PZ Myers had no idea he was stepping into a controversy

Abdul Alhazred

Philosopher
A
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
6,023
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/i_had_no_idea_i_was_stepping_i.php

... I'm at Skepticon 3, and I just learned tonight that the convention has been a source of dissent…and when I read the argument, I was stunned at how stupid it was. Apparently, Skepticon has too many atheists in it, and is — wait for it — "harming the cause".

I'm not joking. Jeff Wagg, formerly of the JREF, has a long lament deploring that 3 of the 15 talks are explicitly atheistic, and that JT Eberhard, the organizer, emphasizes the problem of religion too much for it to be True SkepticTM conference. ...
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
Wow, we athiests are pretty powerful if just by making 3 out of 15 talks "explicitly atheistic" we are placing too much focus on religion to be a "True Skeptic" event. I must have missed the fine print in the skeptic contract that stated the limits for how much we were allowed to discuss various issues without risking the loss of our "True Skeptic" status. ;)
 
I love it when people fight about who gets to call themselves a "skeptic." It's a label that 99.99% of the population has either never heard of, or attaches a completely different meaning to from those of any of the "skeptic" factions.

And of course there's an additional irony to having Jeff Wagg, who during his tenure as JREF employee responsible for the Forum basically adopted the "if you don't like it here, screw you and go somewhere else" attitude, whining about how another organization choose to run its conference.
 
PZ had every idea. Every move he makes is very calculated. The man isn't stupid. Also, a simple blog post, but someone that is not associated now with any national group... simply an opinion by someone about use of a term.. and PZ goes "SWEET!"

PZ is currently the poor mans Hitchens. His avowed goal is to step into Hitchens shoes. PZ has been nursing the DO BE A DICK angle for the past 6 months. He LOOKS for a way to define his persona even more.

Jeff Wagg makes a blog post. ho hum.

PZ makes it once again personal and a chance for publicity by exemplifying a one person blog post into a might crusade against HIM.

Sigh...PZ, there are so many REAL problems and causes to post about. But they wouldn't serve him as well as THIS problem he is imagining.
 
I think the skeptical community has more important things to worry about than eating their own, folks.
 
Skeptics attack athiests during meeting in Springfield Mo. the buckle to the bible belt. funny stuff
 
It should be Three maybe four speakers are NOT dealing directly with religion and or Christians
 
Dunstan said:
I agree. Do you think Jeff and kittynh will apologize for their divisiveness?
Click to expand...

Seeing as how I don't know what either one of them said, I can't say one way or another while having an informed opinion (I really haven't dug into this much yet, but I plan to - got any links?). My comment above about "eating our own" was meant as a general one, for all those calling themselves skeptics, whether they are religious/non-religious, accommodationist/confrontationalist, PZ Myers/Eugenie Scott, etc.

I think the skeptical movement is a diverse one, and as such we had better get used to disagreeing on some topics with each other. If religion is one of those topics, so be it. What I'm more concerned about is focusing on the things we can agree on and working on those issues.

For example, on the topic of creationism: Eugenie Scott brings certain talents to the table when combating it, and PZ Myers brings a different (but no less important) set of talents to the table. I welcome both of them to the skeptical cause, and I can see scenarios where one's talents would be of more use than the other's. But at the end of the day, I think we need both of them - and they're just two examples, as there is an entire spectrum of thought when dealing with these issues.

ETA: Ah, I see what you mean about kittynh's comments. Hmmm, yup, that was a bit nasty. But it seems that PZ's post was somewhat nasty in spots as well. Ah, the drama - I think some people need to grow up and start acting like adults :rolleyes:

I have met and spent time with both kittynh and PZ, and I can say that while they may not get along with each other, I see no reason for me to NOT keep interacting with each of them. As I said, everyone brings their own talents to the table.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Seeing as how I don't know what either one of them said, I can't say one way or another while having an informed opinion (I really haven't dug into this much yet, but I plan to - got any links?).
Click to expand...

Jeff Wagg's post is linked in PZ's blog post (which the OP linked to). Basically, he complains that the "Skepticon" conference shouldn't be called that because too many speakers are talking about atheism.

Kittynh's post is in this thread.

My comment above about "eating our own" was meant as a general one, for all those calling themselves skeptics, whether they are religious/non-religious, accommodationist/confrontationalist, PZ Myers/Eugenie Scott, etc.

I think the skeptical movement is a diverse one, and as such we had better get used to disagreeing on some topics with each other. If religion is one of those topics, so be it. What I'm more concerned about is focusing on the things we can agree on and working on those issues.
Click to expand...

Work together on issues where we agree, certainly. If you mean "focus" on them by ignoring issues on which we don't agree, no thanks.

For example, on the topic of creationism: Eugenie Scott brings certain talents to the table when combating it, and PZ Myers brings a different (but no less important) set of talents to the table. I welcome both of them to the skeptical cause, and I can see scenarios where one's talents would be of more use than the other's. But at the end of the day, I think we need both of them - and they're just two examples, as there is an entire spectrum of thought when dealing with these issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my view, too. What frustrates me is that many of Scott's supporters (I don't recall her saying this) want people like PZ to shut up and go away, whereas PZ has disagreed with Scott and the NCSE but still encourages people to support them.
 
MattusMaximus said:
I think the skeptical community has more important things to worry about than eating their own, folks.
Click to expand...
And yet this issue has been fodder for more than one thread and comes up again and again.

I'm in PZ's camp. It's fine if skeptics want to maintain their theist blind spot, and a blind spot doesn't make one 'not a critical thinker' otherwise. Letting go of god beliefs is no easy task for some. And no skeptic is perfectly without blind spots of some kind or another.

But when it comes to critical thinking it makes no sense whatsoever to give god beliefs a pass for the sake of not pissing off the theists skeptics among us. If they want to maintain their personal cognitive dissonance and god beliefs, so be it, but I for one can't in good conscience, pretend there is some dual evidence standard when I just don't buy it.

There is no faith based universe or some spiritual need humans have that science cannot address. Because I'm not asking 'science' to answer questions. My version of critical thinking is that valid evidence is the best way to describe the Universe. Science answering or not answering questions is one of the fabricated reasons we supposedly need some spiritual universe along with the real Universe.


I'm in no way saying a theist is incompatible with being a skeptic. But theist skeptics cannot expect me to pretend their god beliefs are outside the realm of critical thinking anymore than I expect them to give up their god beliefs because I think the evidence supports the conclusion gods are mythical beings humans invented. Critical thinkers come to different conclusions all the time. That's what skeptics need to get used to. If a critical thinker comes to a different conclusion, we should not use the conclusions we differ on to separate us.
 
Last edited:
Dunstan said:
Jeff Wagg's post is linked in PZ's blog post (which the OP linked to). Basically, he complains that the "Skepticon" conference shouldn't be called that because too many speakers are talking about atheism.

Kittynh's post is in this thread.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks.

Work together on issues where we agree, certainly. If you mean "focus" on them by ignoring issues on which we don't agree, no thanks.
Click to expand...

The former, I assure you. I have no desire to see religion (or anything, for that matter) as "off limits" from free inquiry.

Yes, that's my view, too. What frustrates me is that many of Scott's supporters (I don't recall her saying this) want people like PZ to shut up and go away, whereas PZ has disagreed with Scott and the NCSE but still encourages people to support them.
Click to expand...

I've heard people from both camps make stupid arguments. None of those bad arguments take away from the positive contributions that both PZ and Eugenie have made over the years. I think some people are a little too much into the hero-worship thing when it comes to this stuff.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm in no way saying a theist is incompatible with being a skeptic. But theist skeptics cannot expect me to pretend their god beliefs are outside the realm of critical thinking anymore than I expect them to give up their god beliefs because I think the evidence supports the conclusion gods are mythical beings humans invented. Critical thinkers come to different conclusions all the time. That's what skeptics need to get used to. If a critical thinker comes to a different conclusion, we should not use the conclusions we differ on to separate us.
Click to expand...

Well said. My concern is that some people are getting too hung up on these disagreements, as if there's nothing else to skepticism except this one issue.
 
Cassandrena said:
Wow, we athiests are pretty powerful if just by making 3 out of 15 talks "explicitly atheistic" we are placing too much focus on religion to be a "True Skeptic" event. I must have missed the fine print in the skeptic contract that stated the limits for how much we were allowed to discuss various issues without risking the loss of our "True Skeptic" status. ;)
Click to expand...

Check old threads discussing whether a religious person can be a True SkepticTM or not. It's not the atheists who are a bit more accomodating that have the issue here.

MattusMaximus said:
Well said. My concern is that some people are getting too hung up on these disagreements, as if there's nothing else to skepticism except this one issue.
Click to expand...

There does tend to be a myopia whenever someone "comes out", and it does lead to devisiveness.
 
I sat through that and I thought "Okay, yeah, that's interesting." I think PZ made more of it that there was. My impression was:

"Skeptics" are people who question everything. "Atheists" are people who question one thing. Is that one thing more important than everything? Maybe it is.

The overlap between skeptics and atheists there had to be over 99% (based on hands raised when asked they were skeptics and then asked if they were atheists.)

This post is pre-coffee, so forgive me if it's terse.
 
I'm with Mattus. And Paul. This isn't something that we should really be getting worked up over. But I'm sure it'll get a lot of traction at TAMOz...

#RubbingItIn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom