Pharyngula

Posted by: Cogito | December 7, 2009 12:49 PM

Honestly, this is unfair, PZ. Even skeptics and atheists can be fooled. Sometimes temptation and greed gets to us and we do stupid things.

Posted by: JiminKy | December 7, 2009 12:51 PM

Isn't the Good Lord (TM) supposed to provide for His faithful flock, and be their comfort and refuge in times of want? Reward their trust in Him? Shouldn't they be asking why Jehovah (or at least His li'l bro Pope Benny) isn't on hand to cough up for their retirement home? Didn't Job get everything back, and more?

... Or have they just been ripped off twice?

Posted by: NoFear | December 7, 2009 12:53 PM

Wow, I never believed anyone would fall for that scam. I get those emails all the time "Millions will be yours .... just give us your bank account number and/or a few hundred dollars."

Just another example why being trained to believe what is written, no matter how ludicrous it may seem, is a bad thing. They are victims on two fronts, first victimized by their church then the scammers.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | December 7, 2009 1:01 PM

Oh, I feel so uncharitable and wicked, but I can't muster any sympathy for these people. Honestly - how goddamned stupid can you possibly be?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | December 7, 2009 1:05 PM

I was raised Protestant, and my parents never let faith be an excuse to be as gullible as these people.

First it was a few thousand dollars, than a few thousand more, than a few tens of thousands,

This is what flabbergasts me: they start with a few thousand dollars? Even if you're about to receive millions, a few thousand dollars up front is a lot of money for most people to hand over all at once. That should have been the first clue that something was up. If there really are "taxes and fees" in the way of actual winnings, then just tell 'em to deduct the taxes and fees from your winnings and send you a check for the difference.

Wait! This one is even better!

He told Patricia he needed the money to get out of jail.

Your courier says he's just been put in the clink at the airport and you still think the lottery is on the straight and narrow?

"If I had known something about this, I could have stopped it," she said.

If you had known something about it? Like, the fact that you're being asked to wire money for totally bogus reasons (holiday? WTF?) and your interlocutors are supposedly being detained by law enforcement, and a MoneyGram employee, who gets paid to facilitate such payments, tells you not to proceed?

They weren't just gullible; they were greedy. They wanted to believe it was all legit. The wanting to believe it's for real is characteristic of faith, but the grabbing at every offer of cash that arrives in the mail comes down to the get-rich-quick reflex which I'm afraid is both older and deeper than religion. Her "we can't help it, we're Catholic!" bit sounds like she just needs a straw to grasp.

Posted by: J. James | December 7, 2009 1:06 PM

Old people are so naive.

Posted by: PGPWNIT | December 7, 2009 1:09 PM

I always find it incredible that people are willing to con innocent people this way.

no moral compass I guess....must be atheists....

I KEED!

Posted by: Glenn | December 7, 2009 1:09 PM

Damn, PZ, that's kinda cold.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 7, 2009 1:11 PM

Religious-affinity fraud is among the most common scams, according to both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). Minkow agrees, saying that the regulators he works with see fraud in Christian circles as a particular problem. Borg says, "I've got cases going out my ears."

Affinity frauds target any close-knit group--united by race, religion, or a common interest. By posing as part of the group, perpetrators bet on the trust members have for each other. They learn the language and concerns of the group, build a sense of commonality, and then offer the "investment opportunity." By this point, many Christians instinctively trust this "brother in the Lord" and don't think it necessary to investigate.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3597424/The-fraud-buster-the-faithful.html

People who are scammed out of money by fellow religionists are of the same type who will believe endless lies about how we're "clearly designed," and who will pay no attention to the evidence supplied by an actually honest person.

On the other hand, it appears that the scam that PZ blogged about had nothing to do with religious-affinity fraud, so it's really not clear that their religion really had anything to do with it. Frankly, the claim that they "believe everybody" sounds like a pathetic excuse for being stupid and greedy (likely true no matter how sad the situation now is).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Paul Burnett | December 7, 2009 1:14 PM

Bjørn Østman (#16) wrote: It would be interesting to see a study looking at the religiosity of people who fall for scams vs. those who don't.

Religiosity = gullibility

Look at the amount of gold displayed in churches - your "study" has already been done.

Posted by: Adzam | December 7, 2009 1:19 PM

"Police say witch doctor stole thousands, disappeared"

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/wcnc/story/1089809.html

The credulity, it burns!

Posted by: Abby Normal | December 7, 2009 1:23 PM

My Catholic dad has been scammed several times by business partners, installed spyware and fake antivirus programs on his PC, and forwards every right-wing chain email he gets, apparently believing all the crazy stories.

A few other folks I know who have done similar things have led me to believe that there is a strong correlation between religiosity and gullibility.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | December 7, 2009 1:30 PM

Most attempted scams I've seen had a religious hook as well as supposed chance for huge gains at "little" cost -- the "something for nothing" angle that should be a red warning flag but just doesn't click for some people.

I suppose the religious component is there because it increases the chance of nailing suckers.

As a formerly religious person, I remember being encouraged to trust co-religionists because these "brethren" were right with God and therefore could be trusted. Only with bitter experience does one learn that religious people are often much less trustworthy than average.

And of course religious people are used to be fleeced by their churches anyway and are slow to notice a bit more sheering.

Posted by: hyperdeath | December 7, 2009 1:33 PM

Although the story doesn't say so, it's very probable that the initial correspondence used the word "Jesus" about 500 times. A lot of these scams work by activating the "Christianity = all things good" connection that the sheep have drummed into them. It's one of the Jesus-overrides that the churches use to keep the money flowing in, and to prevent complaints when kiddy-fucking scandals come to light.

Posted by: raven | December 7, 2009 1:35 PM

Same thing happened to an old Xian Aunt of my friend's.

She got a letter from...a Nigerian Xian. Not even an internet scammer. They had some sort of worthy cause, hunting witches or something.

They drained her account of around $100,000, all of her savings.

After her kids got a court to rule her incompetent to manage her funds, she no longer has a bank account. But the bank still gets checks made out in her name to be cashed and sent to Nigeria. They are used to it by now.

She still believes that the Nigerians are good xians and she will get her money back somehow. Xians wouldn't lie would they?

You don't have to be old and xian to be scammed like this. But it helps a lot.

Posted by: Michael D | December 7, 2009 1:38 PM

An elderly couple are told they've won the lottery eternal salvation, and millions of dollars are the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs…they just have to pay a few taxes and fees first in order to free up the cash let the Church control their lives to prove themselves worthy.

Human greed and gullibility always fail to astound.

Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | December 7, 2009 1:41 PM

PZ, are you serious!? There's criticising religious people, and then there's this...

I'm actually speechless.

Posted by: harv | December 7, 2009 1:43 PM

Random Quotes gave me this as I logged in:

Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.

[Carl Sagan, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,"]

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | December 7, 2009 1:47 PM

I have been taken in by make-easy-money pyramidschemes.

Or one at least. Back in my teens.

Didn't have anything to do with my religion. Just my being stupid.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 7, 2009 1:49 PM

While I understand the gripes from some about making a correlation here between being religious and being a credulous target for scams, and while I'm not sure I'd see it quite the same as PZ does, in this case... I do understand what he's driving at.

Think of it this way: How much has this couple willingly parted with over the course of their lives to the Catholic church, one of the single wealthiest organizations in the world? I would venture a guess that it comes close to what they lost in this scam. And they likely did so willingly because they were made to believe in a specific payoff by extremely convincing people, a payoff that is as imaginary as the one promised in this scam. How different are they, really?

Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | December 7, 2009 1:51 PM

You don't have to be an atheist to have a good dose of healthy skepticism. The one great legacy that the otherwise disastrous and deeply religious president Ronald Reagan left us is the phrase "Trust, but Verify". This should be posted over every mailbox, telephone, and computer screen. Most important, it should be posted in every courtroom instead of that hideous con-man's gambit "In God we Trust". If we really just trusted in god, we wouldn't need the courtroom trial in the first place. We would just throw the defendant into the lake to see if they sank or floated.

Posted by: raven | December 7, 2009 1:52 PM

stuart the idiot:

PZ, are you serious!? There's criticising religious people, and then there's this...

I'm actually speechless.

You are also stupid. There are a lot of affinity group scams targeting xians. I've personally seen at least 3 xians get scammed by co-religionists.

The fundies tend to be lower in socio-economic status and education than the general population. Just right for the scammers. I don't know that living a fact free, non-reasoning existence adds to that, but it can't hurt either.

So Stuart, while you are speechless, stupid, and xian, you might have a few pennies. I need to move $50 million quick and you can help. Just provide a bank account number for temporary storage and you can have 10%. Don't worry, it is safe to post it on the internet. No one will know what it means.

Posted by: Pteryxx | December 7, 2009 1:55 PM

Paul Burnett #19:

"Religiosity = gullibility

Look at the amount of gold displayed in churches - your "study" has already been done."

Then look at the amount of glitz displayed in Vegas. Note the correlation between educational level and atheism. And don't forget that magicians say scientists are some of the easiest marks of all to fool.

Humans are gullible, period. All of us. Anyone boasting about special wisdom sounds like a 39-year-old calling a 40-year-old over the hill.

Posted by: WRMartin | December 7, 2009 1:59 PM

Sorry, no sympathy from here. Don't care if they were Catholics or a secular greedy person.

Can't read the story here at the office but I'm curious about the number of typos and grammatical errors in their correspondence. That's usually worth a few laughs in the second and third milliseconds after detecting these scam messages.

P.S. Gunpowder tastes like cherries and I have some funds I need moved out of the country if you'll kindly send your bank routing number and your account number I will send you $1 million USA dollars. Praise Jesus.

Posted by: Sir Craig | December 7, 2009 2:01 PM

Let's be honest, this story is not about an elderly couple being scammed because they are Catholic: They were scammed because they were elderly. They are becoming fearful, as most elderly do, and they saw this "lottery" as a kind of lifeline. I'm sure there is more to the story other than them sounding like they were simply greedy; they may have hoped that they would not be a burden on their family (this happens enough that I shouldn't have to post examples).

PZ, had this article not mentioned that little throwaway line at the end about them being Catholic, would you have thought anything more about this story other than, "Here's another less-than-technologically-astute elderly couple scammed by some heartless pricks?" I'm as atheist as you, but these aren't some fundagelicals running amuck over a stupid cracker. They weren't raised to be victimized like this - age brought that about. (And yes, Rog, even "A medical technologist and an engineer...supposedly educated people ..." can be fooled, especially if they're old - it's not like med techs and engineers are new fields.)

I'll rant and rave against religious idiocy any day of the week (esp. Friday-Sunday), but I'm also not seeing religious boogeymen everywhere I look. Had they said something to the effect of, "Well, Gawd and Jebus in Their infinite mercies will see us through this," then yes, let us rational types set that particular record straight. However, this is a weak example by anyone's standards, PZ, and you should know better.

Posted by: Strangelove | December 7, 2009 2:03 PM

It's a little unfair, as others have said, to single out just the religious on this, but I fear that to take the 'we trust everybody' stance is far from a good one, I'm pretty sceptical of... just about everything, but even the most careful of people can be caught out sometimes.
Still... "She was raised a victim.

I'm an atheist and scientist. I don't believe anybody without good evidence"...made me smile a sardonic smile, one aimed at those foolish enough to take that position, and those foolish enough to think they haven't (me).

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | December 7, 2009 2:04 PM

To be fair, PZ, atheist and scientists are susceptible to scams as well. It really has do desperation, ignorance, and/or greed. They're still humans. I remember our university releasing a letter that indicated that a good number of college student got their emails disabled because they responded scammers. I got one myself and could tell it was bogus right off the back. But I can see why some students fell for it. They offered money to a group of desperately broke folk.

Though I would argue that religious/superstitious people are more susceptible. I mean, if you can pay a psychic to vaguely interpret random cards or pay a televangelist to get info to save your soul, then I can see you falling for a stupid scam.

Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 7, 2009 2:08 PM

I don't think PZ is saying that their religious upbringing was the sole and only cause of their being scammed. But I do think he's saying that their religious upbringing was a serious contributing factor.

And then there's this quote:

We're honest," she said. "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody

That, to me, sounds like she's the one making the case that her gulibility in this matter was directly linked to her religious beliefs.

While it's true that anybody can be scammed, including skeptics, I don't know of any study that has looked at the difference in susceptibility to scams in religious and skeptical populations.

My hypothesis: Strong religious belief correlates positively with a greater risk of susceptibility to cons.

Now if I can just get a grant...

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | December 7, 2009 2:09 PM

These people were just dimwits, I'm afraid (dimwitted and Catholic. Who'd'a thunk it?)

The rule for avoiding being financially scammed is very, very simple and no one has any excuse for not knowing it. It is this: if a stranger tells you you have won something good, have come into some money, can obtain some money etc but then at any point asks you to give money in excess of what you have already received from them, it's a scam.

That's all there is to it. I have no sympathy with any adult who falls for something so obvious.

Posted by: Randomfactor | December 7, 2009 2:13 PM

I *WORKED* for a time for an affinity group scam. When I realized what was going on, I started keeping duplicate records for the cops. It was primarily members of a single church.

My late aunt was deeply religious--Catholic--and fell for scam after scam. By the time she and her mother landed in a nursing home, she was essentially penniless except for an annuity which was very carefully structured.

And then someone offered to give her a lump-sum payment in exchange for it, and that wiped her out completely. I only found out as I was paying for her funeral expenses out-of-pocket.

Posted by: Greg | December 7, 2009 2:14 PM

This woman was told my MoneyGram that it was a scam and she still sent the money, I can have no sympathy for that level of monumental stupidity.

I don't think the couples religion had anything to do with it however. I would blame their greed blinding them to reality.

Posted by: Randomfactor | December 7, 2009 2:17 PM

I'm sure their church will pony up funds to recompense them for their loss. What else are churches for?

Posted by: Rorschach | December 7, 2009 2:19 PM

I think Bruce Hood, who we talked about a while ago here, in his book 'Supersense" makes a good case that scientists can be just as gullible and believing in the "supernatural" then anyone else.
I don't quite see how those folks' catholic-ness was any deciding factor in them falling for the scam.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 7, 2009 2:22 PM

I don't quite see how those folks' catholic-ness was any deciding factor in them falling for the scam.

Hmmm... deciding factor? No... I'd agree. Mitigating factor? I'd listen to that argument.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 7, 2009 2:24 PM

PZ just about anyone can be scammed. Sure some victims are easier marks than others and you may be highly resistant.

And do not neglect the greatest scammer we all know - ourselves! Don't think that scammers don't capitalize on the fact that we do most of the work - and BTW often there is NO other scammer involved in tricking us.

Even the best of us trick ourselves. Ever been in a dispute with your trophy wife and said to yourself" "god how come she cannot see how right I am!?!?" -- wonder what she was thinking?

My point is that this seems REALLY stupid but then we do REALLY stupid things in life if we live it.

Posted by: Lyle | December 7, 2009 2:27 PM

Bernie Madoff ran one of theses affinity scams, all be it not the lottery version, but he was fishing for bigger bucks. Bernie worked the Jewish crowd at country clubs and charity affairs. He hooked some of the best and brightest so in one sense these people are in good company. I will admit Madoff did put up a good front, but ... The simple line then and now if it sounds to good to be true it probably is. Or be paranoid about your money, everyone is out to get it.

Posted by: natural cynic | December 7, 2009 2:29 PM

Alex #8: Theist or not, nobody "deserves" to get scammed.

Well, not quite. See The Sting. Redford & Newman's second best.

Posted by: Pteryxx | December 7, 2009 2:31 PM

Clarifying for Celtic_Evolution #48:

Initially, I was responding to the claim that gold in churches demonstrates that religion = gullibility. For comparison, gambling definitely is not a religion-fostered activity, yet the spectacular attractions in Las Vegas owe their existence to players' willingness to be fleeced. Then, I meant to say that because atheism correlates with higher levels of education, it's likely that education is more responsible for scam-resistance than is atheism directly. Finally I was pointing out that scientists are said to be easily fooled by misdirection, since their expertise lies in knowledge and evidence. Hence neither atheist nor scientist status should confer special proof against gullibility.

But I've just taken a comprehensive final exam after a 14-hour study session, so I suspect my Wernicke's area is suffering metabolic fatigue. My apologies.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 7, 2009 2:32 PM

Yes... very smart people (atheists and otherwise) are susceptible to being scammed, and yes, Madoff did scam some otherwise intelligent people. However, I would say the difference here is that, based on what I read, this was not all that sophisticated a scam. Nor is it all that original. I really would have a hard time believing a person of any even mildly skeptical nature would have fallen for it.

Posted by: NMcC | December 7, 2009 2:35 PM

Posted by: Lyle | December 7, 2009 2:27 PM

"I will admit Madoff did put up a good front..."

That's not what his mistress said.

Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 7, 2009 2:38 PM

Con men thrive on people who think they're immune to a con in the first place...

Exactly, and who's more immune than someone who believes in an all-powerful fairy god-father? I mean, Saint [fill in the blank] wouldn't let a good catholic get scammed would he?

It's nonsense to say that religion played no role in their being conned.

As to why people continue to throw good money after bad in these situations, there's some science that explains it, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it.

Basically, it's the same reason people hang on to a bad stock even as the share price plummets.

Posted by: Marc Abian | December 7, 2009 2:40 PM

Then look at the amount of glitz displayed in Vegas. Note the correlation between educational level and atheism.

There maybe a relationship between education and atheism, but I certainly can't see one between what PZ said and what I just quoted.

Posted by: JJR | December 7, 2009 2:42 PM

Purely anecdotal, but my extremely religious ex-mother-in-law had a very child-like mentality (just as the bible commands) and she often got taken advantage of, fell for bad schemes, etc, until her oldest and smartest daughter (my Ex) became old enough to intervene and save her from herself.

Religion "worked" for them in odd ways (no mystery, mind you) because other more prosperous members of her church felt sorry for her and were constantly giving her things as a reward for her public, simple-minded piety and to make themselves feel and look better in the eyes of their Lord.

If she were an atheist, she might've wised up more quickly. Just sayin'.

Posted by: PlaydoPlato | December 7, 2009 2:57 PM

Playdoplato @#68
Well yeah, your point?

If this couple had said: "We believe in the Galatic Tooth Fairy," few here would claim that such an irrational belief was unlikely to have played a role in their susceptibility to being scammed. In fact, we'd probably be making the case that they're clearly mentally unstable.

But for some reason, a lot of the sentiment in this thread suggests that belief in god wasn't a factor, even though belief in a Jewish Zombie who shagged his mother and became his own father is, well, just as crazy as belief in the GTF.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2009 3:05 PM

Re:"the religiosity of people who fall for scams vs. those who don't"

My incredibly weak survey, based entirely on my two hotmail addresses (actually, one's hotmail, one's live..so even weaker, 'cause I have in no way accounted for the second variable) - says that scammers themselves expect the religious to be more gullible & therefore spam them more.
And frankly, if anyone else receives as many of these things simultaneously as I do to my inadvertently-Christian-sounding hotmail, in order to fall for one, you would have to be really REALLY stupid.

Of 12 messages in junk:
1. easy job scam - just send us all your personal details and we'll let you know how etc
2. non--scam junk
3. We've succesfully prevented illegal diversion of your $1.5m transaction via bank of [list of 7 African countries, plus Africa]
4.manifestly, from the writing style, is from the same people who write Africa Bank scams, but says it's from a U.S. Army officer with confidential information re: the BBC link included - new one on me & looks very dodgy
5.music-related junk (so, relevant, if irritating)
6.Standard 'please help me to defraud my impoverished African country of much-needed funds by embezzling them out of the continent' scam
7. Another of the above, received on the same day, from a different 'person' at the same 'bank' - seriously!?
8. Dear Valued Customer email from a local bank I don't have an account with
9. Apparently I've won a million $ from Microsoft. From a draw I didn't enter, obviously...(where is .br anyway - anyone?)
10. wants my help to smuggle her dead father's (presumably embezzled, at best) millions out of Liberia
11.The same local bank that I don't have an account with has "one new secutiry message" (I cut'n'paste that - how lazy can a scammer be!?)
12. I'm dying of cancer, so want to donate $5m through you, to help you serve ailing local widows ('nother new one on me - wtf?)

Mind you, they do seem to be targeting Americans...even though the slightly-religious-sounding-email ends 'co.uk'. And individuals even though the address is obviously not that of an individual. So it could be the scammers who are intellectually deprived.

Posted by: Pen | December 7, 2009 3:10 PM

These people were probably stupid, but you don't need an excuse for being stupid. You probably just are, through genetics, etc, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now, exploiting the stupid, that's something you need a damn good excuse for.

Blaming the stupid for allowing themselves to be exploited? I dunno about that...

Personally, I've just spent the day in public places being forced to overhear the conversations of my co-speciesists - and boy are we stupid on average!

Posted by: Sir Craig | December 7, 2009 3:15 PM

Celtic_Evolution:

I must set something you stated straight: This is not the playing of the "offended" card (at least not on my part), but rather the "disappointed" card. Big difference. PZ has said and done many outrageous things and though I may not agree with everything he says/does (there goes my sycophant cred, dammit), I've never been offended by them. However, in this case it seems likely PZ latched onto what amounts to little more than a throwaway line; it's certainly not the meat of the story.

Also, I would not infer anything in the statement, "We were raised catholic, we just believe everybody," other than what was stated. I've known more than a few religious types who held that "The Lord helps those who help themselves" before professing a belief that Jebus or Gawd was going to do it for them.

Assumptions are NOT our friends...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 7, 2009 3:23 PM

I must set something you stated straight: This is not the playing of the "offended" card (at least not on my part), but rather the "disappointed" card. Big difference. PZ has said and done many outrageous things and though I may not agree with everything he says/does (there goes my sycophant cred, dammit), I've never been offended by them. However, in this case it seems likely PZ latched onto what amounts to little more than a throwaway line; it's certainly not the meat of the story.

Understood... please consider that my comment was not intended solely at you.

And while it may seem like "a throwaway line" to you, it was what was of interest to PZ in this story, as it pertains to the posting he made. I don't assume he ignored the rest of the story, it was just that part of it he felt compelled to comment on.

Also, I would not infer anything in the statement, "We were raised catholic, we just believe everybody," other than what was stated.

You wouldn't? Ok.

I've known more than a few religious types who held that "The Lord helps those who help themselves" before professing a belief that Jebus or Gawd was going to do it for them.

And those people are not the sort that would likely speaketh: "We were raised catholic, we just believe everybody". Again, it may be the person more than the religion, but clearly, to these people, the tenets of their religion forced them to be gullible, according to that statement. That was the point. A point supported by that statement.

Assumptions are NOT our friends...

Except when you rightfully assume you are not about to be handed a huge windfall of money "if only you pay the taxes up front". Right? I think some reasoned assumptions would have been the best friends these poor people could have had.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 7, 2009 3:27 PM

People who are scammed out of money by fellow religionists are of the same type who will believe endless lies about how we're "clearly designed"...

So, Dembski can be swindled?

Did you see where he went to a faith healer to see if his autistic son would be "healed"?

He closes:

Neither my wife nor I regret going. It was an education. Our kids are resilient. But the ride home raised a question. We found ourselves avoiding talking about the event until the children fell asleep. Then, as they drifted off in the early morning, we talked in hushed tones about how easily religion can be abused, in this case to exploit our family. What do we tell our children? I'm still working on that one.

To be fair, Dembski wasn't completely stupid about the event. He still went, though, almost certainly half believing his own BS about how "materialism" isn't wholly responsible for "mind."

Yes, he's a good example of a religious person being gullible, although he didn't lose a fortune because of it. Not really a very good advertisement for the "skepticism" that he claims is driving his 'disbelief in evolution.'

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | December 7, 2009 3:30 PM

Even those that know better are scammed. I once worked for a lawyer that said never, ever, ever pay upfront for work, especially if you are unfamiliar with the workman. Then he proceeded to pay some guy he didn't know thousands of dollars upfront to get some new kitchen cabinets put in. The guy then disappeared with the money. The lawyer said he never believed anyone would have the guts to try and fleece a lawyer, so he trusted the guy.

Posted by: Greg | December 7, 2009 3:34 PM

PlaydoPlato @#87

I will readily admit their belief is a delusion, but I don't see any reason to believe they would be any less likely to be duped if they did not have this delusion. Being conned only requires an ability to trust someone.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 7, 2009 3:45 PM

As for the "Catholic" angle, that's probably just an after-the-fact attempt to increase their victim-cred.

Ahh... this is an excellent point. And further speaks to the point if the post, in my opinion. To themselves, they are people of excellent moral character, because they are catholics... and one of the facets of this catholic moral character is to be foolishly, unquestionably trusting, in their eyes.

Whether the comment was genuine, or an after-the-fact attempt at garnering sympathy, the implications are the same.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 7, 2009 3:52 PM

I will readily admit their belief is a delusion, but I don't see any reason to believe they would be any less likely to be duped if they did not have this delusion. Being conned only requires an ability to trust someone.

But if that ability to trust someone is fostered by ones religious tenets, to the point of allowing them to be unquestionably and foolishly trusting, is there not a culpability on the part of that religion? To me, the statement "we were raised catholic, we just trust everybody" is an implication that they are this "unquestionably" trusting because of their belief in their catholic teachings. If not, why even make the statement, in that way?

Posted by: SteveM | December 7, 2009 4:01 PM

However, religions generally teach that you're not supposed to question much, and that evidence is un-necessary. If you've been raised as a good Christian|Catholic|whatever you are very unlikely to question much.

Exactly. I don't think that PZ is saying that atheists are immune to being conned or that all theists are easy marks. He is just using this story to emphasize the difference between theism and atheism, faith and science. Religion teaches one to trust unquestioningly and while this doesn't turn everyone of them into mindless robots, it sets a pattern of believing first and questioning later. Atheism, and science, teaches the opposite, to question first, to think rather than automatically trust. The quote "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody." ilustrates that perfectly.

On the other hand, my own skepticism doubts very much the sincerity of that statement. You really cannot "just believe everybody", and didn't someone once say "you can't con an honest man". Cons work not by tricking you into what you think is a legitimate deal, but by preying on the victim's own dishonesty, convincing him that he is part of a larger scam. If these people really were completely honest they would have been a lot more reluctant to join in.

Posted by: amphiox | December 7, 2009 4:02 PM

"We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody"

If this were true, why can't anyone get Donohue to believe Dawkins?

Posted by: strangest brew | December 7, 2009 4:08 PM

#108

"Like staling candy from an xian'

Should of course read...

"Like stealing candy from an xian"

Posted by: Rutee | December 7, 2009 4:24 PM

Mmm, this seems a bit cold. Still, it's a real pity they fell for such, well, obvious scams.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | December 7, 2009 4:32 PM

I'm regularly deluged with various scams. I particularly like the English solicitor who tells me, in very ungrammatical and poorly spelled English, about my long lost uncle who died and left me £27 million. All I have to do is send $500 for probate fees and all those millions of pounds will be forwarded to me. This solicitor has been sending me the same email every other week for the past six years. His return email address ends in .ng, which is Nigeria, even though he claims to be in London.

Posted by: Tom | December 7, 2009 4:37 PM

Ouch PZ, this is a really snotty, pretentious post. You can do better than this.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 7, 2009 4:44 PM

I particularly like the English solicitor who tells me, in very ungrammatical and poorly spelled English, about my long lost uncle who died and left me £27 million.

About half an hour ago I opened a warning email from "Paypal" that began, "Dear Cutomer,"

Yes, I clicked on the address they gave as fast as I could.

Uh, no, on second thought I think that it was the delete button that I clicked.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Buzz Buzz | December 7, 2009 4:48 PM

"I'm an atheist and scientist. I don't believe anybody without good evidence."

Doesn't matter what you are, PZ, you can be fooled.

Posted by: MadScientist | December 7, 2009 4:51 PM

I've seen far more elaborate scams where people pretend to work for organizations like the UN. They print up shiny bullshit brochures, lure people in with some story about investing in a UN project and doubling their money within a year. I know of people losing over $30k on such scams. They just don't take the time to get their facts right; even a single call to whatever UN department the scamsters claim they were working for would throw open the scam, but no - many folks are too trusting.

Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | December 7, 2009 4:56 PM

I doubt the claims that the religious are expected to be more gullible. They may be targeted by more scams, but I'd wager that has more to do with expected audience size. Consider: More people in the world are religious than not. As such, I doubt all, or even a plurality, of the scammers are atheists. If I'm correct, and the scammers are religious, they wouldn't expect religiosity to make other people more gullible.

Posted by: F | December 7, 2009 4:57 PM

All you concerned folks, victim apologists, finger-waggers are providing my evening laugh. Thanks.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 7, 2009 5:12 PM

The way these educated people just hemorrhaged money at such stupid con games implicates senile dementia more than it does Catholicism.

I don't know, the idea that there has to be dementia in an older couple who has been scammed seems a quick judgment. There was a church (Seventh-day Adventist) treasurer who actually sent over a million dollars to Nigerian scammers, using his, the church's, and friends' money. He ended up being sentenced to 37 months in prison.

Unfortunately, the original sources seem to be dead, and all I have as reference for it is the thread here:

http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/1780/3288.html?1064869686

Then there was Dembski going to a faith healer linked up the thread, and, however mendacious and/or deluded he may be, I don't think he could be called stupid.

You don't have to have dementia, certainly, to fall for it, and I can't see what justification there is for thinking it particularly likely in this case. Which is not to deny that persons getting Alzheimer's aren't especially vulnerable to various scams.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Dave | December 7, 2009 5:17 PM

Re: Sympathy. I have a lot of sympathy for the elderly or gullible who lose $3000.00 or so as an up-front fee and realize that they were scammed when the pay-off never arrives. But my sympathy dissapates some when they keep falling for same trick:

So she began to send thousands of dollars in money orders through Western Union, MoneyGram and Federal Express. The money was wired to Canada, the United Kingdom and Jamaica to people who claimed to be lawyers, financial managers or immigration officials. They said they would soon send the couple their prize money.

The fees varied. Sometimes it was $2,900 for tax and transfer fees; other times, $4,000 for processing fees.

Once, the couple were told an extra payment was needed because it was a holiday, Patricia said.

And after it all, she claims that if only someone had told her it was a scam:

"If I had known something about this, I could have stopped it," she said.

In one instance, Patricia tried to wire money to Canada, and a MoneyGram employee told her it was a scam. The employee blocked the transfer, Patricia said.

But only a few weeks later, the couple received a different lottery offer and another fake check, and Tackes went for the bait again.

Posted by: Steven Mading | December 7, 2009 5:26 PM

I think most of you are being unfair to PZ here in your comments. This wasn't a post denigrating the elderly victims of the scam. It was a post denigrating the culture that encourages gullibility - PZ was drawing a parallel between what the catholic church did to them and what the scammers did to them.

It's important to point out that the Nigerian Princeess Scam in all its various forms (and this is one of them) and the Pascal's Wager Scam in all its various forms, are the exact same scam based on the exact same fallacy - that if the bet is very small compared to the potential win then you should just utterly ignore all scepticism and be gullible and take the bet because that's the choice where the penalty for being wrong is not as big as the payout for being right.

And although the Pascal's Wager scam doesn't explicitly mention it, it also shares the feature with the Nigerian Princess scam where once you've started investing your small bet into it, you can also add the fallacy of the desire to recoup already-spent resources to the reasons it keeps sucking you in for more.

Posted by: Pablo | December 7, 2009 5:28 PM

My favorite "gullible old people who got conned out of their money" story is one where they were told to send their money (cash, of course) to Canada. However, to make sure the custom agents don't see it, hide it in the pages of a magazine.

So folks were freely sending thousands of dollars to these clowns hidden in the pages of magazines to make sure that customs agents didn't know about it. They don't deserve to keep their money.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 7, 2009 5:32 PM

I wonder what a life-long Catholic would pay to get an hour back for every week they went to mass? Methinks, I have a plan...

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 7, 2009 5:43 PM

Let us prey.

Posted by: degustibus | December 7, 2009 5:50 PM

I'm thinking :: Job.

It's a test of faith, folks. The management style of God and the debbil.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 7, 2009 5:55 PM

For those concerned by PZ's commenting on this tragedy, remember this quote: 'We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody.' That was what the woman herself said, not PZ. She is acknowledging her faith made her gullible. All he's doing is citing her.

If these people had turned out to be Catholic but not made any mention of its having had any effect on them in regards to trusting people then yeah, PZ would be a dick for bringing it up. But they flat-out admitted that the reason they fell for it is because they are Catholic.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 7, 2009 6:03 PM

Martin Brock,

Read the quote: ''We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody.' Not PZ's words. The victim's.

Posted by: counsel | December 7, 2009 6:08 PM

As a lawyer, I have been consulted by several businessmen who truly believed the scam material sent by them, and none of the 3 I recall was religious nor were the scams religious-based. One was based on giving access to the 'secret inner world of banking in Geneva', trading on Peruvian Bonds from the late 1880's. A rudimentary calculation revealed that these bonds were now worth billions due to compound interest. The fact that the debt they represented had been repudiated by the then-Peruvian government over 100 years ago didn't impact my client at all. He had lost a healthy 6 figure sum by the time he saw me. I would estimate his net worth at the time in the low 9 figure range, which he didn't get by being a complete idiot.

Another was a developer, being scammed by a 'foundation' that would lend him hundreds of millions for a 'green development' if he promised jobs to local aboriginal peoples. A few hours of googling uncovered enough information (including SEC Consent Orders against the prominent 'names' associated with the Foundation) to make it clear that it was a scam...but the developer almost bit anyway.

Greed is a powerful motivator, whether one is religiously gullible or otherwise. As an example in a non-criminal context, how else do we account for buying lottery tickets? I voluntarily pay this 'tax on morons' every now and then, due purely to greed and an innate inability to comprehend the near-infinite odds against winning. I read a newspaper story once (so it had to be true, right?) that said that 16% of those surveyed reported that their planning for retirement included an expectation of a large lottery win.

Having said all of that, I have no doubt but that members of a faith-based organization will be peculiarly vulnerable to people willing to trade on the belief structure inculcated by the organization. However, other than the throw-away line at the end of the sad story, there is little reason to infer that there is a causal connection between this couple's Catholicism and the success of the scam, so I echo the 'shame on you, PZ' of some of the earlier posters.

Posted by: TheBiologista | December 7, 2009 6:10 PM

Wowbagger- that's a bit of a cop-out. Those words are just this woman's post-rationalisation. Maybe that's what Catholicism is to her but it smacks of someone pinning the blame. There's no evidence to suggest that being Catholic makes a person more trusting or by extension more gullible. This woman is gullible. Maybe she bought the pedochurch because she is gullible.

What we've got here is a correlation. And we all ought to know what that doesn't mean.

Posted by: Qwerty | December 7, 2009 6:18 PM

Yes, they were brought up Catholic and taught to beileve without questioning their beliefs. So, they believed the scammers without question. It's a shame, but where was their critical thinking. The should have thought: Give us the prize and we'll pay the taxes out of it.

It's hard to feel sorry for such unquestioning belief.

Posted by: TheBiologista | December 7, 2009 6:20 PM

I reckon some of you are over-simplifying. Would we be so quick to suggest that atheism makes one more sceptical because of all these sceptical atheists? It is plausible that authoritarian religions attract the gullible, they also more readily retain the gullible born into them. I'm sure the nature of these churches does not help and perhaps deepens that credulous nature, but equally unsure they are solely to blame for such foolish people as these, irrespective of where those people place the blame once their foolishness is exposed.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 7, 2009 6:22 PM

The Biologista wrote:

Wowbagger- that's a bit of a cop-out. Those words are just this woman's post-rationalisation. Maybe that's what Catholicism is to her but it smacks of someone pinning the blame. There's no evidence to suggest that being Catholic makes a person more trusting or by extension more gullible. This woman is gullible. Maybe she bought the pedochurch because she is gullible.
What we've got here is a correlation. And we all ought to know what that doesn't mean.

Oh, I agree with that. I don't particularly feel that religious people are really all that more likely to be scammed (well, above the scam they've already fallen for, i.e. that their gods exist) than non-religious; I imagine that a comprehensive study of scam (or possibly scamola) victims would show a mixture.

I just wanted to point out to the concerned folks - who must be far too busy and important to read the OP - that it wasn't PZ leaping to the conclusion that it was because of their religion but was the reason cited by the victim herself.

That she saw fit to consider that it might be a factor - while obviously not necessarily having played any part at all - is significant to a discussion about people's perceptions of the effects of religious belief.

Posted by: Eric | December 7, 2009 6:55 PM

I think that one thing this brings out clearly is that you can be raised a Catholic (etc.) and still know absolutely nothing about it. If anything, Catholicism teaches precisely the opposite of "believe everybody." Have they never heard of Original Sin? Fallen human nature? Our need for a Redeemer? This couple doesn't represent a failure of religious belief as much as they do a failure of catechesis. (Note, whether these fundamental Catholic beliefs are true isn't the issue; the issue is whether Catholicism in any meaningful sense could be said lead to the sort of behavior evinced by this couple.)

Even with respect to the authority of the Church it cannot be said that Catholics are (when properly taught) taught to accept it blindly, but rather to accept it for a number of reasons, e.g. scriptural grounds, Apostolic succession, practices and teachings of the early Fathers of the Church, etc. Now, you may not think that these are good reasons at all, but, since this is the one area in which Catholics can be said to trust authority, and since this trust issue is what is being discussed, it's important to make it clear that these reasons -- i.e. the reasons Catholics adduce for trusting the authority of the Church -- cannot be applied to people in general.

Posted by: marcus | December 7, 2009 6:59 PM

IMHO, I believe that what we have here is a failure to communicate. Or rather, people are shocked that PZ is refusing to have sympathy for these benighted folks. PZ language was sympathetic to their plight,
he was not empathetic however (putting himself in their place) because he's not gullible and could not inhabit that space, nor should he. @152 Real trust and love is good evidence (though not infallible) but it requires a relationship, something that these folks obviously didn't have.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 7, 2009 7:04 PM

it wasn't PZ leaping to the conclusion that it was because of their religion but was the reason cited by the victim herself

This is plainly not true.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 7, 2009 7:13 PM

Bzzzt! Dammit, people, Thomas Jefferson commented somewhere about how cheating the elderly widow was a business norm in the new proud United States, as it had always been in the world.

And there's good science to document it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/29/arts/snvital.php

We all are going this way as we get older.

Old people are like gamblers who can't perceive risk properly.

Good for the tribe, the elderly will distract and slow down the predators, while the young get into the cave or up the tree.

Deal with it now, or be dealt with. Or as Robert Frost put it in one of his poetry recordings: "'.... provide, provide'. And I always like to add 'or somebody else will provide for you'."

The elderly are easier targets
By Eric Nagourney
Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008

For the especially unscrupulous con artist, the elderly are a tempting target. Now researchers have confirmed in the lab what frauds already knew instinctively: As they grow older, even people who seem perfectly on top of things may have trouble making good decisions.

The researchers based their findings on a series of tests given to two groups of healthy people, one ages 26 to 55, the other 56 to 85.

The goal was to see how well the older volunteers used the skills often demanded of them when making decisions in real life about activities like investments, insurance and estate planning.

"Such decisions would be a challenge even for young adults," the researchers note in the current Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. But when age is taken into account, they said, along with the abundance of shady marketing schemes, the challenge becomes even greater.

Even someone with high intellect and good memory, the study said, may be undergoing changes in the prefrontal part of the brain that affects behavior.

The researchers, led by Natalie Denburg of the University of Iowa, used a gambling-style test in which people draw from four different decks of cards. ....

Posted by: CJO | December 7, 2009 7:20 PM

practically everybody has someone they believe at least some of the time "with out good evidence" its called trust and love.

Nonsense. You trust those about whom you have good evidence from their prior behavior that they are trustworthy. Betrayal and misplaced trust arise from inadequate assessment of the evidence on the part of one, or deliberate deception on the part of the other. Likewise, love. I love my wife. She loves me. I know this because, in the main, she acts like she does, and has been acting that way for a sustained period of time. Her behavior is the evidence.

Point being, healthy normal adults do not go about treusting and loving others without evidence.

Posted by: echidna | December 7, 2009 7:24 PM

Quoting from Wowbagger, but the sentiment has been expressed often:

I don't particularly feel that religious people are really all that more likely to be scammed

The collection plate every Sunday is a scam. Every week, Christians of many stripes spend time in churches reinforcing the notion that believing what someone tells you is virtuous, even if it has no evidence and especially if the evidence is against it, and money should be given freely and without reservation.

When the mental faculties start to decline with age, these lifelong habits will still be informing decisions. Therefore, I think that religious people are more likely to be scammed. Not because of any particular religious belief, but because they are trained to be vulnerable.

Of course, vulnerability can be cultivated in many different ways, not just by religion.

Posted by: SteveM | December 7, 2009 7:35 PM

Are they greedy because they bought into this whole situation? I'm trying to compare this to if someone legitimately won the lottery. Would it be greedy of them to claim their money then?

If you really can't see the difference then you are a fine candidate to be the next victim of this scam. Legitimately winning the lottery means having first bought a ticket from a legitimate source, and seeing the winning number published in a legitimate source. Receiving an unsolicited notification of winning an unknown lottery and having to jump through convoluted hoops to claim the prize should raise some kind of suspicion. They were just as much trying to scam "the system" as they were being scammed, that is how these cons succeed.

Posted by: Shala | December 7, 2009 7:54 PM

"If you really can't see the difference then you are a fine candidate to be the next victim of this scam. Legitimately winning the lottery means having first bought a ticket from a legitimate source, and seeing the winning number published in a legitimate source."

Er, I'm asking why that makes them GREEDY. Gullible, yes, but why does it make them greedy? Read please? :/

I am also not stupid enough to fall for this scam (easy to say after the fact that it's been exposed, but still). Not to say I couldn't fall for a scam, but I wouldn't fall for this one.

Posted by: Jonathan Sardigne | December 7, 2009 8:02 PM

I'm an atheist and scientist, but I'm not a robot and I trust people. Well, not that much I guess.

Posted by: chaos_engineer | December 7, 2009 8:27 PM

Er, I'm asking why that makes them GREEDY. Gullible, yes, but why does it make them greedy? Read please? :/

The gullibility is a side-effect of the greed.

Suppose a stranger had written them saying, "Hi, you don't know me but I'm a fellow Catholic, and my mother has been arrested on trumped-up charges and I need $48,000 to bail her out. If you can loan it to me, I promise I'll repay you as soon as the bail is refunded. Obviously we don't have a lot of money, but I can afford a token 0.1%/month interest payment to compensate you for the inconvenience."

Catholic Church or not, I bet they would have been a lot less gullible.

Posted by: kiki | December 7, 2009 8:31 PM

victim apologists

Yeah, who doesn't hate victims, right? Fucking losers.

Seriously - 'victim apologists'? Just when you think you've heard the stupidest thing on the internet...

Posted by: Blondin | December 7, 2009 8:46 PM

There must be dozens of parlour tricks and puzzles that demonstrate that the average person is not very good at figuring odds (like the "Monty Hall 3 door puzzle"). Vegas, Atlantic City and thousands of casinos & bingo halls rely on that to be true. Who in their right mind would be a "regular" at a bingo hall knowing that the more regularly you play the greater are the chances that you will lose more than you win (and your chances of winning aren't that good in the first place)?

A sharp observer of human nature knows just how to set us up to cheat ourselves and probably none of us are totally immune. The first important step is finding a mark who has faith in his own judgement and the more intelligent someone is the more likely they are to consider themselves infallible. It may take some finesse but virtually anybody can be scammed.

I suspect elderly people make particularly good marks because of a combination of "the gray matter not being what it once was" plus an exagerated faith in their own wisdom and experience. My Dad was a pretty clever guy but he once signed up for a freezer full of food that ended up costing him about 5 times the value of the goods.

There should be a particularly nasty penalty for people who scam or prey on old folks. They are opportunistic scum.

Oh, and shame on you, PZ (hey, everybody else was doing it!).

Posted by: Eidolon | December 7, 2009 9:02 PM

PZ:

I suspect people are attributing a belief that atheists and scientists are immune because of your closing line. For a seriously smart guy, you sometimes seem a bit tone deaf when it comes to writing.

As Hank @165 points out, the biggest factor here may well be age. Scams that take advantage of the elderly are legend and legion. Yes, the RCC is a scam of the first order but but perhaps all the experiences of this couple within the RCC community were positive and trust was never an issue. The question of "scammability" of the devout is an interesting one.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 7, 2009 9:39 PM

Josh, that's the tragedy of this -- and the point of the research. There's other search suggesting that younger people who also can't recognize risk have the same kind of brain damage that accumulates normally with aging in most older people.

The scammers know this; the scientists are nowcatching on to it. The consumer protection folks, just barely starting to notice.

Oh, and the banks and realtors and other firms that benefit by handling the scammers' transactions -- they know it's happening, and fight any regulation or move to deter this kind of theft because it'd be bad for their business

The experiment -- do have a look -- used four decks of cards, at least one of them badly set up so it almost never paid off as it should. The people with the failure simply could not recognize that one choice of those offered was always a bad choice.

You could do it with all sorts of things.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 7, 2009 9:43 PM

PS to Josh --

One other thing -- older people start to lose their short term memory for things they hear.

You need to put your advice in writing, clear and simple and explicit.

So long as they can look at it for three or four minutes, study it, they can remember it; that's how long it has to stay in consciousness before the longer term memory system records it.

But if you're on the phone and just a voice, they won't remember what you said clearly.

The scammer was there face to face, held eye contact, repeated the magic words over and over, held something up in front of them -- to drive the scam into memory. THAT they remember.

Your job is to interfere with that.

It really helps to get hold of a textbook on gerontology, I had to do that as my mother got elderly. Getting things in writing instead of talking will help enormously as memory gets erratic. Even better, get it written down WITH your picture and phone number next to it so they can study all that at the same time.

Posted by: Eidolon | December 7, 2009 9:46 PM

Josh@184:

I think you've hit it when you said that the elderly are trying to preserve their self image as competent people. Who would be willing to admit they were so easily fooled? Couple that with no understanding of a sunk cost, and you have a situation in which good money follows bad.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | December 7, 2009 10:07 PM

Hank Roberts wrote:

It really helps to get hold of a textbook on gerontology, I had to do that as my mother got elderly. Getting things in writing instead of talking will help enormously as memory gets erratic. Even better, get it written down WITH your picture and phone number next to it so they can study all that at the same time.

That's really excellent advice, thank you. Can you recommend a good textbook? I'm kicking myself that I didn't think of that before.

We do send a lot of printed literature in pamphlet form to callers. I've been trying to nudge more people into using our website, where everything we have on paper - plus a ton more - is easily and instantly accessible. But, you've made a good point about how important it is for elderly people to be able to read and absorb something for several minutes. Especially given how technophobic many of them are, that's a persuasive argument for keeping up with the paper pamphlet mailings.

Posted by: Richard | December 7, 2009 10:09 PM

Josh @ #184

If you don't mind my asking, what job is it that gives you the opportunity to educate older folk like that?

Is there an actual call-center type corporation that that's like a suicide hotline but for 'deals that sound too good to be true?' I wouldn't mind working for such a place, myself!

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | December 7, 2009 10:22 PM

Richard wrote:

If you don't mind my asking, what job is it that gives you the opportunity to educate older folk like that?

Is there an actual call-center type corporation that that's like a suicide hotline but for 'deals that sound too good to be true?' I wouldn't mind working for such a place, myself!

I work for a nonprofit consumer education and advocacy organization that just happens to deal with consumer issues that elderly people often face. I don't mean to be coy, but it's necessary to separate my Pharyngula identity (where I cuss and say cheeky, provocative things) from my professional identity.

There are many, many nonprofit consumer watchdog groups out there that cover everything from bad products, misleading warranties, financial scams, to just giving general advice on consumer rights and remedies when buying goods and services. Lots of them focus on protecting the elderly, but there's a whole gamut.

Working for a nonprofit with a mission to protect people from financial and emotional predation is extremely rewarding, and I feel very lucky to get paid for something I'd happily do for free. Look around, and you're sure to find something.

Actually, your idea of a call center for "too good to be true" deals is pretty damned brilliant! Why don't you be the guy who founds it?

Posted by: Toby | December 7, 2009 10:23 PM

And all of you just fell into PZ's little scam for five minutes of your time, and a penny for your thoughts. As did I. Where is my penny PZ? If I ever meet you face to face I will kick your ass and take it from you. No scam just good old fashion bullying.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | December 7, 2009 10:33 PM

And all of you just fell into PZ's little scam for five minutes of your time, and a penny for your thoughts. As did I. Where is my penny PZ? If I ever meet you face to face I will kick your ass and take it from you. No scam just good old fashion bullying.

1. It's "old-fashioned," not "old fashion."

2. Are you a Giant Douche, or a Turd Sandwich?

Posted by: Nanu Nanu | December 7, 2009 10:56 PM

@197:
what is this I don't even

Posted by: ad | December 7, 2009 11:32 PM

These are the tragedies that I use for examples to introduce people to skepticism. It opens peoples minds to start thinking instead of just believing everything. Yes, those infomercials are lying to you. Yes, those phone salesmen are lying to you. Yes, those homeopathic pushers are lying to you. yes those global warming alarmists are lying to you. Of course Al Gore is lying when he rakes in hundreds of millions of your dollars.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 7, 2009 11:39 PM

yes those global warming alarmists are lying to you. Of course Al Gore is lying when he rakes in hundreds of millions of your dollars.

Posted by: MutantJedi | December 8, 2009 12:19 AM

;) Nerd of Redhead, isn't an appeal to consult peer reviewed climate literature a bit like saying the answer is in the bible after "climategate?" Don't the emails reveal more than a little pressure to exclude research contrary to the AGW theory?

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 8, 2009 12:41 AM

"Of course Al Gore is lying when he rakes in hundreds of millions of your dollars."

Al Gore is a hundreds-of-millionaire? News to me.

Posted by: Dorkman | December 8, 2009 12:44 AM

This really has nothing to do with their being Catholic and everything to do with their being American. They come from an entitled something-for-nothing culture and were all too happy to think they won a lottery and they didn't even have to buy the ticket. Invoking the fact that they're good trusting Catholics is a sympathy card and nothing more.

Don't get me wrong, it is tragic and this is somebody's grandparents we're talking about. I could see my grandmother getting snookered in a similar fashion. But as much as I can always go for a good round of religion-bashing, in this case Catholicism is not the irrational faith to be slamming.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 8, 2009 4:05 AM

Nerd of Redhead, isn't an appeal to consult peer reviewed climate literature a bit like saying the answer is in the bible after "climategate?"

No, moron, it isn't.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 8, 2009 4:12 AM

Why doesn't your scientist's skepticism extend to the accuracy of the quote itself?

Because any opportunity to blame stupidity on religion is welcome. It takes a fair amount of intellectual honesty to avoid overdoing it.

Posted by: CapeTownJunk | December 8, 2009 4:38 AM

How do we know that this story isn't a scam itself? What if this is just an elaborate hoax to gain mass sympathy (pun intended!), particularly from fellow Catholics? And, with that sympathy, there's bound to be offers of financial assistance?

If we're going to proclaim skepticism here, doubting this story's veracity is as good a place as any to start.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 8, 2009 4:45 AM

This really has nothing to do with their being Catholic and everything to do with their being American.

Yeah, because all Americans fall for these scams.

But as much as I can always go for a good round of religion-bashing, in this case Catholicism is not the irrational faith to be slamming.

Now if you would just extend your critical thinking a little further, to encompass your own claims ...

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 8, 2009 4:52 AM

Guilt and shame; the Catholic church does its best to create victims.

Indeed. But it's plain stupid to think or imply that it does so by teaching people to "just believe everybody".

Posted by: NMcC | December 8, 2009 4:54 AM

Posted by: PZ Myers | December 7, 2009 7:09 PM

"Remarkable.

Where people are getting the idea I have no sympathy for these victims is a mystery. I clearly said it's a "monumental personal tragedy." I think it's terrible that they've been taken by fraud.

Where people get the idea that I think atheists and scientists are immune is another mystery. I don't. But I don't think we're quite as susceptible because that "we just believe everybody" statement would be regarded as anathema to most of us.

The complainers among you are reading something into me that just isn't there."

What a pathetic attempt at a climbdown.

The whole point of your comment was to make out that these poor elderly people were stupid because of their religion and that's why they got fleeced. Oh, and to brag that 'we atheists and scientists' would never get so caught, because 'we' are not that gullible. The plight of the elderly couple was practically incidental to your aim.

Of course, you'd look over it if, in fact, your (and Dawkins', who also goes in frequently for this 'we atheists are ever so much clever than everyone else' load of bollocks) thesis was true. You've only to look at the comments following your remarks to disprove your own claim. There's as many knobheads amongst that lot as you'll find in any group of people - religious or otherwise.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 8, 2009 5:05 AM

What a pathetic attempt at a climbdown.

The whole point of your comment was to make out that these poor elderly people were stupid because of their religion and that's why they got fleeced. Oh, and to brag that 'we atheists and scientists' would never get so caught, because 'we' are not that gullible. The plight of the elderly couple was practically incidental to your aim.

I agree, but

You've only to look at the comments following your remarks to disprove your own claim.

The very first comment takes issue with PZ on the same grounds, as as do many others.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | December 8, 2009 5:26 AM

Personally, I think PZ is testing us, to show the creationists he debates that we do not simply applaud everything he says like a bunch of trained seals. ;)

If only. Many people, like Sir Craig #49, did pass the test admirably, but I fear that PZ himself failed miserably.

About that "greed" thing, and the allegation that these people expected a payout from a lottery they'd never entered: It's a lottery they didn't remember entering, I suspect.

Despite the article saying "After the 83-year-old Hilton Head Island resident applied for a sweepstakes she saw in a magazine in January", eh?

They were raised victims.

Odd how it didn't kick in until they were in their 80's.

Posted by: NMcC | December 8, 2009 5:32 AM

Comment 225 by truth machine, OM.

Sorry, my comment should have been more clear. I know that there's a good few comments taking Myers to task over his remarks, so I wasn't referring to everyone.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 8, 2009 7:15 AM

Nerd of Redhead, isn't an appeal to consult peer reviewed climate literature a bit like saying the answer is in the bible after "climategate?" Don't the emails reveal more than a little pressure to exclude research contrary to the AGW theory?

Posted by: Anri | December 8, 2009 8:42 AM

truth machine quotes, then says:

They were raised victims.

Odd how it didn't kick in until they were in their 80's.

Well, except for tithing.

Oh, and supporting a criminal organization.

And (quite possibly) accepting a lifetime of guilt and belief in the corrupt nature of the real world.

Ah, yeah, that and the whole 'give us something up front, and we'll make certain you get something even better later on!' bit.
(The questions is, in my above statement, am I talking about this lottery scam or getting into heaven?)

So, hmm, maybe it did 'kick in' a wee bit earlier.

For the record, I do have sympathy for these people, but it is not unalloyed sympathy. It is mixed with a fair bit of anger, at the couple, the conman, and, quite frankly, most of the rest of us was well.
By respecting religious and other nonsensical belief, by rewarding it, we have make life easier for this type of conman and this type of con. If we disapprove, we should work to reverse that trend.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 8, 2009 9:54 AM

-Trying to collect on a legitimate lottery ticket is entirely different."-

They were trying to collect on at least 3 different sweepstake lotteries (according to the article) all of which they apparently won. They repeatedly made the same mistake over and over and over again. Even after losing nearly all their money and being told it was a con, they carried on.

Its hard to have sympathy for bone numbing repeated stupidity.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 8, 2009 10:24 AM

Sure, anybody can be fooled, but you lower your chances when you’re automatically skeptical, and religion does teach one that believing things without evidence is the highest virtue.

First, that's a GROSS oversimplification of what "religion does teach." (I, for one, have NEVER met ANYONE of ANY religion who admitted to being taught to "believe everybody.")

Second, did it ever occur to anyone here that different religions teach different degrees of "believing without evidence?" If you really think that all religions teach the same thing to the same degree, without reference to any specifics from any particular religion, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and cannot call yourselves "automatically skeptical." My father, for example, was Catholic all his life, and his ancestors were even more staunchly -- and more compliantly -- Catholic than him; and NONE of that lot would have accepted any teaching to the effect of "believing everybody;" and no, my dad would never have fallen for any of those scams either (but hey, Jesuit schools do a decent job with their students -- the only bad habit my dad got out of his was smoking). Can anyone here point to any bit of Catholic doctrine, or any Pope's statements, asking their flock to "believe everybody?" Or are you all just conditioned to "believe everybody" who confirms your prejudices about religion?

It’s a disgusting approach to life, and while I don’t know the details of this old couple’s gullibility...

And there's the problem right there: we don't know the details, we're ignoring the details we're getting (like the fact that they're ELDERLY), and we're not even asking for details before we take it as just another excuse to bash religion indiscriminately.

And as others pointed out, who the fuck thinks they've won a lottery they never even entered?

Someone who is ELDERLY, whose mind may be going, and who may also have become fearful of how far their money might get them now that they're no longer able to work for more of it. (Fear is often a major component of greed.) These things are not caused by religion.

The complainers among you are reading something into me that just isn't there.

We're reading what YOU WROTE, PZ, nothing more or less. Let's face the obvious fact: scams like this are nothing new; but this particular instance is being mentioned here ONLY because of the religious reference.

Posted by: Dianne | December 8, 2009 10:29 AM

I'm an atheist and scientist. I don't believe anybody without good evidence.

I don't believe in karma or Loki or any other malevolent (or humorous) entity which punishes people for making statements like this. Nonetheless, I think you're setting yourself up by making overly confident statements. Everyone has blind spots, things they take on faith, and vulnerabilities. Yours may be smaller, but beware of claiming that they are nonexistent. Oh, and would you like to buy my bridge?

Posted by: ChrisH | December 8, 2009 10:45 AM

Hmm, a lot of concerned folks around.

The way I read the article is not so much a go at the couple for being scammed - although, to be fair, they fell for multiple scams which is disturbing. I think that more people then will admit it have fallen foul of people out to make a buck at whatever level (using myself as an example I've had 2 'problematic' online transactions, one I managed to get reimbursed on the other I didn't. Painful but shit happens).

What is telling with this couple is the 'we're Catholic' line. It seems to suggest that they are trusting/gullible because they are Catholic unless my reading comprehension has gone for a walk. This is something completely fair to pick up on, whilst agreeing that scammers are scum and targetting the elderly is a shit move.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 8, 2009 11:36 AM

Doubts about the accuracy of the "Catholic" quote have been expressed. On what evidence did you report it to us as fact? Did you call the woman? The reporter? Are you trustingly familiar with the newspaper in which the story appeared? Or did you just pull a stranger's account off the Internet and relay it breathlessly to us? What? I don't want to sit in judgment until I've heard your side. That would be so unfair.

Right... so your entire argument hinges on questioning the accuracy of an attributed quote that thus far the woman has not denied making, as far as can tell.

Interesting. I have evidence that she made the statement, which has not been refuted. What evidence do you have to question it?

Posted by: Slaughter | December 8, 2009 12:10 PM

Pete @ 242:
If you have any doubts about the story, go to the source:
By CASSIE FOSS
cfoss@islandpacket.com

Ain't the Internet tubes wunnerful?

I have a very religious sister who was conned out of nearly a year's wages by just such a scam as here. One of the things they emphasized with her was not to tell any relatives, because wouldn't she want her big payday to be a surprise? She was ripe for the plucking, as she had been awaiting a huge lottery payday since the damn things started.

Posted by: DonZilla | December 8, 2009 1:02 PM

A little OT, but I find scammers also prey upon the elderly's (or anyone else's) sense of propriety. My mother-in-law once chided me because she overheard me being rude to a cold sales caller on the phone. I explained to her that the person was trying to separate me from my money, not be my best friend. Another time someone tried to sell me something because I "sounded like a nice lady." Told them that "nice" doesn't equal "rich" and just hung up the phone.

Ah, the power of a simple "no, thank you." Works every time.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 8, 2009 1:09 PM

Why would a person who apparently grew up with the concept of original sin conclude that everybody should be trusted equally?

Why would a person reporting on a story like this simply invent a quote of such a specific nature? Your skepticism seems awfully selective, Pete...

All I want to know from Professor Myers is this: what "good evidence" for the accuracy of the quote was in his hand BEFORE he posted.

Why? Because it's your expectation that "Professor Myers" independently verify every damned quote he references from widely circulated news publications for posts on his blog? That's stupid and unreasonable. And I think you already know that.

Again, evidence that the quote was in fact made exists, and has not been refuted. Evidence that it was in any way fabricated or mis-represented does NOT exist... that you would choose to make this your argument is weak, at best, and clearly demonstrates your bias.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 8, 2009 1:45 PM

Why would a person who apparently grew up with the concept of original sin conclude that everybody should be trusted equally?

Because those concepts were derived from an ancient book of magical myths which she most likely considers to actually have happened. Thinking that death is not permanent, magical virgin births occur, talking snakes are real, and the myriad of other nonsense from that book is real, probably has a tendency to cripple one's critical thinking capacity. Also, thinking that an all powerful sky daddy is watching over and protecting you from such shenanigans probably makes one even more vulnerable.

Blind faith is not a virtue, it is a handicap. Skepticism is the default rational position when evaluating any positive truth claim.

Posted by: Berlzebub | December 8, 2009 2:20 PM

I haven't had time to read through all of the comments, but I'm skeptical of her citing catholicism as a reason. Judging by my experience with others who've been scammed, I wonder if she isn't trying to garner sympathy... and perhaps recoup some of her losses.

Like others here, I feel no sympathy for the Tackeses. She was told by a Moneygram employee, after they blocked a transfer, that it was a scam, but she continued with it anyway. If you drive past the "BRIDGE OUT" sign, ignore the worker screaming at you to stop, and sail your car into the river am I still supposed to be sympathetic?

Posted by: steve | December 8, 2009 2:55 PM

Celtic_evolution,

My point is I believe P.Z. is being unfair in his comments and a little naive. Being a scientist or an atheist are no protections against the ravages of time. Perhaps at this stage of his life he is immune to conmen. I don't doubt it. Not that I for a moment wish ill will on him. But who's to say that when he's 80 he doesn't start to suffer from alzheimers? And if he's conned do we read on another blog, "I've always trusted in science, I felt I had proof and it wasn't a con". I'm just saying. I know he has an axe to grind, but this wasn't the best choice of stories to do it with.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 8, 2009 4:37 PM

Why would a person who apparently grew up with the concept of original sin conclude that everybody should be trusted equally?

Because they have been told their entire life that if you just keep giving, good things will come to you. Oh, and that stuff we told you, just trust us, don't think too deeply about it.

The parallels between scams ("especially" pyramid schemes and the like) and religion are pretty obvious once you compare them.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 8, 2009 5:21 PM

he would insist that the verbal quotes attributed to defenseless people be checked and verified before being used against them. Just saying is all.

and he would still be stupid, unreasonable, and transparent...

Just saying is all...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 9:28 AM

Where in the world did these people ever get the idea that Catholicism teaches people to be uncritically trusting?

What part of "please believe all this gobbledygook about floods and resurrections and giants and miracles, and please, never ever ask for evidence" is confusing to you?

One of the very definitions of "faith" is: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Or, put another way, "uncritically trusting".

That doesn't preclude some from having a very skeptical nature, in spite of their beliefs, for reasons that may have nothing to do with their christianity...

As a general rule, you must be willing to be gullible, to accept outlandish claims without evidence, to even be a christian... therefor I'm not sure why it's so tough for people to make the connection that such inherent credulity might lead a certain percentage of religious folks to be even more gullible than most.

The only difference between these folks and the christians who claim that they would never have fallen for this scam is that they are slightly less gullible than this couple.