PZ Myers had no idea he was stepping into a controversy

[Cleon]

I wasn't at the conference, I am running off of this:


Myers' Post linked in OP.

Yes. Which is why the criticism of Jeff's explicit mention of three talks is dishonest; Jeff was using them as examples, they were far from the only ones, and it's a red herring because even Myers admitted the conference has an atheist bent.

Since we all agree the conference has an atheist bent, and it's manifestly obvious it was far more than just three talks, harping on it is pointless and dishonest.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes. Which is why the criticism of Jeff's explicit mention of three talks is dishonest; Jeff was using them as examples, they were far from the only ones, and it's a red herring because even Myers admitted the conference has an atheist bent.

Since we all agree the conference has an atheist bent, and it's manifestly obvious it was far more than just three talks, harping on it is pointless and dishonest.

No, I looked carefully at the schedule. Of the fifteen speakers, three of them devoted their talk to religion and one of them talked about "atheism and sexuality." There's a panel discussion dealing with the debate about whether atheism and skepticism are synonymous. That, obviously, gives people who oppose that view a chance to voice their concerns, so it's hard to count that as an "atheist" presentation.

Again, when religion is BY FAR the central issue for modern skeptics, that's a balanced conference. If anything, religion was under-represented.

This is what happens when one issue is so disproportionately more important than the others.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
Again, when religion is BY FAR the central issue for modern skeptics, that's a balanced conference. If anything, religion was under-represented.

This is what happens when one issue is so disproportionately more important than the others.

Do you speak for all skeptics on this? Is this what all skeptics believe? Do you have evidence for that?

 

[TraneWreck]

Do you speak for all skeptics on this? Is this what all skeptics believe? Do you have evidence for that?

I don't care whether they "believe" it or not, it's a statement of fact.

There is no other subject containing such decidedly non-skeptical content that has as universal of an effect on society as religion, and in America, that religion is Christianity.

Nothing even comes close.

 

[Cleon]

No, I looked carefully at the schedule. Of the fifteen speakers, three of them devoted their talk to religion and one of them talked about "atheism and sexuality."

Obviously you didn't look that carefully:

Day 1 (religion-related talks marked with a *)
Opening Ceremony
The Role of Irrationality in Sexism
*The Ten Thousand Christs and the Evaporating Jesus
Coming Out Skeptical
Confrontation vs. Accomodation panel (I'm sure that had nothing to do with religion :rolleyes)
* Does skepticism lead to atheism? panel

Day 2
* Atheism and sexuality
* Are Christians Delusional?

Day 3
* The Abuse of Physics by Theists and Spiritualists
* Patriarchs and Penises
* Dear Christian
Closing Ceremony

So of the listed subjects, 7 out of 12 are explicitly about religion in some way.

There's a panel discussion dealing with the debate about whether atheism and skepticism are synonymous. That, obviously, gives people who oppose that view a chance to voice their concerns, so it's hard to count that as an "atheist" presentation.

Really? It's not about atheism because non-atheists had a chance to be heard? :rollleyes:

Again, when religion is BY FAR the central issue for modern skeptics,that's a balanced conference. If anything, religion was under-represented.

This is what happens when one issue is so disproportionately more important than the others.

Look if you want to have an atheist conference, fine. Go for it. But atheism != skepticism, and a focus on atheism isn't a focus on skepticism. Declaring that if you're a True Skeptic you must see religion as a Huge Problem doesn't change the simple fact - atheism and skepticism are two different things.

 

[TraneWreck]

Obviously you didn't look that carefully:

Day 1 (religion-related talks marked with a *)
Opening Ceremony
The Role of Irrationality in Sexism
*The Ten Thousand Christs and the Evaporating Jesus
Coming Out Skeptical
Confrontation vs. Accomodation panel (I'm sure that had nothing to do with religion :rolleyes)
* Does skepticism lead to atheism? panel

Day 2
* Atheism and sexuality
* Are Christians Delusional?

Day 3
* The Abuse of Physics by Theists and Spiritualists
* Patriarchs and Penises
* Dear Christian
Closing Ceremony

So of the listed subjects, 7 out of 12 are explicitly about religion in some way.

Except that you're skipping over all the speakers that didn't give a title to their speeches:

Debbie Goddard, D.J. Grothe, Joe Nickell, Dan Barker, James Randi, P.Z. Myers, Rebecca Watson.

I also find it amusing that you consider "Patriarchs and Penises" to be explicitly about religion. I think you've just touched on the essence of my point.

Really? It's not about atheism because non-atheists had a chance to be heard? :rollleyes:

Who should have been on that panel making your argument?

Look if you want to have an atheist conference, fine. Go for it. But atheism != skepticism, and a focus on atheism isn't a focus on skepticism. Declaring that if you're a True Skeptic you must see religion as a Huge Problem doesn't change the simple fact - atheism and skepticism are two different things.

Now it's your turn to play in the hay:

Wagg-

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.

Myers-

Absolutely no one has proposed such a litmus test. Even I, loud and obnoxious hard core atheist, have specifically stated there should be no such restriction.

No one is arguing they're the same thing. It just happens to be the case that applying the same method of inquiry to religion that one applies to homeopathy leads to the wholesale destruction of that belief structure. The only thing that remains are weak compatibalist positions involving the god of the gaps.

What's the best skeptical argument in favor of religion you can provide?

And once again, religion is the most important issue skepticism can deal with. Let's say we take down all the dowsers and homeopaths, then convince the world that Bigfoot doesn't exist. What good have we done?

Now let's say we convince the world that man is actually causing the planet to warm and this needs to be dealt with. Therein lies actual benefit.

 

[Steven Howard]

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.

He says:

Skepticism is about drawing conclusions that are proportioned to the available evidence. That’s it.

So if I consider the available evidence and conclude that there's no good reason to believe in ghosts, I'm practicing skepticism. If I consider the available evidence and conclude that there's no good reason to believe in Bigfoot, I'm practicing skepticism. What am I doing if I consider the available evidence and conclude that there's no good reason to believe in God?

Now you're just lying. At no point did he say "you're not skeptics" to JT or anyone else.

Not in so many words, no. You're right. He told them that their convention was not a skeptic's convention, and that the thing they're doing isn't skepticism, but he didn't actually use the words "You are not skeptics." All he did was accuse them of "destroying skepticism." Or, to avoid any more inane nitpicking, he accused them of conflating atheism and skepticism, said conflation being a thing that is "destroying skepticism." But he never said they weren't skeptics.

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.

About some carefully proscribed subset of religious claims, perhaps.

 

[Cleon]

Except that you're skipping over all the speakers that didn't give a title to their speeches:

Debbie Goddard, D.J. Grothe, Joe Nickell, Dan Barker, James Randi, P.Z. Myers, Rebecca Watson.

Ok, fine. 19 talks total.

I think we can assume Dan Barker talked religion. That's kind of his thing. 8/19.
I've been given to understand that Rebecca talked about Christmas. 9/19.
I've no idea about the others, though I'm told Myers gave a canned talk about evolutionary science and Joe Nickell rarely talks religion AFAIK. Randi & DJ could've gone either way.

So fine, 9/19 talks directly or tangentially about religion. Just under 50%.

But why are you still arguing about this? It's been conceded by both Myers and JT that the con has an atheist bent. You even support that bent.

So can we move on now? Please?

I also find it amusing that you consider "Patriarchs and Penises" to be explicitly about religion.

Yeah, that was the title of Sam Singleton's talk. So yeah, I think we can safely say it was explicitly about religion. Be as amused as you like.

Who should have been on that panel making your argument?

No idea what you're trying to get at here.

No one is arguing they're the same thing. It just happens to be the case that applying the same method of inquiry to religion that one applies to homeopathy leads to the wholesale destruction of that belief structure.

Sophistry.

What's the best skeptical argument in favor of religion you can provide?

How is that relevant to anything I've said?

 

[TraneWreck]

Ok, fine. 19 talks total.

I think we can assume Dan Barker talked religion. That's kind of his thing. 8/19.
I've been given to understand that Rebecca talked about Christmas. 9/19.
I've no idea about the others, though I'm told Myers gave a canned talk about evolutionary science and Joe Nickell rarely talks religion AFAIK. Randi & DJ could've gone either way.

So fine, 9/19 talks directly or tangentially about religion. Just under 50%.

But why are you still arguing about this? It's been conceded by both Myers and JT that the con has an atheist bent. You even support that bent.

Uh, because that seems about right. Whether you agree or disagree, just less than half seems to be exactly the amount (if a little less) of religious discussion one would expect at a skeptics conference. Thus, Wagg's complaint is spurious whining.

So can we move on now? Please?

To what? That's what this thread is about.

Yeah, that was the title of Sam Singleton's talk. So yeah, I think we can safely say it was explicitly about religion. Be as amused as you like.

It amuses me because it shows how integral religious thinking is to just about every social and political issue in the world. Thus, anyone applying skepticism to actual issues is bound to confront religion making a large number of such speeches inevitable.

No idea what you're trying to get at here.

You're claiming that religious folks weren't properly represented in that panel discussion. Skepticon hires speakers they think their audience will pay to hear. Who is the notable skeptic that argues in favor of religion or even argues the lesser point that skeptics are accomidating enough to the religious? I've never seen anyone make that argument, and someone would have to in order for them to be invited to that panel thus creating the balance you crave.

Sophistry.

Well, the Sophists were the originators of skepticism, so I guess that fits.

I made a very strong claim. It would be better to provide an example of a religious view supported by skepticism than merely complain.

How is that relevant to anything I've said?

I'm just curious. Is the point that skeptics should ignore religion? That seems more pathetic than can be imagined, "hey, just give them a break." Would you accept that being said about any other group? Hey, can you just leave those poor chiropractors alone?

Alternatively, there is a strong argument, one that survives skeptical methodology, in favor of religion. Skeptics should be less critical of religion because there are good arguments and solid evidence in its favor. This is the stronger, more intellectually honest position.

I've never encountered such an argument and was asking if you have.

 

[FattyCatty]

I don't care whether they "believe" it or not, it's a statement of fact.
There is no other subject containing such decidedly non-skeptical content that has as universal of an effect on society as religion, and in America, that religion is Christianity.

Nothing even comes close.

This sounds like something a True Believer would say in a CT thread. Where's your evidence, skeptic?

 

[TraneWreck]

This sounds like something a True Believer would say in a CT thread. Where's your evidence, skeptic?

Please, surely you can do better than that. If you're going to troll, at least try to come up with something more entertaining than bitter schoolyard taunts.

There isn't even a controversy about this. Name a subject of relevance to skeptics that is even CLOSE to as important as religion. Try and name one.

Any skeptic attempting to apply rational methods of inquiry to social and political issues will immediately bump into religious belief. You can go quite a ways trying to deal with, say, women's rights in the United States before encountering a dowser. Not so with religion.

Our laws, our ethics, at the very base of our society lies a battle between religion and reasoned thought. Maybe even more importantly, religion attempts to undermine science at every step (again, not ALL religion does this, but for all scientists, there is some religious group trying to cast doubt on their work). This has been going on for hundreds of years.

I find it comical that anyone would really try to argue this point. Again, what do you think the most important issue is? Bigfoot? The Kennedy assassination?

 

[Cleon]

It amuses me because it shows how integral religious thinking is to just about every social and political issue in the world. Thus, anyone applying skepticism to actual issues is bound to confront religion making a large number of such speeches inevitable.

Yeah, ok... How does that relate to my assumption that Sam "the Atheist Evangelist" Singleton's talk was about religion? Call me crazy, or an "accomodationist," or--horror of horrors--a theist, but I still think that's a fairly safe bet.

You're claiming that religious folks weren't properly represented in that panel discussion.

Uh...No, I'm not. Are you actually reading the posts you're responding to?

Skepticon hires speakers they think their audience will pay to hear.

That would be odd, considering that Skepticon is free to attend.

I made a very strong claim. It would be better to provide an example of a religious view supported by skepticism than merely complain.

I have no interest in doing so. It seems like you want to talk about something entirely different from what I'm addressing.

That, or you're not bothering to read the posts you're responding to.

I'm just curious. Is the point that skeptics should ignore religion?

OK, you go have your conversation with whoever it is you think you're talking to. It clearly ain't me.

 

[a_unique_person]

I think the skeptical community has more important things to worry about than eating their own, folks.

You can join my Popular Skeptics Front, if you like.

 

[AlBell]

Bitter, angry people are always in need of being made fun of.

Is that any way to talk about your idol PZ Myers?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, ok... How does that relate to my assumption that Sam "the Atheist Evangelist" Singleton's talk was about religion? Call me crazy, or an "accomodationist," or--horror of horrors--a theist, but I still think that's a fairly safe bet.

A lot of people were surprised that Myers didn't talk about religion.

Uh...No, I'm not. Are you actually reading the posts you're responding to?

Yeah, and I read this one:

Really? It's not about atheism because non-atheists had a chance to be heard? :rollleyes:

Who should have been there to take up the argument. It's a simple question.

That would be odd, considering that Skepticon is free to attend.

Oh god, this is what we're resorting to? Petty nonsense? Is travel free now, or do people expend some sum of money to attend the conference?

Skepticon pays speakers. THey pay speakers that bring in big audiences because advertisers want big crowds. This is how they raise the money to put on the conference.

I have no interest in doing so. It seems like you want to talk about something entirely different from what I'm addressing.

That, or you're not bothering to read the posts you're responding to.

OK, you go have your conversation with whoever it is you think you're talking to. It clearly ain't me.

Good lord. That was an incredibly evasive and weak reply.

I'm trying to evaluate whether Wagg's argument has merit. He thinks too much of the "Skeptical" conference was devoted to atheism and religion.

First, less than half doesn't seem like too much at all, given the radically disproportiate importance of religion as a topic for skepticism.

Secondly, I'm trying to understand how Wagg wants us to deal with religion.

There are, as I see it (maybe you can add more) two ways to go:

1) Ask that we simply ignore religion. Let religious people make fun of dowsers and never bring up their God-beliefs. This is cowardly and generally offensive to anyone with a remote understanding of skepticism. Every nutjob can make the same argument---stop picking on ________.

2) Provide an argument about why religion shouldn't be ridiculed by skeptics. This involves applying the same methodological approach to religion as we do everything else and proving that some sort of religious belief is compatable with or supported by skepticism. This would be the intellectually brave, consistent approach.

I don't know of another way to satisfy Wagg's complaint. I'm assuming you wouldn't support #1, so I'm asking for someone or some group capable of doing #2.

If you can't do this and Wagg can't do this, you're just whining. A homeopath could make the same complaint, "Why do you skeptics give us such a hard time?"

 

[Cleon]

A lot of people were surprised that Myers didn't talk about religion.

Yeah, but Myers is a biologist. Speaking about biology isn't exactly unusual for him.

Yeah, and I read this one:

Who should have been there to take up the argument. It's a simple question.

Ah, so you either missed the point of the rhetorical question or are being intentionally dense. Either way, not worth bothering with.

Oh god, this is what we're resorting to? Petty nonsense?

After going on about the supposed 20%, now you're complaining about pettiness?

Skepticon pays speakers. THey pay speakers that bring in big audiences because advertisers want big crowds. This is how they raise the money to put on the conference.

AFAIK, they don't have advertisers; they fund the con with private donations and University funds.

Good lord. That was an incredibly evasive and weak reply.

Not really. You're trying to shoehorn me into arguing for something I didn't say. I have no interest in helping you burn strawmen.

I'm trying to evaluate whether Wagg's argument has merit.

Are you? It's fairly obvious you've already reached a conclusion on that score.

He thinks too much of the "Skeptical" conference was devoted to atheism and religion.

First, less than half doesn't seem like too much at all, given the radically disproportiate importance of religion as a topic for skepticism.

The only one making an issue of proportionality is you.

If you can't do this and Wagg can't do this, you're just whining.

So if I don't jump through your hoops, fish for your red herrings, and help burn your strawmen I'm just "whining." Well, I'll just have to somehow struggle through life without your approval.

 

[technoextreme]

And once again, religion is the most important issue skepticism can deal with. Let's say we take down all the dowsers and homeopaths, then convince the world that Bigfoot doesn't exist. What good have we done?

Stopped a bunch of people from being blown up to smithereens. Seriously if you are going to ask a retardedly simple question you might not as well bother.

... 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".

Actually, he's been criticized for this very thing by multiple people before.

 

[TraneWreck]

Ah, so you either missed the point of the rhetorical question or are being intentionally dense. Either way, not worth bothering with.

There was a panel devoted to discussing this very topic. That means people are thinking about it. You think there were only atheists on that panel.

You either care there were only atheists on the panel or you don't. If you don't, then I don't really understand what you're moaning about. If you do, I merely asked who you would want to take up the argument that skepticism doesn't lead to atheism.

I was curious. I wanted to read said argument. The fact that you've reacted with such incredible defensiveness is bizarre.

After going on about the supposed 20%, now you're complaining about pettiness?

Myers, the guy whose post started all of this, said 3 of 15 speeches were about religion. That's 20%.

Even when you revised the numbers upward, I didn't argue. Your numbers still make my point for me.

Granting your argument hardly seems like pettiness.

AFAIK, they don't have advertisers; they fund the con with private donations and University funds.

That's a great point. You're right. Skepticon is a conference designed to insure that no one attends.

And this sponsor:
http://www.polarisfinancialplanning.com/

doesn't want anyone to use their product.

Are you? It's fairly obvious you've already reached a conclusion on that score.

Right, because I read the post, evaluated it, and found it to be lacking. You defended him. I'm criticizing your defense and all you're doing is evading.

I can only conclude you also find his argument to be silly and are just playing games on the internet. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not particularly impressive.

The only one making an issue of proportionality is you.

Haha, riiiiiiight. You made no points on this score.

You defended Wagg's position that there was too much religion talk at the conference. Too much=proportionality. Wagg wishes there were less religious talk, a different proportion, you seemed to agree back when you were making minimally coherent points.

So if I don't jump through your hoops, fish for your red herrings, and help burn your strawmen I'm just "whining." Well, I'll just have to somehow struggle through life without your approval.

Boy, if you consider that hoop jumping you must be scooting around on one of those medicare scooters for the immobile and obese.

I'm asking you what you want. What does Wagg want? How do we deal with this problem?

I explained the two possible solutions. One is obviously bad, the other doesn't seem to exist.

All you have to do is provide an explanation for your stance. For someone as devoted to the meaning of "skepticism" as you, that hardly seems like an overly taxing request.

 

[TraneWreck]

Stopped a bunch of people from being blown up to smithereens. I love how you picked one of the most dimwitted and easiest of an example that off the top of my head took me five seconds to come up with an answer.

What? I literally understood none of that. What did you answer?

This coming from a man who actually got criticized for placing atheism in front of skepticism.

Still have no idea what point you're making.

 

[technoextreme]

What? I literally understood none of that. What did you answer?

I answered your idiotic question about what would happen if skeptics succeeded in stopping dowsing rods, homeopathy, and that bigfoot doesn't exist. We would stop a bunch of people from needlessly being blown up.