not because of any ideological or theological difference. I’m an atheist myself. It’s just that I don’t feel like I’m learning anything from them. Yes, it seems unlikely that God exists. Yes, religious people have done some horrible, stupid things. Yes, I agree that they’re probably wrong about what they believe.
I’m also sure my niece is wrong that John Mayer is one of the greatest living guitar players, and I think I could prove it on a graphing calculator.
But I don’t see someone else being wrong about the existence of a deity as a personal affront. I can’t imagine what kind of insecurity a person would have to have to feel this way. My only concern is when people use their beliefs as an excuse to harm others. And in that case, I don’t care whether their central assertion is right or wrong. To me, skepticism is less about intellectual superiority and more about protecting human beings with reason and truth.
So, sitting around and yakking about whether Christians are delusional seems like an endlessly petty, dead end road. Plus, many of the people who enjoy it seem to be joyless emotional cripples who are no fun to be around. Just browse any random comments section at PZ’s blog, and you’ll see what I mean. You can measure a demagogue by his legion of toadies.
Brian, that was possibly the best, most lucid, and most accurate description of PZ and his PZombies I’ve ever read.
What about a someone who believes in a deity that slanders you, and calls for your liquidation, via some gross over-generalization about unbelievers? You think it OK to teach children that others are evil based on nothing but a lack of belief in their diety? I don’t think they use such beliefs as a excuse to harm others. It’s not like they just want to go out in descriminate against and kill people who disagree with them. Their religion specifically teaches them to. That’s a big problem no?
People teaching their children that entire swaths of people are evil is harmful. These people are harming their children. And while it’s true that there are some religions that may teach this, there are other religions that teach their followers to clog up my grocery store on a Monday evening buying a bunch of frozen turkeys for poor people. (Sorry. I’m a little miffed it took so long to buy my Pop-Tarts. My SECULAR Pop-Tarts.)
Sometimes it’s even the same religion that does both. And sometimes parents teach their children that anyone of a different political bent is evil. Or anyone who listens to rap music.
It’s almost as if the world were a place full of nuance and contradictions.
In short, be more specific and you won’t sound like someone who peddles in gross generalizations to score ideological points.
Funny how we don’t hear a lot of skeptics defending other forms of credulous belief on the grounds that they’re often harmless.
(This seems rather like saying that there’s nothing wrong with cigarettes because a lot of people who smoke live to a ripe old age, and besides, they find it enjoyable and comfortble. Who are we to spout gross generalizations like “cigarettes cause cancer”? Sure, they CAN cause cancer SOMETIMES, but that’s different, isn’t it? The world is full of nuance and contradictions.)
Maybe we should let the Bigfoot and UFO believers off the hook on the same grounds. We can’t prove Bigfoot and UFO’s don’t exist, and I don’t see those folks having a lot of power in politics, denying people equal rights, getting millions of people killed by AIDS in Africa because of objections to condoms, etc.
I gives them something mostly harmless to obsess about, which is likely a net win.
Maybe we should even ENCOURAGE the UFO nuts and Bigfoot believers, because they’re mostly harmless, and it would help displace the riskier forms of unscientific, credulous belief, like religion.
:-)
Actually, I do let UFO and Bigfoot believers “off the hook”, precisely because their belief doesn’t do anything to hurt anyone. Doesn’t mean I believe what they do. And it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t stand up to them if they started burning down building because the aliens told them to, or if they stole blankets from Target to keep Bigfoot warm.
Barring any actual harm, I don’t see a reason to attack people for being wrong about something. Fun fact: people are always wrong about things. It must be exhausting to constantly be on the offense.
Oops discriminate.
Jeff,
“I don’t see that skepticism must lead to atheism.”
I guess in the same sense it is not true that skepticism must lead to a disbelief in Bigfoot. Wouldn’t you agree? You can lead a horse to water …
@Brian Macker
For the record, Jeff would agree that it is not true that skepticism must lead to a disbelief in Bigfoot. I only comment because Jeff and I had that exact discussion this morning or last night. If someone came into a skeptics meet-up and said “I just saw Bigfoot, have no evidence for it, but I really-o, truly-o believe I just saw Bigfoot”, I have no way of proving that he didn’t see Bigfoot. However, if he tries to convince me that I must believe in Bigfoot, I can say ‘show me the evidence’. If he doesn’t provide some compelling scientific evidence, I will probably not believe that he saw Bigfoot, because I’ve never seen compelling scientific evidence that Bigfoot exists. However, I cannot prove that he didn’t see Bigfoot; if he believes he saw Bigfoot I may doubt his claim, but, lacking evidence to the contrary, I can’t assert that he’s lying, delusional, or even wrong. I can encourage him to assess his position with the methods of skepticism. I can show him all of the times that folks were confused/fooled by misperceptions. But, if that person had that experience, and it convinced them of that, I can offer skeptical resources, but I can’t insist that they don’t believe in Bigfoot.
… and continuing the analogy what’s your problem with doing all that with religion? BTW, a better analogy would be someone coming in convinced about bigfoot because he read a book about it. Very few people claim to have actually seen god.
I have absolutely no problem with doing that with religion. Nor would Jeff.
Traditional skepticism did not emphasize atheism, and that’s what I signed up for when I signed up for skepticism because I’m not comfortable with the atheist scene. I’ve never said that the topic of religion should be off limits, but I do think that a skeptical venue is not the proper place for a weekend-long piss-Christ fest. Religion is special because it is much more important to many more people than the other supernatural beliefs that skeptics deal with, and we have to respect that if we want to reach people.
“Religion is special because it is much more important to many more people than the other supernatural beliefs that skeptics deal with, and we have to respect that if we want to reach people.”
Many people attach much importance to other supernatural beliefs. Why don’t we respect that as well?
“Traditional skepticism did not emphasize atheism”
Because they used to kill atheists. Even in the not to distant past they would discriminate against them, and still do in most countries.
“Religion is special because it is much more important to many more people than the other supernatural beliefs that skeptics deal with, and we have to respect that if we want to reach people.”
That’s why it needs to be the special focus of skepticism. It’s not just important to them but it justifies their claims to moral authority over the lives of others. An authority which does not exist.
Seems to be working too. I couldn’t believe the number of atheists in my sons high school that were open about it. Nothing like when I was a kid.
Why should I use kid gloves with them when they and their preachers get up at social events and denounce people who do not believe their nonsense as evil. I’ve been to several funerals where the speeches were quite offensive.
Ever listen to religious jerks like Glenn Beck or Michael Savage on the radio? Well that pales by comparison to what’s said in the churches in front of the choir.
At least skeptics criticisms have the benefit of being true.
Aren’t you setting up a false dichotomy when you say that “[religion] needs to be the special focus of skepticism”?
How does a skeptic’s activism against anti-vaccination propaganda detract from an anti-theist’s rallying against the church? Both provide necessary value.
In context, it seems to me that Brian was just responding to the idea that because religious beliefs are popular and cherished, we should go EASIER on them.
The point being that we don’t generally go easier on credulous beliefs because they’re more popular—we go harder on them.
Nobody objects if skeptics prioritize criticizing more popular beliefs more highly than obscure ones—up to and excluding religion.
I find that very striking. I’m convinced that most forms of woo hinge on the same basic cognitive mistakes as religion—e.g., believing in some form of dualism and something like mind-over-matter essentialism.
A big problem with skepticism is that we don’t make it clear enough what that common fundamental mistake actually is, which underlies all sorts of things from quantum woo, psi, homeopathy, Luck, and therapeutic touch to belief in Jesus or Karma.
The reason we don’t, I suspect, is because if we said the plain truth it would make it clear that essentially all religion is subject to the same fundamental criticism, and many of us don’t want to go there.
The problem about most of these beliefs just isn’t a local problem of testability of particular hypotheses. It’s deeper and broader than that, being based on a basic ontological error that makes them intuitively plausible.
IMO, the biggest weakness of the “skeptic” movement is the failure to address the root cause of unskeptical credulity, which is dualism—often thinly veiled and made to sound sciency, but clearly supernaturalistic once you recognize its conceptual structure.
If we don’t even make it clear what the basic error IS, and why it’s an error, many people will just make the same error over and over again, no matter how many specific “testable” hypotheses we refute with evidence.
That huge weakness of the skeptical movement is also a strength in other respects. It’s what allows us to boil the frog slowly in some cases.
For some people, seeing enough refutations of particular thinly veiled supernaturalisms will gradually lead to an intuitive recognition of supernaturalisms and a general skepticism of them.
For other people, though, it won’t. They’ll laugh about having believed in Santa Claus or crystal healing, but still not see a problem with their belief in Jesus or Karma.
What a bunch of evidenceless, blowhardish nonsense.
It’s precisely this special position of religion that we should be skeptical of. It’s precisely this notion that religion deserves automatic respect that needs to be countered.
Also, I challenge you to re-read rest of your comment, but swap “Christian” and “atheist”. How did that sound to you?
Religion is special because it is much more important to many more people than the other supernatural beliefs that skeptics deal with, and we have to respect that if we want to reach people.
“It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it.”
–Edmund Way Teale
While the idea of everyone getting along is a wonderful idea and we would all love it if we could not disturb the status quo, especially since many of the people that are religious are also loved ones. Isn’t it a bit akin to enabling when we allow the truth to stay silent on our lips and the delusion to continue rampantly in the world?
Richard: “Religion is special because it is much more important to many more people than the other supernatural beliefs that skeptics deal with, and we have to respect that if we want to reach people.”
Yes. We can criticize less popular views with relative impunity. (E.g., Bigfoot, UFO’s.) Pandering to powerless minorities is silly.
If we’re going to pander, it makes more sense to pander to the powerful majority.
This was my first year to attend (Skepticon 3) or any event of this kind. I have read most of the posts above and would like to say a few things not directed at any one person or post but more of an outsiders perspective. I tend to agree with the camp that Skepticism by its very nature leads to a questioning of one’s faith and where it goes from there is personal. I like to think I was born a skeptic, grew into agnosticism, and finally ended up an Atheist. I think this is a very slow process for those of us who were raised in a religous environment. My upbringing didn’t allow me the option of anything else and honestly I didn’t know there was such a thing as Atheism or Agnosticism until I was a young adult. Even then surely did not understand it. My thoughts are as follows; I think there is room for both camps in this movement and that losing any rational or even semi-rational thinking person would be a setback for the movement as a whole. I didn’t get the feeling anything was odd that a majority of the subjects dealt with Religion or the lack thereof. Personally I think I would have been very dissapointed if it didn’t lean this direction. I very much enjoyed the other topics as well but we all know that Ghosts and Bigfoot doesn’t exist so why spend too much time proving them false. Now if either of those beleifs caused as much issue in my life as Religion does then I may think differently. The fact of the matter is Religion HURTS people. I don’t agree with attacking someone’s faith by being rude or arrogant but who here would do that to a beleiver? I don’t know PZ or any of the others mentioned here but I don’t think he or any of them would utilize that approach when talking with a person of faith. On the flip side however when you are talking with a person who calls themself a skeptic and also says they believe in a god a more direct approach could be taken and especially at a Skeptics convention it should be expected. In closing I would like to say thanks to the organizers, the speakers, and all of the participants this was a great experience for me and I will be back next year with my oldest son.
PK-Eric