rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
I disagree. and IFTFY
Atheists are NOT skeptical about religion--they have made their minds up that no God or gods exist.
That's not skeptical--
PZ Myers had no idea he was stepping into a controversy
- Thread starter Abdul Alhazred
- Start date
Atheists are NOT skeptical about religion--they have made their minds up that no God or gods exist.
That's not skeptical--
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
What's "IFTFY" mean here? It can't be "I fixed that for you", because you fixed nothing. And the other meaning of FTFY doesn't seem apropos.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
All well and good, but how do you stop people from taking offense when you challenge their beliefs?
As an atheist, the fact there are theist skeptics does not challenge my belief. Their god belief doesn't challenge the basis of my conclusion about gods. But were I a theist, and a skeptic atheist is supporting their conclusion with critical thinking based evidence, then my belief is challenged. As long as the skeptic maintains an agnostic position, or goes along with the separation of science and theism (like the apology of faith based beliefs being outside the realm of science) then the theist skeptic does not have their beliefs challenged.
But my conclusion there are no gods is based on looking at the evidence that overwhelmingly supports the conclusion all gods are mythical beings invented by humans. Now my conclusion challenges the theist's belief and many skeptic theists find that offensive. I don't want to sidestep how I see the evidence because it offends some theists in the skeptical community.
As Phil puts it, I don't want to be a dick. But there are some theist skeptics who are offended regardless of how politely an atheist says their position is based on a critical analysis of the evidence. We've seen it time and time again when another complaint is lodged that the JREF is an atheist organization and we see it here in the complaint that 'there is no god' themes were included in a few of the Skepticon talks.
The issue here is that some skeptic theists take offense at anything suggesting their god beliefs are subject to critical analysis. It's not good enough for them to accept their personal decision to separate their god beliefs from their skeptical analysis of everything else. Some theist skeptics insist that everyone else separate science and faith as well. And many atheists do not hold that position.
I suggest theist skeptics just agree to disagree, not just on one's conclusions about the existence of gods, but also on the underlying premise that there is separation of faith and science. Agnostic and atheist skeptics have this debate from time to time. And it is less problematic to agree to disagree because there is no cognitive dissonance to deal with. One can see the other's position has a basis in the scientific philosophy we each hold.
There's a scientific basis for not ruing out the possibility of anything, including gods and invisible unicorns, and there's a scientific basis for following the evidence to the conclusion, (gods are mythical beings), and not trying to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion, (gods might exist).
But when you change that to a theist skeptic vs an atheist skeptic debating the scientific philosophy of what is outside the realm of science, now you have not just a different view of what is and what is not within the scientific realm. It isn't simply a matter of leaving the door open to the possibility of gods, you have one side arguing not just that gods could exist, but that they do exist (whether or not the theist is trying to argue that point with the atheist or not). If you don't buy the separate 'faith based' universe parallel to the scientific evidence based universe, that has very serious consequences for the skeptic theist's world view. It's no longer a debate on a finer point of the scientific process, it is a debate with more significant consequences based on the outcome of the debate.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Have you made up your ming that gravity exists? That the Earth is not flat? That you won't fall off the bottom of the planet if you wander round to the other side? Have you made up your mind the Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon orbits the Earth?
There are may things for which the level of certainty reaches the level one can call something a scientific fact. All scientific facts are subject to change, even the fact the Earth orbits the Sun, but that doesn't prevent a critical thinker from maintaining a level of certainty about any evidence based conclusion.
You don't need to come to the same conclusion I have come to that it is certain all god beliefs are human invented fiction. But you are very wrong to conclude that because we have a different opinion, I did not arrive at mine through critical analysis. I could say the same thing about your conclusion. I could say that ignoring all the evidence gods are mythical beings people invented isn't taking the skeptical approach of following the evidence where it goes, rather you are unskeptically trying to fit the evidence to your preconceived conclusion.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Total crap. Whenever somebody says they have God, I say, "where's your proof?" That's either the end of it, or they trot out some tired ********. Sorry if that busts your bubble. Not really.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Certainly an improvement over the 11th century, isn't it?
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Bitter, angry people are always in need of being made fun of.
Steven Howard
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,797
This is somewhere in the neighborhood of protesting too much.
Seriously, I don't see how you make Myers the bad guy here. If Wagg's blog post merits nothing but a "ho hum" then why does an equivalent blog post by Myers make him a "DICK?" And why is it on Myers to post about these "REAL problems and causes?" Doesn't Wagg have "REAL problems and causes" to post about as well?
Maybe I'm missing something, some behind-the-scenes insider perspective that would shed a different light on things, but here's what it looks like to an outsider:
1. In 2008, JT Eberhard arranges for PZ Myers and Richard Carrier to speak at Missouri State University on the subject of atheism. Retroactively, this event gains the name "Skepticon."
2. A year later, the officially named Skepticon II again features Myers and Carrier, along with other prominent skeptics and/or atheists. The focus is again on atheism, and the event includes debates on the existence of God.
3. This year, an even larger Skepticon 3 is held, and the focus is expanded to include more "traditional" targets of skepticism, such as the (non-religious) paranormal.
4. At this point, Jeff Wagg sticks his oar in and starts privately (via email) and publicly (via his blog) lecturing Eberhard about what skepticism is.
5. Myers, who's been part of every Skepticon so far, takes Wagg to task for trying to push his own agenda of what skepticism is about onto people who neither requested nor required his advice.
Now, again, I don't know anything about the personalities involved here. Maybe you've got some special JREF 3-D glasses that let you see Myers's evil machinations for what they are. But from where I'm sitting, Myers's position is completely understandable and it's Wagg who comes off as the unreasonable one. Even, you know, kind of dickish.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Would you mind actually reading Jeff's post before criticizing it? Because from this bit of straw, it's obvious you didn't bother.
It's not about "giving religion a pass," it's whether you're talking about skepticism or one particular very specific topic. Let's forget atheism - suppose someone set up a "SkepCon" in which every single topic seemed to have something to do with, say, dowsing.
Talks include:
"Dowsing - A History"
"What Neuroscience Tells Us About the Ideomotor Effect"
"Oil & Water Speculation - the Science"
Etc.
For several years the con keeps going, but the theme of the talks doesn't change much; everything is directly or tangentially related to dowsing.
At a certain point you have to ask, "is this a convention about skepticism, or just about dowsing? Maybe it would be better called 'DowseCon.'"
But because it's the God Question, any criticism of the Party Line ("There is No God and You Better Believe it!") is met with hostility and anger. Jeff went out of his way to praise JT, the Skepticon organizers, and phrase his comments in the most friendly and civil way possible.
And the response?
PZ Myers said:
PZ Myers said:
PZ Myers said:
And that, Steven, is why Myers is "the bad guy here." Ideological purity and condemnation of those who don't follow the Party Line is apparently more important than simple, open discussion about an important topic.
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
Setting aside Myers' "tone," Wagg's article was pretty silly. His complaint was that there were too many speakers criticizing Christianity at Skepticon:
Three of the Fifteen speeches were focused on religion. Without a doubt, religion is the PREDOMINANT non-skeptical belief system in the world. 20% of the conference seems like an under-representation.
What percentage of the American population believes in dowsing? Or knows what homeopathy is? Or has a strong opinion about Silvia Browne?
Now what percentage is Christian?
Wagg seems to be arguing that there's not much for skepticism to say about religion. That's absurdly wrong.
http://indieskeptics.com/2010/11/16/are-atheists-delusional-thoughts-on-skepticon3/
Three of the Fifteen speeches were focused on religion. Without a doubt, religion is the PREDOMINANT non-skeptical belief system in the world. 20% of the conference seems like an under-representation.
What percentage of the American population believes in dowsing? Or knows what homeopathy is? Or has a strong opinion about Silvia Browne?
Now what percentage is Christian?
Wagg seems to be arguing that there's not much for skepticism to say about religion. That's absurdly wrong.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Oh, FFS. Even PZ admits "Skepticon does have a strong anti-religion emphasis," which is the core of Jeff's point here. Harping on the fact that Jeff pointed to three specific talks isn't particularly useful.
Fine. Nobody's saying there shouldn't be atheist conferences; nobody's even saying that atheist talks don't belong as Skeptics' conferences. But if your focus is on anti-religion, as PZ admits, it seems more appropriate to call it "AtheistCon" or some such.
And that seems to be absurdly straw.
Last edited:
Steven Howard
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,797
You're saying Myers did that and Wagg didn't?
From here:
That's a paragraph all by itself. There's your ideological purity. There's your Party Line. It's. Not. Skepticism.
I'm just not seeing how it's cool for Jeff Wagg to say to JT Eberhard and company, "You're not skeptics," but then when Eberhard and Myers defend themselves suddenly they're being exclusionary and promoting some kind of One-True-Way party line.
From the same place:
That, to me, looks like an argument that skepticism doesn't have much to say on the topic of religion. Maybe it's that last phrase: "not a lot more to say."
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
Unless, of course, you read the part I quoted. Again:
"Not a lot more to say."
Silliness.
And, one more time, 20% of the talks were about skepticism and religion. He seems mostly upset about a flyer used for an advertisement that played on the "Bible Belt" location of the conference.
It was mostly vapid whining, to which Myers over-reacted.
A whole lot of nothing from both sides.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
His explanation, which you didn't bother with:
It's not a question of "party line" at all. He's right: Atheism != Skepticism. They're two different things, which might explain why they have two different words for them.
Now you're just lying. At no point did he say "you're not skeptics" to JT or anyone else.
Only if you're intent on reading that into it. It says, rather clearly, that skepticism has quite a bit to say about religious claims.
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
I wasn't at the conference, I am running off of this:
Myers' Post linked in OP.
But that's only one part of my complaint. Read Wagg's quote. That's what I disagree with.
Religion is and should be BY FAR the primary focus of anyone considering themselves a skeptic. There are other issues, to be certain, but religion supervenes over all.
Do you think Silvia Browne could gain traction in a population that was not brought up to believe in supernatural nonsense?
All of the other "skeptical" issues (bigfoot, homeopathy, UFO's, psychics, conspiracy theorists) are minor niggling pursuits compared to religion. They have little to no effect on public policy or actual lives (with the exception of the anti-vaxxers), and they're mostly just fun to argue about.
Religion, however, has ENORMOUS sway on what gets taught in our schools, the global warming denial movement, women's rights, homosexual rights, abortion, contraception...etc. Anyone complaining about the centrality of religion to a skeptical conference is either an apologist or someone content to allow the skeptical approach to be a frivolous past-time. It's not a comic conference.