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.
Obviously there will be some good to come out of every instance of skepticism overcoming nonsensical beliefs.
I was making a comparative argument. I assume you're talking about the folks getting blown up at check-points in Iraq. A couple of points here:
1) Those cars would blow up and kill people whether or not they believed in dowsing. The inspectors are applying a useless investigative technique, but there really aren't better ones available.
2) Assuming there were better, scientific methods of inspection and eliminating the belief in dowsing allowed them to be applied, I would ask why those bombs were in the cars in the first place?
What reason do suicide bombers give for their actions in Iraq? Religion, perhaps?
To be clear, no issue is as important as religion. That doesn't mean the other issues aren't important, but the scope of the subjects are miniscule in comparison.
Many people die because they chose homeopathy over actual medicine. That's tragic and needs to be combated, but compared to the damage done by religious belief, on all levels, it's a small issue.
To me, it's obvious that you took a different message from Wagg's comments or you read something else.
Here's the specific comment in Jeff's article that I must be interpreting differently than you:
“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. ...[snip]... I’m unsure about that topic’s relationship to skepticism.
Having not heard the talk, I cannot say if using 'delusional' in the title was valid, or if it was gratuitously insulting.
I can say that the debate I posted about is a common problem around here. That is, the conflict we have among ourselves because some in the skeptical community maintain that faith based beliefs and gods one supposedly makes no claims about (as if existing wasn't a claim) are exempt from scientific review. Others in the skeptical community just don't buy the separation of one set of one's beliefs in some kind of science free zone.
How do you justify a contrived skeptic free zone called faith based beliefs, or 'territory science does not address', at the same time you say it's fine to look at god beliefs skeptically?
I don't accept this god belief apology. That doesn't mean I think people who do buy the separation of theirs or other's god beliefs from science are not skeptics. In my view they simply have a skeptic blind spot. And yet you seem to be describing my view as, "There is No God and You Better Believe it!"
Tell me how one says that the evidence supports the conclusion, ALL gods are mythical beings, without it being heard as, "you better believe it"?
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.'"
I wonder if we didn't read two different things. Comparing the two posters Jeff linked to, I read his comments as complaining about the tone, not the content. But then he goes on to focus on the content as if you could have a Skepticon with a theme about religion and not expect there to be a focus on god beliefs.
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?...
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.
Your comments lack objectivity. PZ wrote that Wagg's "argument" was stupid. Not that Wagg was. And PZ made it clear he didn't think theists could not be otherwise skeptics. Yet you don't seem to have absorbed that comment.
And here's the context of your last PZ quote:
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'm sorry, but what can I say about this if I agree.
I'm not trying to be rude or purposefully mean to anyone. But here's the problem. I have two choices. I can pretend I believe in separation of science and theism, or just never discuss my view.
OR, I discuss my views and piss some theist skeptics off. And that was my point. There is no way to discuss one's belief that the evidence supports ALL gods are mythical beings without pissing off some theist skeptics. Some theist skeptics want to believe their god beliefs are consistent with skepticism and critical thinking. But they aren't. How is an atheist skeptic supposed to say that without offending the theist skeptics?
And in return, rather than acknowledging the theist is choosing to exclude certain beliefs from skeptical analysis, some of these theists read the atheist's position just as you have here: as a straw man demand that I'm insisting others believe as I do simply because I support my position in a debate.
It's interesting that the same conflict doesn't come up that the JREF is Libertarian or liberal or right wing. We seem to be able to dislike each other's positions just fine when it comes to politics yet not really feel anyone is claiming there is some inherent challenge to skeptic principles. But the same level of disagreement over theism, and you have theists feeling dissed as a group and others claiming we must treat this debate differently.
PZ was just saying if they want to leave, that's their choice. But don't confuse who is demanding whom must "better believe it!" here. My beliefs are not challenged by someone else's god beliefs. But if you are a god believer, that argument is not supportable. So the theist skeptic is more likely to feel their beliefs are challenged when the arguments for why gods are not real come up.
It's a dilemma for theists that does not occur for atheists. One believes in gods and one believes in skepticism. One wants the two beliefs to be compatible, but whenever the discussion comes around to looking skeptically at one's god beliefs, that's a threat.
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.
So debating one's atheist conclusion is the "pro-atheist cause". How is that consistent with "skepticism has quite a bit to say about religious claims". You can't square the two unless you add all the usual apologies for certain god beliefs, like pretending you are making no claims as if a god existing wasn't a claim because you didn't say a god exists.
What is it you see that makes one an atheist activist that one cannot also say about an anti-antivaxxer activist or an anti-9/11 CT activist? Why is speaking about the lack evidence for the existence of gods, or the meme or delusion hypotheses for religious beliefs make one an activist?
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.
....
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....
And if you proposed such a plan for the public schools, any guesses on what segment of the population would cry foul?
In America, at least, any attempt to promote skepticism and rationality in general will bump up against the religious folks.
I don't disagree that teaching children is the best possible way to move forward, but that's going to make the preachers very unhappy. Credulous belief is how they keep butts in the pews.
Sadly, I was unable to accomplish anything worthwhile today, because posting a few messages on an Internet forum takes up literally all of my free time. If only I weren't such a lazy bastard.
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.
I'm not trolling. I'm disagreeing with you. I also don't think that telling you your response to my post sounds like a believer in a CT thread and calling you a skeptic are "bitter schoolyard taunts."
My request for evidence was for your statement that religion is the central issue for skeptics; that was made clear by my use of highlighting. I think all skeptics are different with varying beliefs in what makes a skeptic. Not all skeptics are atheists, for example. So when you make blanket statements about what all skeptics think, I want evidence for it.
<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.
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.
So what other skeptics think doesn't matter because your opinion on the subject is fact. Uh huh. I think my observation that your post sounds like something a CT believer would say is spot on and holds up. Again I ask for evidence that all skeptics agree with you.
The anti-vaccination trend. It has already killed 10 babies in California. And for a bonus second subject, the lack of knowledge about, respect for, and understanding of science. This includes an inability to reason logically, keep an open mind, be objective, make decisions based on evidence, understand what constitutes evidence, and make corrections when something is shown to be wrong.
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.
Any skeptic attempting to apply rational methods of inquiry to social and political issues will immediately bump into an inability to reason logically. The anti-science trend permeates our society, from education to politics to the environment to religion to entertainment to medicine, etc., etc.
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 don't see it as a battle between religion and reasoned thought. I see it as a battle between ignorance and stupidity and reasoned thought. Not all ignorance and stupidity are religion-based. Some aspects of the religion set intersect with the ignorance and stupidity set, but they do not encompass it.
There are attempts to undermine science that have nothing to do with religion. You say yourself that not all religion does this. So what is your point? Yes, there are some religious attempts trying to cast doubt on scientific work; there are non-religious attempts trying to do the same thing. So what makes one worse than the other?
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?
<snip>
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.
The impression I got from his blog was not that he wished there was less religious talk, but that skepticism not be equated with atheism. He thinks the conference is misnamed. He says, "But to conflate atheism with skepticism dilutes atheism and destroys skepticism." I agree with him.
Boy, if you consider that hoop jumping you must be scooting around on one of those medicare scooters for the immobile and obese.
<snip>
And if you proposed such a plan for the public schools, any guesses on what segment of the population would cry foul?
In America, at least, any attempt to promote skepticism and rationality in general will bump up against the religious folks.
I don't disagree that teaching children is the best possible way to move forward, but that's going to make the preachers very unhappy. Credulous belief is how they keep butts in the pews.
Now you are off on a different topic. The question was about your claim, no one could cite a focus of skepticism that was more important than religious propaganda. Stick with the topic. We are on the same side.
I'm not trolling. I'm disagreeing with you. I also don't think that telling you your response to my post sounds like a believer in a CT thread and calling you a skeptic are "bitter schoolyard taunts."
[...]
So what other skeptics think doesn't matter because your opinion on the subject is fact. Uh huh. I think my observation that your post sounds like something a CT believer would say is spot on and holds up. Again I ask for evidence that all skeptics agree with you.
The anti-vaccination trend. It has already killed 10 babies in California. And for a bonus second subject, the lack of knowledge about, respect for, and understanding of science. This includes an inability to reason logically, keep an open mind, be objective, make decisions based on evidence, understand what constitutes evidence, and make corrections when something is shown to be wrong.
Again, the argument is one of comparative scale. THe argument is not there is nothing important other than religion, it's that nothing is AS important as religion.
Any skeptic attempting to apply rational methods of inquiry to social and political issues will immediately bump into an inability to reason logically. The anti-science trend permeates our society, from education to politics to the environment to religion to entertainment to medicine, etc., etc.
Of course, there is some overlap in those numbers. Of the 50% who believe in psychic healing, doubtless a large number of them believe in prayer and other spiritual healing.
I don't see it as a battle between religion and reasoned thought. I see it as a battle between ignorance and stupidity and reasoned thought. Not all ignorance and stupidity are religion-based. Some aspects of the religion set intersect with the ignorance and stupidity set, but they do not encompass it.
There are attempts to undermine science that have nothing to do with religion. You say yourself that not all religion does this. So what is your point? Yes, there are some religious attempts trying to cast doubt on scientific work; there are non-religious attempts trying to do the same thing. So what makes one worse than the other?
I think my point is clear. I don't know how to say other than I have: for a skeptic in the modern world, one subject to which said skepticism can be applied has massively disproportionate importance compared to all others: religion. Thus, one shouldn't be surprised when half the talks are about religion at a skeptics conference.
I think you're also reversing my argument:
I am not saying that ALL religious people are the enemies of the skeptic, but for every topic of social and political importance, there is some non-trivial group of religious people battling against modernity.
Take global warming for example. The primary source of opposition--the people spending millions of dollars to undermine the science--are oil and coal companies. Their interest is profits, not prophets.
But they're only successful in a political sense because of the massive population of Evangelicals in America who believe that 1) God gave man dominion over the Earth, we can do what the **** we want, and 2) Jesus is coming back. Observe this ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS:
There are MANY more people who believe that than oil executives.
This is true of EVERY topic of political and social relevance. No other group of woo-purveyors has such global sway.
The anti-vaxx trend is disturbing for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that the major voices don't seem to be religious. You are kidding yourself, however, if you think that a significant percentage of people not having their kids vaccinated aren't doing so for religious reasons. It's an off-shoot of the Christian Science opposition to medicine in general, but, as usual, religion lies at the foundation of every stupid movement.
Note the early anti-vaccination movements were religious in nature:
It's also important to note that other branches of religion promoted vaccines early on. Again, not all religion combats reason, but for every reasonable stance there's a religious someone battling it.
As for the "anti-science" trend, that is massively led by religion.
The impression I got from his blog was not that he wished there was less religious talk, but that skepticism not be equated with atheism. He thinks the conference is misnamed. He says, "But to conflate atheism with skepticism dilutes atheism and destroys skepticism." I agree with him.
I am explaining why 9 of 19, or whatever it was, events focused on religion is, if anything, under-representative. Anyone working on skeptical issues or promoting reason will bump into religion. THus, it's not surprising that many skeptics focus on religion.
But, if you agree with Wagg, then there are two approaches to limiting religion at those conferences:
1) Ignore it. Stop picking on religion. This is the intellectually weak position, and the same could be said for anything--stop picking on dowsing, homeopathy...etc.
2) Develop some argument or identify some speaker who makes a compelling case that when skeptical methods are applied to religion, there's still something of value left. This is making a strong argument that religion and skepticism are compatible. This is the intellectually brave position.
I asked earlier and was completely evaded. Do you know of any such argument or any such speaker that could take up that case?
Now you are off on a different topic. The question was about your claim, no one could cite a focus of skepticism that was more important than religious propaganda. Stick with the topic. We are on the same side.
I didn't mean to sound combative, maybe I just get worked into a fervor. I was merely pointing out that even skeptical proposals or positions that don't appear to be directly confrontational to religion will inevitably find religion to be the main opponent.
If a group of skeptics got together and said, "Hey, we're not going to focus on religion so as not to turn off our religious members. We'll just devote ourselves to a mission of teaching rational methods of inquiry and skeptical reasoning to children," they are going to quickly be challenged by religious groups at school board meetings or when literature is proposed or any time that group attempts to spread its message.
So after 5 years of trying to advance a skeptic's curriculum in the schools, one the leaders of this group is invited to give a talk at Skepticon. Chances are a good portion of that talk will devoted to the problems they've had getting that curriculum passed, the opposition. A blogger listens to that talk and posts, "Why can't these skeptics stop bitching about religion."
Obviously there will be some good to come out of every instance of skepticism overcoming nonsensical beliefs.
I was making a comparative argument. I assume you're talking about the folks getting blown up at check-points in Iraq. A couple of points here:
1) Those cars would blow up and kill people whether or not they believed in dowsing. The inspectors are applying a useless investigative technique, but there really aren't better ones available.
2) Assuming there were better, scientific methods of inspection and eliminating the belief in dowsing allowed them to be applied, I would ask why those bombs were in the cars in the first place?
What reason do suicide bombers give for their actions in Iraq? Religion, perhaps?
To be clear, no issue is as important as religion. That doesn't mean the other issues aren't important, but the scope of the subjects are miniscule in comparison.
Many people die because they chose homeopathy over actual medicine. That's tragic and needs to be combated, but compared to the damage done by religious belief, on all levels, it's a small issue.
What a load of crap. Seriously you have a dimwitted and insular view of the world if you want to naively blame all the world's problems on religion. Its really kind of disturbing too because of all the places where I wouldn't expect such a view is here.
Note the early anti-vaccination movements were religious in nature:
Actually they weren't. A lot of the early antivaccination movements were secular in nature and bear a striking resemblance to the arguments seen in Age of Autism.
What a load of crap. Seriously you have a dimwitted and insular view of the world if you want to naively blame all the world's problems on religion. Its really kind of disturbing too because of all the places where I wouldn't expect such a view is here.
If you can't even follow a basic argument, or alternative, if you lack the integrity to respond with some semblance of reason, then you probably shouldn't be posting about skepticism.
Actually they weren't. A lot of the early antivaccination movements were secular in nature and bear a striking resemblance to the arguments seen in Age of Autism.
Several Boston clergymen and devout physicians formed the Anti-vaccination Society in 1798, only two years after Jenner's publication of smallpox vaccination.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
