…and this is a 
Skeptic organizations often face a nagging dilemma: should they be openly skeptical about religion? There are a couple of very good reasons why they should make criticizing religious claims a secondary issue, and one extremely bad reason that represents intellectual cowardice and a betrayal of skeptical principles. I'm going to come down on the side of accepting that skeptics groups can make accommodations to religious individuals in general, but that they must not avoid confrontation with religious ideas in particular.
What are the good reasons for shying away from religious conflict? One is division of labor. There are endless weird claims of the paranormal and supernatural that are begging for the application of critical thinking, from astrology to dowsing to ESP to ghosts to telekinesis to zero point energy, and while religion is a gigantic sinkhole of ignorance and absurdity, there are atheist organizations that deal specifically with that subset of human folly — it's entirely reasonable that a skeptics' group might decide to distinguish themselves from atheists' groups by focusing on a different set of phenomena. The James Randi Educational Foundation and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science are and ought to be differentiable. We've all also got limited time; I think tarot cards are complete bunk, but I haven't spent any effort on ripping them up, just because I've got other targets I find more interesting. We need many people and many organizations to address the whole wide ecosystem of kookdom, and they can't all do all of them.
Another good reason is operational: skeptical organizations tend to work on existing phenomena and individuals, with little effort spent on vague historical claims. They will argue that many psychic and supernatural claims are little more than cheap magic tricks, and they will track down and expose charlatans who are bilking people right now with claims about spoon-bending or talking to the dead; there are so many of those at work right now, that showing that some weird Jewish rabbi living 2000 years ago was just doing trivial sleight-of-hand and psychological manipulation is both less interesting and less directly testable, even if the skeptics are pretty darned sure Jesus was a con man. Nebulous assertions that Jesus loves us are untestable and uninvestigable, but you'll notice that if there is specific claim of a weeping madonna statue, skeptic Joe Nickell isn't shy about demolishing it.
These are eminently reasonable rationales for not pressuring skeptical organizations to join ranks with and become inseparable from atheist groups. There is also at least one awful reason I sometimes hear: that skeptics should avoid criticizing religion because it might alienate some of their fellow travelers. That's unconscionable, and implies that they aren't really interested in critical thinking, but in simply growing an organization without regard to its purpose. A couple of examples popped up recently.
Pamela Gay is an astronomer and a reputable and credible skeptic, and a well-known science educator. She's not a skeptic in all things, though: she's also a Christian. This is not a problem, because there is no such thing as a 'pure' skeptic who applies critical thinking to every single aspect of their lives, so of course she can be a member in good standing of the skeptical community — but let's not pretend that she's applying skeptical values consistently. Again, this is not a problem for her, shouldn't be a problem for us, but it does become a huge problem when people start demanding special exemptions from criticism for religious thought.
So I was appalled when I read Seth asking "Why are we lying to Pamela Gay?" Seth doesn't get it. Seth wants us to be especially nice to people who believe in Jesus.
He tells an anecdote. Pamela Gay appeared on an edition of Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, which, as you may know, is a podcast that is very conversational and freely wanders about various topics in skepticism (you all listen to it, right? It's excellent). In this episode, they joked about a claim that junk DNA encoded the soul. Seth thinks that was wrong, because Pamela Gay is there, and so all the participants on SGU should self-censor and not discuss souls at all.
Bear in mind, Pamela Gay is on the phone at this moment. She is in the room. And her cohost from Astronomy Cast and the Host of the show she is a guest on are mocking the idea of the soul.
Now, granted, they are superficially mocking the idea that the soul resides in junk DNA. But in reality, they are mocking the entire idea of a soul, because neither of them believe that such a thing exists.
Pamela, however, does believe that a soul exists. And she considers herself a skeptic, and these guys go out of their way to say that they consider her a skeptic too.
And yet, they have no problem mocking her beliefs. It probably didn't occur to them that there was anything hurtful about mocking her beliefs. Because skeptics, in general, don't have any problem mocking religion.
To me, there's a dishonesty inherent in this behavior. As I've mentioned before, there's a real coming of age novel feeling to this sort of thing. The religious skeptics are told that they are part of the club, told that they are 'one of us', but no one seems to see a problem in treating them like outsiders anyway.
I ask you — if they had a dowser on the line, should skeptics then avoid criticizing the frequently disproven claims of dowsers? That might hurt the poor water-witch's feelings, you know. What's so special about an unsupportable, unevidenced, ludicrous belief that a person has an invisible magic essence independent of their brain that we should insist that skeptics must pretend to respect it? What's so privileged about belief in general that the mere statement that someone says they believe in something means we should stumble all over ourselves running away from the possibility of challenging it? Seth really doesn't understand what skepticism means.
He worsens his position, too, by claiming that everyone on SGU was lying when they accepted Gay as a skeptic while thinking that souls are a load of bunk. No, I think Gay is a skeptic about most things, just as I am, and just as Steve Novella is, but she is clearly not a skeptic about religion. I don't see a problem with that, and I certainly don't see anything dishonest about it. What would be dishonest is to call ourselves skeptics and then privilege a whole class of beliefs about the supernatural as unquestionable, or to hide away our actual opinions about certain subjects. Seth even turns this into a dichotomy, completely oblivious to the irony of what he is asking.
So why are we lying to Pamela Gay? Why do some atheist skeptics feel the need to pretend that they believe that skepticism really does have room for religion, or at least religious people? Wouldn't it be better and more respectful to present ourselves honestly and openly?
Alternately, if people want to be inclusive of religion, they're going to have to stop telling jokes like that.
So those are our alternatives: demand perfect purity from all skeptics, or shut up about the foolishness of religious belief. Neither are going to happen. I'm particularly disgusted and amused by the claim that it would be "more respectful to present ourselves honestly and openly" while demanding that we stop mocking the absurdities of religion. The SGU crew were being honest and open, and Seth is asking that they conceal their views; Pamela Gay was also free to chime in and present her evidence for the soul and explain why it was not unreasonable to believe in the truth of the Christian version of an afterlife. It would have made for a very lively discussion, it would have been honest and open, and Gay's views would have been exposed as entirely unskeptical.
Gay herself also replied in in the comments to that post.
I've been having dialogues with several prominent skeptics about how if skeptics are going to be inclusive (which many moderates want), than the language needs to change. You're right, it is unfair that it's alright to openly mock religions while asking theists to be speakers. As you say, people need to be honest - either make the skeptics movement an atheists only group, or change the use of language. Pick one, and be honest about it.
That is astonishingly clueless. Gay is asked to speak because she is smart, has interesting things to say about science and education, and I thought because she was a credible skeptic on matters in her discipline. Now she wants to demand that skeptic organizations accommodate her every weird idea? Wrong. No one gets to do that. I don't get to say to CFI or JREF that I'll speak at a meeting as long as they promise ahead of time that they will not dare to challenge me on anything — I expect a good argument on all kinds of issues from an audience of skeptics.
Here's a third alternative. The skeptic movement will be inclusive and allow anyone to participate, and participation means your ideas will be scrutinized and criticized and sometimes mocked and sometimes praised. It is the very nature of the beast. If you want to claim special privilege for your ideas and insist that they may not be exposed to the light and harshly dissected, then you're right — you aren't a skeptic. Join a church instead.
But wait, we aren't done. Pamela Gay turned around and wrote her own post about the separation between science and belief, and I'm going to come right out and say it: it was incredibly stupid. It's a great example of how religious belief can poison science education.
Several years ago I had some students come to me with an exam written by another professor. They had been studying cosmology, and the final question on the exam was, "How do you believe the universe will end?" The word believe was the word on the exam. There were no further details to the question. It didn't constrain the students to discuss only the theories taught in class. It actually asked, "How do you believe the universe will end?" This was back in the days before dark energy, before the 1998 discovery that the universe is accelerating apart. Back then we taught that the universe could be open -- expanding apart forever -- or that maybe it is closed and will someday collapse in on itself. I think we all hoped for a flat universe (that would certainly have made the math a lot easier). This professor had read the students' answers and given 0/20 points when they described instead of one of these three scenarios the second coming of Christ. With that badly worded question, and those 0/20 grades, a professor placed a wall between himself and his students, preventing them from being willing to listen to the scientific facts that describe how a universe without interference will continue to evolve. To him there was no debate, they weren't allowed to believe in the second coming of Christ, at least not if they wanted to get a good grade.
This is an impossible situation for a student, and not even a rational one for a scientist. Sitting here as an astronomer, I have to acknowledge we could live in a universe that hasn't yet collapsed to the lowest energy level, and it might tear itself apart doing so someday. I have to admit, we could live in a multi-verse where our universe and another will someday merge, destroying the reality we know. Or, as a person not wearing a teacher hat, I can admit there could be a God that decides to hit the cosmic endgame button (but I won't teach that in a science classroom). While all these things could be possible, with people believing in the possibility of each, I know based on evidence that, if left alone to continue doing what it's doing, our universe will expand forever and suffer a rather horrific energy death. Do you see the distinction? Given evidence, and a scientific scenario, I can know a true outcome. But there is still room to believe in non-contradictory possibilities.
Had that Professor simply acknowledged that it was a poorly worded question with no right answer, those two girls could have gone on to continue enjoying astronomy. Instead, I ended up with them upset and angry in my office telling me that they couldn't even look at their astronomy book without getting mad.
Negative emotions don't exactly aid learning, and what could have been a positive learning environment was completely destroyed by equating scientifically testable hypotheses with beliefs.
First of all, I find the story implausible. There had to be more to a 20 point question than answering flat, open, or closed — there must have been at least an assumption in the class that students had to explain why they gave their answer. As stated, this is a question where students either got a full 20 points for regurgitating a short answer, or got nothing at all. Either this was an exceptionally bad instructor or something has been left out of the story.
The nit-picking over the word "belief" is annoying, but I hear it fairly often. Yes, yes, we know — science doesn't dabble in beliefs, so it is a poor choice of words. However, this was a science class, something a bit more advanced than freshman 'rocks for jocks', so it is safe to assume from that context that the professor was expecting a science-based answer, and any student so delusional to think that they can insert a random fable in as an answer and get credit for it deserves more than just a loss of a few points on an exam. The students had no grounds to be upset other than their own sense of offended entitlement and a belief (that word again) that a science teacher ought to appreciate a supernatural explanation. No. Wrong. And Gay is wrong to try and justify such inanity.
And seriously — the universe is going to end with the second coming of Christ? If the students had answered, "The universe will end in the Smurf Apocalypse, when Gargamel uses his powers to make all the stars explode to make a cosmic Smurf barbecue", would Gay then be arguing that it is an answer appropriate to the question, and they should be getting credit, and isn't it awful how that bad professor is driving young Smurf fans away from physics? Not at all. She'd answer as I would if students tried to argue for their Jesus answer: "You aren't taking the question seriously, and you aren't demonstrating that you've mastered any of the concepts taught in this class, which is the whole purpose of an exam — you deserve no credit for that answer." I can only assume that Gay's prior commitment to the bizarre beliefs of a Christian sect have blinded her to the obvious inadequacy of the answer, "Jesus will do it."
Notice that I don't have to tell students that they must be atheists to study science, and I don't; but I can have an expectation that answers given on a science exam will be secular and will reflect the content of the course itself, not the drivel the students were taught in Sunday School. The teacher is not putting up a wall between himself and the students, the students and Gay are, by demanding that their cherished myths be pandered to in a physics class, or they are justified in getting angry at their astronomy books and turning their backs on science. That's what petulant children do. All too often it's what Christians do.
Also, please notice that the professor is not generating any "negative emotions", the students are. All we know from this anecdote is that the mysterious professor saw the answer "Jesus will end the universe" on a cosmology exam, and quite reasonably and appropriately gave them no credit for it. What else was he supposed to do? Give full credit for any random, nonsensical, superstitious belief a student chose to scribble on the exam? Ridiculous. Students are not entitled to credit for understanding science, they must earn it, and those students did not. I am also appalled that Gay fed their sense of privileged outrage on this issue; it is the students working themselves up into an emotional state by insisting that Jesus is a good answer in physics, with a sympathetic Christian professor enabling them.
This is a bigger issue than how skeptics should deal with religion: Gay is turning faith into a special case with special rules in science education. That would be disastrous. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about skeptical organizations or the science classroom, saying you believe in something does not suddenly make it immune to criticism or insulate it from the requirements of evidence and reason. I don't care what you believe, only what you can rationally justify, and when you try to short-circuit that by insisting that your supernatural beliefs deserve special protection from criticism and an exalted status in the science classroom, you are doing harm to the enterprise of science and education.
Go ahead, go to church, believe whatever you want. But you don't get to whimper that skeptics and scientists aren't allowed to disagree with you simply because it is your belief. Faith is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's an affliction to be overcome.
Comments
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 26, 2010 11:08 AM
Yes, once again, a clear demonstration of the issue we've been talking about ad nauseum.
The religious want scientists to stay out of their "magesteria", but do not feel so constrained to keep their religion out of science.
It's disingenuous at best. Deliberately deceptive at worst.
If you want to believe in Smurfism, go right ahead. But please, oh pretty please, leave Smurfism out of the science classroom.
The questions of the origins of the universe AND the end of the universe are SCIENCE questions. Not Smurfism questions. When in the SCIENCE magesteria, please refrain from crossing the line.
Is that too much to ask? I think not; but faitheists apparently feel otherwise.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 26, 2010 11:15 AM
Okay, a professor worded a question poorly. That doesn't mean a bullshit answer should get full or even partial credit. The second coming of Jebus is a bullshit answer to a cosmology question.
Posted by: Ysterius
|
June 26, 2010 11:23 AM
That answer would be wrong even in a class on religion. The universe isn't supposed to end with the second coming of Jebus, just life as we know it. The Universe isn't supposed to be destroyed, just most of the Earth. This is what happens when people don't read their own "holy" books. Jeeeez...
/longtime reader, first time poster etc.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
June 26, 2010 11:25 AM
Sorry, one more thing and apologies for the double-post.
Would Prof. Gay have been similarly exercised if the complaining students' beliefs centered on Shiva the Destroyer? Would she insist on giving full marks to THOSE students as well?
I suspect, but cannot prove, that Prof. Gay would tell the students that when in a science class and replying to a science question with a science essay, the IMPLIED first phrase of each question is: "Based on what you have learned in this class..."
The Christian-centeredness of the complaint seems to be telling.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 11:27 AM
I predict Pamela will come to regret her post. It really does betray a staggering blind spot which PZ has mercilessly exposed.
This thinking is part of the same continuum that leads to "teaching the controversy" or "equal time for all theories of origins". The end game of such muddle is the gasthly rats nest of deciding what qualifies and what doesn't, a problem wonderfully highlighted by the Dover trial. We've settled on science to make these distinctions because nothing divides the sheep from the goats as neatly as the rigorous application of the scientific method. Deep down, Pamela knows this applies across the board, and I'm betting we'll see some furious backpedaling soon.
Love SGU by the way and never, EVER miss it.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 26, 2010 11:28 AM
I had no idea dr Gay was a Christian. She's done a good job of hiding that. Kudos.
Iono - not least after the spectacle in Copenhagen, I'll agree with Kristjan that atheist organisations ought to be more skeptical, though.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 11:31 AM
I am not at all clear why kudos should be given to someone who has hidden her religious beliefs.
Either her religious views are pertinent to a discussion or they are not. If they are not then no praise is due for not mentioning them. If they are, then it is rather dishonest to not mention them.
Posted by: gotchaye
|
June 26, 2010 11:32 AM
I definitely get a strong feeling that skeptics qua skeptics treat religion very gently. I can appreciate what you say about no one being a 100% pure skeptic, and if someone's not really doing anything with their unskeptical positions, there's no real need to call them out. But, honestly, would the SGU ever call a guest who was publicly anti-vaccine a skeptic, even if that guest didn't talk about vaccines much and was on the show to talk about ghosts (and was properly skeptical of them)?
Gay isn't just privately a Christian, right? Look at that comment she left - she's actively pushing for religion to be given a special exemption. To my mind, that makes her not a skeptic, just as if an otherwise entirely skeptical person was insisting that the skeptical movement needed to not criticize vaccine denialism as much. You can be anti-vaccine and still be a skeptic, but you don't get to just insist on being taken seriously, and you've got to accept that you're going to be the butt of jokes. Otherwise you're not a skeptic.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 11:34 AM
Universe isn't supposed to be destroyed, just most of the Earth. This is what happens when people don't read their own "holy" books. Jeeeez...
Actually given that the Earth essentially was the universe, I think christian eschatology does end with the destruction of the universe, at least in principle. Christians get to live on in heaven and the rest of us that don't attend Fred Phelps church end up in hell; but those are places outside of the universe.
Oh ... and 17 angels can dance on the head of a pin. I worked it out.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp
|
June 26, 2010 11:35 AM
I've never understood the cognitive dissonance it must take to call oneself a sceptic yet still be a religionist of any sort. How can anyone actively work to disprove psychics, hauntings, alien abductions, etc, but still believe in souls, heaven, hell, angels (in a non-New Age sense), demons, and divine miracles?
Especially if that person accepts most of the findings of science. I can someone working to disprove that which isn't of their god/s to try to shore up their preferred reality of their deity or deities, but (in fear of committing a "no true Scotsman" atrocity here) that person is no more a sceptic than anyone at the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 26, 2010 11:40 AM
This could get interesting. Pamela Gay is going to be at Convergence next weekend, and so am I.
Posted by: 8GR8CATS
|
June 26, 2010 11:41 AM
The whole idea that the word ATHEIST has such negative connotations to so many people makes me think that Skeptic groups are a gentler way to say- You might want to think twice about that... does that really make sense?
My husband resents being called an atheist... Since GOD most certainly never did exist and man made him up...he feels he is just a human sans all the fairytales. He draws an analogy to calling a guitar an "acoustic guitar" because it isn't an electric guitar. The guitar without the electric hook-ups is a GUITAR and with the embellishments it's an electric guitar...
WE- those of us who don't buy into the GOD delusion- are HUMANS-in pure form before any of the BS stories emerged. The ONUS to give themselves a description is upon those who believe in-insert your favorite god-story.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 11:42 AM
I have a problem with religious skeptics in that they give an opening to anyone who holds beliefs without evidence.
How can you dismiss claims that vaccines (to give one example) have caused autism on the grounds there is no evidence to support such a claim and then turn round and say you believe in god and admit you have no evidence for his existence. Where do you draw the line on which beliefs are allowed without evidence and which are not ?
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 11:48 AM
I've never understood the cognitive dissonance it must take to call oneself a sceptic yet still be a religionist of any sort.
I think being a long standing christian and painfully reasoning ones way out of it gives one a greater appreciation for how wrong one can be.
Plenty of skeptics are (in my view) terribly wrong about certain ideas. Shermer for example, an otherwise outstanding skeptic, is a libertarian. You've got to admit that is fucking wierd. Plenty of atheists are anarchists an utterly indefensible and absurd political idea which makes communists and libertarians seem positively rational by comparison.
The broader point of PZ's post is that we all have some crazy ideas and that is ok; what isn't ok is claiming they are scrutiny free zones and out of bounds for critical analysis. Those that practice religon really, really, REALLY think religion qualifies for this kind of exemption and possibly for good(ish) historical reasons which no longer apply.
Posted by: ultim8fury
|
June 26, 2010 11:55 AM
"Iono - not least after the spectacle in Copenhagen"
What spectacle?
I'm not convinced that a rational skeptic can be religious. Thats not to say that religious people can't be rational about some things but to describe yourself as a skeptic and have that huge of a blind spot when it comes to your own beliefs somewhat undermines your claim.
But to reiterate what someone else said, she hides her Christianity well at least in astronomy cast and on her guest appearance on SGU.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 26, 2010 11:57 AM
My grandpappy was a water-witch and there was no way in hell I was going to criticize his magical powers, even though it sounded silly to me even as a child, for fear of the stick (probably not his, but I'm sure someone's). That would have been back-talking, which was punishable. (It's the old, "Believe my bullshit or you'll be sorry!")
Today if I met a water-witch, I would probably find a way to tell them that the whole thing is bogus and probably even show them how dowsing plays off of human ignorance of our own overactive imaginations if I could. Things might get tense, but I would not be supportive of the water-witch's false beliefs.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
June 26, 2010 12:02 PM
On the other hand, not all atheist can be considered neither rational nor skeptic (I've written more on that here)
I do consider atheism the rational conclusion of skepticism, but I don't think that every skeptic need to be an atheist - as long as they realize that they haven't reached their religious position rationally.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
June 26, 2010 12:04 PM
I'm not trying to pshychoanalyze Gay, but I'm wondering which of these three possibilities is the closest to what goes on in her head.
-She thinks she has evidence for her Christian beliefs, in which case she should have no problem being asked to defend herself. If her evidence is good, she could save some souls.
-She knows her position is faith-based, but thinks that faith is a good or neutral thing, which would be odd because apparently she promotes skepticism.
-She knows her position is faith-based and doesn't approve of faith in general, but she thinks her own faith gets a pass when other people's doesn't. This is a hypocritical position and she should expect to be asked to defend it.
Do the people who've listened to her on podcasts think they can shine any light on this?
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:09 PM
It does make it rather hard to attack other beliefs that have no evidence to support them.
I am not at all sure how someone like Gay can avoid charges of hypocrisy if she attacks beliefs such as vaccines cause autism.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
June 26, 2010 12:17 PM
I think it depends on what Gay believes - if she believes in a god who heals etc., then it would be hard, but if she believes in a less personal god, without any interaction, it is not as problematic.
The vaccination-autism link claims are scientific claims, and can be evaluated as such, no matter the religious background of the people involved.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 12:17 PM
I am not at all sure how someone like Gay can avoid charges of hypocrisy if she attacks beliefs such as vaccines cause autism.
Charges of hypocrisy from us; but for millions of people belief in God is a self evident baseline. Denying the existence of God generates as much puzzlement for these people as denying that water is wet.
Besides, there might be a God [requires additional definition] that kicked off the universe 14.5 billion years ago. You don't know that this isn't the case.
It's when the believer starts getting into specifics that they really are in trouble; virgin births, zombies, food replication in 33 AD etc. By straying into christian eschatology Gay has opened herself up for a well deserved savaging.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:23 PM
Well she calls herself a Christian, which normally indicates at least some belief in an interventionist god.
But once you have decided that evidence is not always required to support a belief then the anti-vaxers can just play that card. Unless religious belief is confined to certain types of deism then such belief can be evaluated just the same as the belief that vaccines cause autism.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 26, 2010 12:24 PM
Fight! Fight! Fight!Well, unlike so many other Christians she doesn't bring up her beliefs where there not relevant. I guess I'm just grateful that she's better than 90% of believers. It may not be much, but I'm still gonna be glad she doesn't let faith ruin Astronomycast.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
June 26, 2010 12:25 PM
So we are to believe that these students were honestly confused by the wording of the question, and didn't understand they were expected to answer a question in a class based on the material they have learned in the class. Yeah, that seems so much more likely than the students were being little brats trying to show the professor what they thought of that elitist book-learnin'. I'm sure the world lost what would have been two first-class astronomers.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
June 26, 2010 12:26 PM
That really depends upon what community you belong to. E.g. in Denmark, many people who call themselves Christian don't believe in Jesus as God's run, heaven and hell, or even particularly in God (except that the believe that there is something out there).
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:29 PM
Well there is that, but I remain unconvinced she is due any credit for that.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 26, 2010 12:29 PM
I think you missed one: Gay knows full well that her religious beliefs which were inculcated in her as a child are intellectually indefensible and fundamentally conflict with her adult scientific commitments, and is embarrassed and angry when this childish clutching to irrational beliefs is pointed out. (At least, I get this sense when other religious scientists discuss belief -- they seem far more angry at challenging religious dogma than they do their specific scientific commitments.)
Posted by: Jordan
|
June 26, 2010 12:29 PM
I must respectfully disagree with the blog post. The women is clearly not a skeptic, if she overlooks the belief in her life that has the least bit of evidence. How can she be a skeptic if someone claims "I believe in a god that lives in the sky and watches us pee!". If she's a skeptic she should demand evidence. However, she herself believes in the sky-god, and thus cannot say "No that makes no sense".
In essence, she is a broken skeptic. I agree one cannot be a "perfect" skeptic in every detail of your life, but this is ridiculous. Is she not saying on some level "My god makes perfect sense, but your god is just ridiculous?"
Screw that. I don't care if she's smart and typically logical and rational, this is enough to qualify her as non-skeptical.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
June 26, 2010 12:30 PM
No, not really. The whole basis of the anti-vax movement is the claims of evidence (read: anecdotes) and science (read: wakefield's lies). Without them, there wouldn't be any anti-vax movement. So using faith (not belief) as an excuse, would not work for them.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 12:30 PM
interesting... I think the real problem revealed with these two students is how compartmentalizing magical belief and scientific knowledge works in these moderate believers, and disables their cognitive abilities. They stuff them into different mental drawers, and access them via keywords that relate to one or the other. And when suddenly one uses a keyword they think belongs into the other category, they automatically and involuntary switch to the mindset that goes with the keyword. and so, like hypnotized people in crappy movies, they are incapable of realizing what's happening, and instead switch tracks involuntarily and write down magic where science was asked for. And then they complain about the professor who accidentally triggered them like that.
poor poor brainwashed believers, unable to prevent the sudden, involuntary shift in mindsets, need to be protected from trigger-words
:-p
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 12:30 PM
But once you have decided that evidence is not always required to support a belief then the anti-vaxers can just play that card.
Unless you accept Goulds magisteria argument which a lot of people, including many anti vaxers do. Besides, they don't claim not to have evidence, on the contrary they consider themselves on the leading edge of a ground breaking exposure of a global conspiracy to ... well it's a conspiracy! And they have evidence! So there. They'd be horrified to have their position considered "faith based"; so I think the danger you highlight here is pretty modest.
I do agree that this kind of thinking can corrode critical thinking generally; exhibit A being poor PG's post.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:31 PM
In the context of a discussion on religious belief it is rather disingenuous for a person to call themselves a Christian when what they really mean is that they identify culturally as a Christian.
Even Richard Dawkins describes himself as a cultural Christian.
Posted by: Rillion
|
June 26, 2010 12:33 PM
I think I agree with this post in its entirety. If religion gets taken off the table for skeptical consideration when someone religious is around, why not any other favored area of belief? If we demanded purity (and who is "we," anyway? Who are "we" to demand anything?) in order to consider someone a skeptic, there would be no skeptics. Skeptics are people who try to think critically and see the world for what it really is, not people who always succeed in doing so. There's a difference between respecting that people have the right to suspend skepticism regarding certain topics and respecting their non-skeptical beliefs regarding those topics.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 26, 2010 12:35 PM
Oh bullshit, Brian. You can make up any old story about what started the universe while ignoring everything else we know and they all have the exact same weight: 0. It's the Great Cosmic Smurf Barbecue all over again.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
June 26, 2010 12:36 PM
You fail to realize two things:
1) Many of these people consider themselves Christian - there are a lot of pick-and-choose religious people out there (e.g. some Danish priests believe in reincarnation)
2) To some people, being a cultural Christian is the same as being a Christian.
Posted by: Matrim
|
June 26, 2010 12:40 PM
Yeah, that is an interesting issue...I remember listening to the Non-Prophets after Matt had come back from TAM, and he mentioned that they specifically said during the opening announcements to lay off of religion.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:41 PM
I think you might have misunderstood me.
There are some Christians, and theists for that matter, who belief without evidence and know that they believe without evidence. However most think they do have evidence to support their belief.
I can rephrase what I said like this:
How does a Christian who believes they have evidence the existence of god differ from an anti-vaxer who beliefs they have evidence for vaccines causing autism ?
Now you and I would argue neither side truly has any evidence, but if you are the Christian how can you argue that you have evidence but the anti-vaxer does not ?
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
June 26, 2010 12:43 PM
I find it really annoying when religious apologists/accomodationists accuse us of being "hurtful" by making fun of religion. Just try and think of another context in which people attempt to use this argument. Are people "hurtful" when they criticize each other's ideas in politics? In the professional world? In the courtroom? How about in those cases where religious people claim that everyone not accepting their specific claims about reality are going to be tortured forever by their loving god?
No, we aren't being hurtful; you are being childish. If you can't handle a discussion wherein you aren't patted on the head and given a gold star for spouting beliefs that could easily be considered unreasonable on their own merits, then you don't belong in a debate with grownups. Please go back to coloring and allow us to have our discussion on our own terms.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:43 PM
No, I am aware of both those things.
I still think to claim you are Christian when you reject the main tenets of Christianity is not being honest. Especially if you do so in the context of a discussion on religious belief.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 12:47 PM
@Artina.
Oh bullshit, Brian. You can make up any old story about what started the universe while ignoring everything else we know and they all have the exact same weight: 0. It's the Great Cosmic Smurf Barbecue all over again.
Oh bullshit yourself:-)
It's perfectly defensible to postulate an eternal God that started the universe and doesn't do much else. There isn't much point I'll grant you, but it could be true. In fact most thoughtful people enroute to atheism make a stop here.
You can't be absolutely certain about the origins of the universe, I mean this is exactly what we castigate theists and fundamentalists for!
Posted by: Rillion
|
June 26, 2010 12:50 PM
How is "It could be true" a good defense for postulating anything?
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:50 PM
Well if you do postulate such a god you rule out certain cosmological hypotheses, so I am not sure it is that defensible.
You can postulate a god who does absolutely nothing at all if you like. I don't think anyone can rule that sort of god out.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 12:50 PM
I still think to claim you are Christian when you reject the main tenets of Christianity is not being honest. Especially if you do so in the context of a discussion on religious belief.
That mah friend is the problem. It's a moving target. There are as many christian theologies as there are christians, but it would be interesting to hear some specifics from PG. That could get ugly.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 12:51 PM
well, since SC isn't here to do it, I will ;-)
do you know anything about "anarchism" that didn't come from the Sex Pistols? if not, kindly refrain from having an opinion on its level of absurdity until you at least learn what it even is.Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 26, 2010 12:52 PM
Well belief that Jesus, as a person, existed would seem to be one. Even if you do reject the belief that he was the son of god.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 12:54 PM
@Jadehawk
Aha. See!! An anarchist who is an atheist. That I consider very, very wierd. Yeah I know a bit about it.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 26, 2010 12:57 PM
Aha. See!! An anarchist who is an atheist. That I consider very, very wierd. Yeah I know a bit about it.
Please, explain how that is weird. Maybe I will be amused by the answer.
Posted by: Rillion
|
June 26, 2010 12:58 PM
I don't see any strong connection between atheism and one's political stance aside from being highly unlikely to be a theocrat.
Posted by: hirise_hugger
|
June 26, 2010 12:58 PM
Went to go read the original posts, and was surprised at how much it irked me.
Dr. Gay said, "they weren't allowed to believe in the second coming of Christ, at least not if they wanted to get a good grade."
Who said they weren't allowed to believe in whatever they want? But these students' beliefs in the Rapture does not translate into credit on a science exam. Rapture != Science exam credit; see how that works? Is it the faculty's fault that a student happens to believe in something that does not reconcile with science? Her comment that the instructor does "not allow them to believe" is patently untrue and a brazen distortion of the facts.
This is real simple: 1) Students can believe whatever they want. 2) To get a good grade, students need to correctly answer questions on the material covered.
Fun thought experiment: I am given a cosmology test, and I answer all questions with Biblical responses, based on my undergrad studies in Sunday School. In Dr. Pamela Gay Science 101, I would get partial credit without even knowing what the class was about. In other words, any Christian gets an automatic percentage for non-answers. Does she provide the same credit handicap to Muslims, Mormons, and Hindus? I happen to believe that the world will end when the Hindu turtle holding the earth topples over. Partial credit, yes?
It's appalling to think that this astronomy professor actually grades real students' test results. "Exhibit A" for why religious people may have a built-in conflict of interests when teaching scientific concepts. If they could keep their hands off the mysticism there would be no problem, but this discussion shows that might be difficult for them to do -- here we have one PhD publicly stating that she would have given credit for Bible answers. *shudders*
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 26, 2010 12:59 PM
Unless you are arguing that the Great Cosmic Smurf Barbecue is defensible, then no, an eternal God who started the universe isn't defensible either. There is no basis for such a belief.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 12:59 PM
Well belief that Jesus, as a person, existed would seem to be one. Even if you do reject the belief that he was the son of god.
Sure. He was a middling moraliser with some ideas that were ahead of his time and a whole bunch that were awful. In my view.
However, many people see him as a great moral teacher and I think that at least a position that can be argued. That doesn't seem to crazy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 12:59 PM
well no, they still "believe in something", they're not merely cultural christians. it's a somthingism flavored by their culture, and for them that's Christianity. it's stupid, and very hard to fight.Posted by: eleusis
|
June 26, 2010 1:00 PM
PZ, I think you misread Seth's post. He wasn't saying he "wants us to be especially nice to people who believe in Jesus." He didn't say that at all. He said we should be consistent: reject religious people from skepticism, or don't mock their beliefs while simultaneously inviting them on and being friendly to them, and acting like they are part of skepticism.
His point was right on.
"He worsens his position, too, by claiming that everyone on SGU was lying when they accepted Gay as a skeptic while thinking that souls are a load of bunk."
What he actually said was, "To me, there's a dishonesty inherent in this behavior... The religious skeptics are told that they are part of the club, told that they are 'one of us', but no one seems to see a problem in treating them like outsiders anyway."
Which is also spot on.
PZ said: "I'm particularly disgusted and amused by the claim that it would be "more respectful to present ourselves honestly and openly" while demanding that we stop mocking the absurdities of religion."
NO. Acting honestly could also entail simply rejecting religious people from skepticism, an option that Seth states explicitly. You only read the half of his statements that you wanted to read.
Posted by: Rillion
|
June 26, 2010 1:04 PM
BigMKnows,
Care to explain how it's inconsistent to be consistent in one's skepticism by refusing to refrain from applying it to religion in the presence of believers?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 1:04 PM
i'm not an anarchist, but i do not find it particularly absurd, that's all. A lot of it can be incorporated very well into non-anarchist systems and improve them greatly that way :-)Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 1:05 PM
Unless you are arguing that the Great Cosmic Smurf Barbecue is defensible, then no, an eternal God who started the universe isn't defensible either. There is no basis for such a belief.
Not at all. Keep it sufficently vague and it's perfectly defensible. Your Great Cosmic Smurf Barbecue already breaks that rule.
An eternal universe versus an eternal God (no details other than he/she/they/it is super all powerful and created the universe) is a toss up which marginally comes down on the eternal universe side. That is my position, but it cetainly isn't a slam dunk. Even Dawkins our very own atheist Pope wouldn't endorse your absolute position.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
June 26, 2010 1:08 PM
I'm sorry, but but even if the teacher who gave the students a zero were a beliving Christian himself (a point that Gay fails to address) the second coming of Christ is not a valid answer. At worst, the second coming only applies to the end of Earth; at best, the end of human civilization. It's a scientific and theologically untenable answer to how the universe will end no matter how you look at it.
Besides, we know the universe can only end after the second coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon.
Posted by: eleusis
|
June 26, 2010 1:08 PM
"The skeptic movement will be inclusive and allow anyone to participate, and participation means your ideas will be scrutinized and criticized and sometimes mocked and sometimes praised."
This is a nice, idealistic idea, but not very realistic. If Bill Donohue showed up to a skeptical meeting, claiming to be a skeptic, would we really take him seriously? I personally DON'T think there's a place in skepticism for religious people -- whose fundamental worldview includes magic or superstition. I'd rather have an atheist dowser. Their fundamental worldview is sound; we only need to work on one small problem.
Posted by: KG
|
June 26, 2010 1:10 PM
- Brian, DoTTBrian,
It's "utterly indefensible and absurd" to make such a claim without making any attempt to support it. I doubt if you can. I speak as an ex-anarchist.
Posted by: eleusis
|
June 26, 2010 1:11 PM
Rillion: Did I say that? What you and PZ are both missing is that kowtowing to religious people was not the only option presented by Seth.
Read my next post.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 1:15 PM
i'm not an anarchist, but i do not find it particularly absurd, that's all. A lot of it can be incorporated very well into non-anarchist systems and improve them greatly that way :-)
Well I wouldn't disagree with you. However, I've had bracing discussions with anarchists on the question of global governance and I find the fundamental concept absurd and unsustainable.
That said, integrating citizens into the governing process as tightly as possible, up to and including a system of regular online referenda to direct the governing agenda; well I'd be all for that.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 1:15 PM
well no, it's not actually defensible, since it's still unparsimonious. it's merely uncontradictable with evidence, which makes it easier to cling to.Posted by: ric.larsson
|
June 26, 2010 1:16 PM
"Define variables, motivate assumptions and approximations" - the first line on every exam I've ever had in math, physics in general and astronomy in specifics.
What was their motivations for thinking that Jesus would come back and kill us all? I severely doubt they included any motivations, or at least none that could be qualified as a good reason...
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 26, 2010 1:18 PM
I clearly pointed out that Seth was presenting a dichotomy, but there was a third option. Did you miss that?
Kicking people out of the movement for being insufficientl skeptical is not an option. Gay is a valued member of that movement. She's welcome, unless she starts insisting that everyone else defer to her superstitions.
I think it would be fantastic if Bill Donohue showed up at TAM or CFI. The shredding would be epic.
Posted by: eleusis
|
June 26, 2010 1:26 PM
Haha, Donohue at TAM. That would be epic.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 1:27 PM
It's "utterly indefensible and absurd" to make such a claim without making any attempt to support it. I doubt if you can. I speak as an ex-anarchist.
The basic tenet of anarchism is a individualism and a complete lack of authority. That seems to overlook how humans are. A brief look at history will convince most people that anarchism must always end in tyranny because, for the most part, that is what has happened.
Now, variations on that theme; devolution of powers or ramped up referenda driven citizen politics with numerous checks and balances that empower the citizen over government etc. I'm all for; but it's still government. Any attempt to even regulate the environment in which an anarchic society is to flourish is government. So yeah I do think it's a stupid and mostly unproductive idea and probably why you are an ex-anarchist.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
June 26, 2010 1:28 PM
Martin Gardner,
god rest his soulummay he rest in peacewe'll miss him, was a sceptic*. and a "theist".He was a pretty good example of how to be a sceptic while retaining one little primitive wart of belief. Or of how to be a theist while otherwise having a thoroughly scientific world-view.
Can one really be sceptical about everything?
*sp?: skeptic, sckeptic, scheptik
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 1:32 PM
Sorry for contributing to the derailment, but
Brian @61
Seriously? You think an American Idol system of governance would be a good idea?
Posted by: Rillion
|
June 26, 2010 1:35 PM
BigMKnows,
I did read your post. I am asking why you think that we must choose to either reject "unpure" skeptics or refrain from criticizing their beliefs in order to be consistent. Consistently what? Certainly not skeptical.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
June 26, 2010 1:36 PM
My take on PZ's option #3:
If we skeptics can accept Penn Jilette into our ranks while vocally criticizing and even mocking many of his loopy Libertarian beliefs, why can't we do the same for Pamela Gay and her loopy Christian beliefs?
Posted by: SarahContrara
|
June 26, 2010 1:37 PM
I'm somewhat conflicted here.
On one hand, I don't think that it's cool to make passive-aggressive digs at someone else. If the conversation about the soul happened knowing full well that they had a theist on the line, that's kind of borderline for me.
I have no problem with addressing the issue; if one had been straightforward and asked her to explain how she can be skeptical elsewhere but seemingly not when it comes to religion, great. If she'd said, "I don't want to talk about it," hey, fine.
If they didn't remember that she was a theist when having the conversation, no big deal to me. Just have to accept that if you hold to a belief that most skeptics find untenable, you'll eventually run into one who will treat that topic as any other.
At the same time, if she was someone who advocated for alternative autism treatments because she believes her son had really benefited from them (i.e., if that was her skeptical blind spot), I would feel equally uncomfortable if the guys had made a dig about those treatments while ignoring that she was in the room and believed in them. It's not particularly useful nor kind to make a snide comment to someone while you're within earshot of the person it's directed at.
Still, no one "speaks" on behalf of the Skeptic community, do they? So to use this as a bit of an indictment seems off somehow. If you thought the guy said something inappropriate, then call him out on it, not the whole community.
(Her response did nothing to sway me in Seth's direction, though.)
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 1:37 PM
Seriously? You think an American Idol system of governance would be a good idea?
No. That seems a little extreme even for my tastes and probably unmanageable given technological limitations.
I would certainly favour citizens having a greater influence on government than is currently the case in most democracies. Wouldn't you?
Posted by: nejishiki
|
June 26, 2010 1:38 PM
skepticism is a method, atheism is a conclusion.
A Skeptical movement will embrace all those who are interested in applying skepticism, and their arguments will be evaluated on their merits.
Also, different 'scams' are more difficult for people to detect. Being skeptical of tarot, mediums, homeopathy, chakras and dowsing is much easier than being skeptical of religion because these beliefs are marginalized in our society. Religion has the advantage of money, cultural history, and millenia of apologetics. And with religion, there is usually no "gotcha!" kind of experiment to perform, like you can do with homeopathy and psychic phenomena.
Posted by: Rillion
|
June 26, 2010 1:40 PM
I'm sure Penn Jillette is grateful that The Science Pundit is still willing to consider him a skeptic in spite of his political views.
Posted by: Lyra
|
June 26, 2010 1:40 PM
I agree that this Gay is being ridiculous regarding the cosmology students' answers. The students should have known that this was a science class and as such they were required to write scientific answers. For example, let's say this was a math class instead. Let's say the students were expected to answer the question, "3x + 12 = 15. Find X." Would this woman think it was acceptable for the students to draw a big arrow to the X ("X is over here! --->X") and then complain when their math teacher gave them a 0? After all, the teacher had said that the student should "FIND X," and clearly they did! Good great cheese. If these students can't realize that the answers they give on their exams need to be relevant to the classes they are in, then they need to learn such really fast.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 26, 2010 1:43 PM
I watched an interview with Dennett on Charlie Rose yesterday (hosted by Bill Moyers) in which Dennett said that he might believe in God, it depends on what "God" means. If all you are saying is that "God" is a placeholder for anything then you are saying nothing. And then if you start redefining words like "God", why can't I redefine the word "barbecue"?
Posted by: Savior Breath
|
June 26, 2010 1:47 PM
@#12
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 1:52 PM
um, no. wtf? some versions of anarchism maybe, but certainly not all, annd certainly not a basic tenet of the whole thingPosted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 1:53 PM
I'm sure Penn Jillette is grateful that The Science Pundit is still willing to consider him a skeptic in spite of his political views.
That is a great example! Those guys dropped some real clangers in their "Bullshit" show, and lets not forget Bill Maher.
A not insignificant proportion of atheists are also AGW deniers, a dying breed, but there are some pretty hardy types still sincerely banging away on that subject.
Nah. The list of points of disagreement is LONG and insisting everyone be on EXACTLY the same page will acheive nothing. Besides, at the end of the day the good ideas will percolate out as long as they can be argued for in public.
Posted by: Toidel_Mahoney
|
June 26, 2010 1:54 PM
Darwinian Sodomite professors think that persecuting Christians with bad grades for telling the truth about the Gospel of Jesus and the ultimate fate he has in store for the universe on account of sin are only deceiving themselves.
From the Roman Emperors of old to Kim Jong-Il of today, evolutionists have tried slaughtering Christians becuase of the truth they proclaim about their sin and its ultimate consequences. It has all been to no avail. The Gospel still marches on!
The faith that could not be wiped out by Diocletian, Stalin, Mao, and the ACLU will not be deterred by a bunch of effete sodomites handing out F's!
Posted by: nejishiki
|
June 26, 2010 1:58 PM
#80
I bet poe. Any takers?
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 1:59 PM
But isn't that what you proposed? "Regular online referenda to direct the government agenda" sounds an awful lot like the American Idol model to me. The only difference is that AI does it by phone. So maybe a cross between Pharyngulation and American Idol? Yeah, that sounds exactly like a political system moving in the right direction.
No. The misinformed populace doesn't require greater influence. Most people are easily manipulated to want the opposite of what's in the public interest. Just look at the resistance to public healthcare in the US, or the climate change deniers, or what happened with Prop 8. On any given issue, the people who are knowledgeable and who would make good decisions are in the minority.
I think the main problems with democracies are the inadequacy of the media and the overwhelming influence of multinational corporations (including Big Religion). Neither of those problems can be fixed by turning government over to the whims of online popularity polls.
Posted by: eleusis
|
June 26, 2010 2:02 PM
Lyra: that was a beautiful example of how words have specific meanings in specific contexts, and the students should have known that when they were asked how they believe the universe will end, they were being asked to evaluate the scientific models presented in class, not regurgitate irrelevant superstitions.
Posted by: Andromeda
|
June 26, 2010 2:05 PM
As an undergraduate astronomy student myself, I had to really laugh at Pamela's story about the question on the cosmology exam. Just because there's the word "believe" in the question, you can't expect to write anything you want and get away with it. It's a SCIENCE class. I was amazed that Pamela defended those two students, and that blog post of hers really did annoy me.
Posted by: eleusis
|
June 26, 2010 2:06 PM
Is Toidel for real or a troll?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 26, 2010 2:08 PM
Let's see, no spittle, no obvious misspellings, knows a current head of state. Probably.Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 2:09 PM
What I said about democracies in #82 should be construed as referring to current real world democracies, not democracies in the abstract.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 2:10 PM
um, no. wtf? some versions of anarchism maybe, but certainly not all, annd certainly not a basic tenet of the whole thing
Oh I think it's pretty central.
I wouldn't disagree that versions of anarchism do move away from that idea, but then you're just into variations on the theme of governance; each of those can be discussed and evaluated.
Nonetheless pure anarchism rejects any kind of state, authority structure or compulsion to conform to agreed norms. That is nuts. It'd be nuts in an environment with limitless resources; it's especially nuts in the context of our world and our species.
Posted by: John
|
June 26, 2010 2:10 PM
I thought everyone knew that the universe ends with The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.
Posted by: Stewart
|
June 26, 2010 2:12 PM
So Pamela Gay is angry at the professor for not having given any points for the Second Coming as an answer. Nobody has explicitly mentioned the magnitude of the scandal had he accepted it as a legitimate answer in an astronomy exam.
Posted by: rturpin
|
June 26, 2010 2:17 PM
The interesting question is why otherwise reasonable people retain the beliefs that they do. The fact that someone like Gay remains so attached to her religion should give pause when skeptics are discussing topics with other believers, from homeopathy to crystal healing. Once someone latches onto belief in a certain way, reason and evidence are no longer a relevant conversation to them. I'm not sure what might be.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 2:19 PM
I think the main problems with democracies are the inadequacy of the media and the overwhelming influence of multinational corporations (including Big Religion). Neither of those problems can be fixed by turning government over to the whims of online popularity polls.
That is a separate issue, althought you are absolutely right it is central. Particularly in the US. However, not all democracies have the crippling problems the US has in the areas you highlight. I live in Sweden and we don't have fox news, big religion and corporations are closely regulated. For the most part, broadened paticipation here and in many other EU states would be beneficial.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 26, 2010 2:19 PM
Patricia Gay in math class
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 26, 2010 2:26 PM
I've seen Toidel before, but I fail to recall their substance. Sorry.
Posted by: kurt
|
June 26, 2010 2:29 PM
#93: Calvin and Hobbes reference FTW!
Regarding the OP, writing like this make me look forward to PZ's book.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 26, 2010 2:32 PM
First, for those who care, I wrote a lengthy response to Dr. Gay on her blog.
Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls wrote:
Though, at first blush, it seems plausible to postulate such an entity, it is, in fact, entirely unreasonable. Why? Well, you give the answer youself, just a few sentences later:
See, the hypothetical creator god also can’t be certain about the origins of the universe. How, after all, does s/h/sit know that s/h/it’s not s/h/itself inside an even more mind-bogglingly massive Matrix-style simulator?
It’s the same problem Turing uncovered in his brilliant Halting Problem.
There really are truths that are unknowable, and truths about origins and fundamental natures are the most obvious examples. And there aren’t any “get out of jail free” cards, either.
So, if even a creator god can’t know if it itself was created or not, what sense does it make to call it a creator god in the first place?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: eleusis
|
June 26, 2010 2:39 PM
"How, after all, does s/h/it know that s/h/it’s not s/h/itself inside an even more mind-bogglingly massive Matrix-style simulator?"
This makes more sense if you take out the slashes. :-)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813
|
June 26, 2010 2:41 PM
Chesterton's Father Brown was skeptical of anything outside of Church dogma - see 'The Blast of the Book,' for instance.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 2:43 PM
rejection of formalized (AKA ossified) governmental structures is not even close to "individualism"; that's just absurd. very few anarchists are anti-society.Posted by: SarahContrara
|
June 26, 2010 2:46 PM
The interesting question is why otherwise reasonable people retain the beliefs that they do. The fact that someone like Gay remains so attached to her religion should give pause when skeptics are discussing topics with other believers, from homeopathy to crystal healing. Once someone latches onto belief in a certain way, reason and evidence are no longer a relevant conversation to them. I'm not sure what might be.
I suspect people hold onto these ideas because of fear of the alternative(s). They ignore the evidence that there is no God, because they are afraid of what a world without Him would look and act like. They hold onto alternative treatments for an illness because the mainstream ones are inadequate or have scary side effects.
Posted by: John
|
June 26, 2010 2:47 PM
For those of you that didn't know Pamela Gay was a christian she certainly does not try to hide this. she mentions her faith on her website and even links to a page describing what she believes.
http://www.starstryder.com/about-me/this-i-believe/
Posted by: No god...
|
June 26, 2010 2:48 PM
PZ, will you be my dad?
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 2:55 PM
Though the problem of an ignorant citizenry is not as dire in Sweden as it is in the States, I still don't trust that the public in Europe (or in Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia, NZ etc.) is immune to the influence of the big corporations and media propaganda (after all, the media itself doesn't work for public interest, but for profit). Not enough to give them unfettered access to the keys to the car, anyway.
The other problem is that people tend to care more about their own self-interest than the public interest (naturally enough). Ask anyone whether they'd vote to have higher taxes and they'll likely say no, regardless of the consequence to the public purse. Why vote for, say, publicly funded early childcare when you don't have kids, or vote for subsidies for industry A in another region, when your community needs support for industry B even though the overall benefit of industry A is higher? Just think of the anti-abortion activists who think denying other women rights to abortion is the right call, but think their own abortion is a special case. The government should be making decisions based on what is better for society overall, but individuals tend to choose what's best for themselves.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 26, 2010 3:02 PM
Nonetheless pure anarchism rejects any kind of state, authority structure or compulsion to conform to agreed norms.
The anarcho-syndicalists I know will be stunned to learn they have no norms with which to conform. o_O
They must be joking about all that workers solidarity stuff, eh?
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 26, 2010 3:13 PM
Ibis3 wrote:
And yet, here in Tempe, Arizona, we just overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to increase the sales tax. All of Maricopa County approved one a decade or so ago, too.
Ask somebody if they want to pay more in taxes and, of course, the answer will be a resounding, “no.”
Ask instead if they prefer more taxes or reduced police and fire protection, along with drastic cuts to other public services, and most will prefer more taxes.
Offer good value for the money, such as significant upgrades to the public transit system, and many will go for it as well.
That actually brings me to what puzzles me the most about anti-govenment people, especially the anarchists. There are wonderful things that societies can and do do that are either wildly impractical or downright impossible without collective organization on the scale of a large government. The interstate highway system, the abolition of slavery, interplanetary exploration — none of these things would have happened in the States without the Federal government.
Do y’all really want to live in a world where you can’t drive your car from coast to coast, or where doing so would take you through huge swaths of areas with rampant slavery, or where Neal Armstrong never set foot on the Moon?
The evils of “socialized” medicine puzzle me as well. Socialized police and fire protection are good, as is a socialized road system and air traffic control. For that matter, socialized regulation of food and drug safety is good — or would y’all really rather live in the world of Sinclair’s The Jungle and never be confident about how much salicylic acid or other substances are in that aspirin in the cabinet? And let’s not forget the socialized military we have. Would you sleep better at night with your tax burden cut by more than half, if it meant that you’d have to protect your home by yourself in the event of foreign invasion?
But, somehow, doing the same for health care as we’ve done for all the rest is commie-pinko-satanistic-chid-rapingly evil. Go figure.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: kennykjc24
|
June 26, 2010 3:24 PM
I'm surprised at Pamela Gay. But it just goes to show that even intelligent people can look like fools when it comes to defending their irrational beliefs.
I've always been frustrated by the skeptics movements way of dealing with things like this. Religion is the biggest offender of reason, and I wish more skeptics would take a greater stance against irrational ramblings by people like Pamela Gay.
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 26, 2010 3:27 PM
The idea that its okay to go after some supernatural ideas but not others has made me a bit uncomfortable sometimes. Just like a Texas sodomy law that applies only to homosexual, its pretty easy to guess which supernatural get the pass: God and the virgin birth are off-limits, Hinduism and New Age is fair game.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 3:29 PM
Great first half. Go USA!!
@Aquaria & Jadehawk.
Anarchism is pretty splintered, which I suppose given the name, one should expect.
My main beefs are with the following ideas :
1) That the state should be abolished.
2) That authority is inherently "bad".
3) The society is somehow self assembling.
4) That no one should be compelled to do anything they don't want to. Like pay taxes or obey traffic regulations.
These are stupid ideas which simply defy the physics of human nature and the overwhelming evidence of several thousand years of documented social experiment.
However, anarchists are also a little schizophrenic because some recommend the violent overthrow of the existing political paradigm. This obviously is somewhat at odds with many of the other concepts, and an idea that is both stupid and dangerous.
The rest of anarchism boils down to variations on these themes, some of which I can go along with depending on how far removed they are from the core ideas outlined above.
@Ibis3.
I detect quite a bit of paternalism there. The problems you outline are real, but people are smarter than you think. There is an anti democratic streak in your reasoning I'd keep a closer eye on.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 26, 2010 3:39 PM
People are still missing the basic points of PZ’s post, which I thought were actually spot-on. Permit me to attempt a summary:
* Dr. Gay is a good scientist and skeptic, except when it comes to Christianity.
* Every other good scientist and skeptic also has skeptical failings, some worse than others.
* We should welcome the good work done by good scientists and skeptics, even despite the fact that they’re less than perfect.
* We should not give people a pass for skeptical failings, even if they’re otherwise sane and rational.
* None of us have the bandwidth to do everything. Specialization is good. Just because your focus is one area of specialization, that doesn’t mean you have to also give equal time to everything in the entire field.
Even shorter: “Great job on the galactic evolution, Dr. Gay, but why don’t you have a talk with our mutual friends about how it’s time you grew out of your Christianity?”
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: briclondon
|
June 26, 2010 3:40 PM
#80: 'effete sodomites handing out F's!' I want some of that!
On a more substantial note, as a convinced Wagnerian, I would feel constrained to answer "Gotterdammerung" How many points do I get on Ms Gay's system?
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 26, 2010 3:42 PM
@kennykjc24: yea I'm surprised as well. I'm a big fan of her Astromony podcast and its never bothered me that she's Christian at all.
I wonder if Pamela Gay's shock at the 0/20 isn't as much a feature of grade inflation as anything. Students don't earn their grade, the philosophy now is more that they start out at 100 and professors must prove why they should earn less. In the latter context it would make sense that a misunderstood question should just be taken off the test.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 26, 2010 3:49 PM
That's a two-umlaut word, which isn't bad, but you left out both of them. 0 points.
Posted by: hibob
|
June 26, 2010 3:49 PM
Prof. Gay left out the obvious choice for the students: If they were unsure whether a university cosmology professor was asking about their personal beliefs on an exam - THEY COULD HAVE ASKED HIM. They knew there was a disconnect between the literal wording of the question and the subject matter for the course. If they honestly were there to take a test on cosmology and not just upset that the subject matter conflicted with their personal beliefs, why not just ask for clarification? The professor was right there in the room.
On the broader topic, there's a truism for advocacy organisations: to broaden your base, narrow your focus. It's not just about division of labor, it's about getting things done at all. Not worrying about dissuading fellow travelers is fine for a blog or a discussion group. Whatever the stated goal of the blog or group is, the real goal is to blog or discuss. But for a skeptical org with a charter to change a specific thing, "fellow travelers" are the exact target audience they are trying to motivate. Take stopping alt-med fraud and keeping the government from funding poorly designed alt-med studies at NCCAM, for example. The org would need to find, motivate and organize enough people with enough interest to get the job done. They would be interacting with victims, customers, and potential customers of alt-med products, and trying change their minds. They would be interacting with congress critters, and trying to twist their arms. Only the first of those groups would have many atheists, and taking a position on religion (atheism, accommodation, turtles all the way down, etc) would just lead to internal debate and external marginalization. Think about meetings for organizations you've been in that have gotten out of hand. Now think about how those meetings would have gone with the additional item on the agenda of formulating a position statement on religion, or on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
There's a big difference between refusing to publicly affiliate with atheism and embracing accomodation. Both are probably good tactics for an advocacy group right now, but only accommodation is hypocritical for a skeptic group.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 26, 2010 3:58 PM
Gay has now clarified her post, sorta. This 20 point question was a throwaway question on a 101 exam.
It's still thoroughly baffling. 20 points sounds like a lot if it's your typical ~100 point exam...and to just toss it on with the expectation that everyone will automatically get all of the points is just plain weird.
I do throwaway questions too. On the first exam, I always have a multiple choice question in which they have to come up with their instructor's name. 2 points. And no, they don't get to give any answer. The point is to see if they've actually paid attention in class.
I'll sometimes do a general survey sort of question for an easy couple of points, like "What was your favorite lecture in the course so far?" Again, maybe 2 points, and it also helps me evaluate what they find interesting. Any answer will do in that case.
But 20 points? Gay's colleague is a little weird.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 3:58 PM
Brian, at least your 4th point is absolute and utter crap, and has more to do with punk anti-everything-ism than with serious anarchism. anarchism as a philosophy is not anti-society. even the anarcho-capitalists believe that some mutually agreed-upon rules have to be obeyed, and they're the most far-out, libertarian, individualist anarchists.
Posted by: Joerg
|
June 26, 2010 4:05 PM
Seeing how often people mangle your name, this is actually a pretty harsh question...
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 26, 2010 4:08 PM
Do you accept "Our Cephalopodic Overlord"?
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 4:09 PM
#105
In my earlier post I ought to have said "On any given issue, the people who are knowledgeable and who would make good decisions are more often than not in the minority.
#108
I see a lot of very dumb people. And a lot of apathetic people. And a lot of misinformed, misled people. Even with what should be very simple questions, even highly educated, intelligent people show gross misjudgement (this example of Dr. Gay and the students who think mythology is an adequate answer on a science exam is a case in point).
I wish there were a better system of governance, one that would eradicate the influence of stupidity in all its forms. But in pragmatic terms, I think a representative democracy such as we have is the best option available. My answer for improvement lies in better educating voters and mitigating the influence of profit-driven interests. As I said before, I don't think making it easier for the stupid to formulate policy isn't the way to make the current situation better.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 26, 2010 4:09 PM
Hmm. Had an aunt that actually *ran* the mental ward at a hospital, at least when she was on her meds for schizophrenia. The point made about people treating religion with kid gloves in science is a bit like having a mental patent, on meds or not, running the mental ward. You ***hope*** they are on their meds, when dealing with what ever subject you happen to be working on, since they do well at the job *then*, but, at the same time, you just know there are times they forget, or choose, not to take them, and then you will be dealing with a complete fruit loop. Only, its worse with religion, since, by definition, what would be complete insanity when applied to a lone person who is convinced that, say, Lolth is real and commanding them, becomes something completely fracking different, and has to be carefully handled, the moment its one person from the Church of Lolth, down the street, with a congregation of 50 people.
And, **that** is the real problem here.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 4:15 PM
Proofreading fail.
is the way
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 4:21 PM
anarchism as a philosophy is not anti-society. even the anarcho-capitalists believe that some mutually agreed-upon rules have to be obeyed, and they're the most far-out, libertarian, individualist anarchists.
OK. I'm happy to take that criticism, having been in the movement you have a clearer idea of what is mainstream than I do. In my defence I will note that self confessed anarchists have raised it in discussion as an objection to global governance and governance in general.
At least I think we can both agree it's a silly idea, but something of a strawman.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 26, 2010 4:27 PM
The anarchist position is generally much more nuance than this.
Here's a video of the most well-known anarchist alive today, Noam Chomsky, explaining the philosophy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0
Posted by: Kevpod
|
June 26, 2010 4:27 PM
Pamela, if you're reading this, my one request is that you use the term "farther" rather than "further" when referring to physical distance. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/further-versus-farther.aspx
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 26, 2010 4:30 PM
PZ, at about the same moment you posted your #114, I posted a very similar response on Dr. Gay's blog.
To be charitable, I can see the 20 points out of 100 being reasonable if there was a somewhat-likely conflation of factors.
First and foremost, Dr. Gay describes it as happening in “an Astonomy 101 class for humanities majors” “[s]everal years ago.” Such classes are exactly the sort of place where I’ve seen the most of those kinds of throw-away questions, as the students usually need the most amount of coddling. And, to be honest, this is also prime territory for grade inflation as well.
Second, she just describes it as “an exam.” Was it the final exam for the semester, worth a quarter to a third of the course grade? That would be unreasonable, sure. But if it were just one of several minor exams throughout the course, it might not be so unreasonable at all — especially if it were an exam scheduled right before spring break (or the like). And, if it were a pop quiz, it’d be entirely reasonable.
Oh — and I’ve got your “Who is your instructor?” question beat. At Mesa Community College, I asked students at one point for their own name on a quiz (or test or assignment or some such…this was a decade ago) and had them get it worng. Of course, this generally lowered their grade from a C or D to a D or F, and not from an A to a B, but it was still mind-blowing.
Even worse…the assignment I caught the most flak for was on creating a spreadsheet with certain requirements. The preceding lecture I started by hinting, in no uncertain terms, that they should pay close attention because a) this was a potentially challenging assignment and b) this lecture would be of great help in completing it. Oh — and I gave them all their assignments at the beginning of the semester, so they knew what they were in for.
I then proceeded to, Socratic-style, do the entire assignment for them in class. At every relevant point, I stopped, asked for questions, made sure everybody was comfortable with what had gone on so far, waited for people to stop typing, all that sort of thing.
A small majority of students followed along, did the assignment with me, typed their name at the top, handed me a floppy as they walked out of class, and got perfect scores on the assignment (which wasn’t due for another week or two).
A few students weren’t paying attention (or were absent), but showed up to the lab hour, got essentially a re-run of the lecture, and also got perfect (or high) scores.
The rest complained to their mommies, who complained to the administration.
Oh, the kicker? The part that threw everybody the hardest was writing a single formula about as complex as you get in introductory-level junior high Algebra.
I enjoyed the time I spent in academia and I’m glad I did it. I have no regrets. I’m not in any rush to return, though….
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: briclondon
|
June 26, 2010 4:41 PM
#124 - this reminds me of Peter Cooke's E L Wisty character, and the reason he was never a judge:
"Yes, I could have been a judge but I never had the Latin, never had the Latin for the judging. I just never had sufficient of it to get through the rigorous judging exams. They're noted for their rigour. People came staggering out saying 'My God what a rigorous exam' - and so I became a miner instead. A coal miner. I managed to get through the mining exams - they're not very rigorous. They only ask you one question. They say 'Who are you?', and I got 75% for that."
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 4:47 PM
But in pragmatic terms, I think a representative democracy such as we have is the best option available.
You have got to be kidding. The US system is an AWFUL electoral setup. It may have been state of the art for 1790, but it's an antiquated dogs breakfast when compared to the broad variety of other options on offer; at a minimum the US should move to some version of proportional representation ASAP. There is a lot of room for improvement there most of which would weaken the hold of extremist conservative politicians on the US institutions.
In essence you're proposing that the electoral system should be used muffle the voice of the electorate, as if this were a good thing rather than a problem to be fixed. You surely see the problem with your logic?
If muzzling/buffering/insulating the influence of the electorate is a good thing, why not do more of it? Why not get rid of that pesky electorate altogether and let elite scientists run the country?
Now of course you aren't proposing that, but conversly the US isn't in some kind of political "best of all possible worlds" either.
Posted by: khedges
|
June 26, 2010 4:54 PM
You know what came to my mind about the astronomy students? High probability that they didn't remember enough about what was taught in class to give the science-based answer, and figured they could bluff with the sunday-school answer. Of course, it's also reasonable they thought this was a great opening to put one over on their professor.
I can see how the professor assumed the answer would relate to his course material... but if it was a throwaway question, I agree with several posters that 20% of the final grade was way too much credit. Especially since I would've spent a lot of time justifying the answer in terms of the course material.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 4:58 PM
I think... that a skeptical organization should emphasize that atheism is the conclusion of a consistent epistemology based on logic and evidence, using a skeptical, analytical, rational, and empirical methodology on the claims made by religions.
If skeptical theists wish to remain theists, they should acknowledge that they are not being consistent.
If they refuse to acknowledge that they are not being consistent, then they are compounding their inconsistency.
Posted by: Lyra
|
June 26, 2010 4:59 PM
A 20 point throw away question? What the hell?
However, there is one thing I do wonder about. In her post, Gay said, "In similar situations I'll ask, 'Explain why you do or don’t think life on other planets might or might not exist?'" In a cosmology class, even a 101 class, would she really be ok with students answering something along the lines of, "I think that there isn't life on other planets because God made humans and our world unique."? I have friends who hold this belief. What about, "I think there isn't life on other planets because our planet is the only one with the right spirit."? Or "I think there is life on other planets because I've been abducted by aliens."? How about, "I think there isn't any life on other planets because we haven't found any on any other planets in our solar system."? If you're going to put a 20 point question on a science test and you don't care what people put, why have the question at all? Why not just give them 20 extra points?
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 5:01 PM
Gah! US is out!
Posted by: Lyra
|
June 26, 2010 5:18 PM
I guess what I'm saying is that if you are going to put "3x + 12 = 15. Find X" and you don't care if people put down 1, draw an arrow at the X, put that X doesn't really exist, or insist that x is 42 (because 42 is the answer to the ultimate question!), why are you asking the question at all? Bloody hell.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 26, 2010 5:20 PM
This may not be accessible to non-Facebook users, but here's a one-panel cartoon that summarizes the skeptic/believer conundrum quite tidily.
Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls
|
June 26, 2010 5:26 PM
@Feynmaniac
Thanks for the Chomsky vid I always enjoy what he has to say even when I disagree! Although I found a lot to agree with in this clip.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 6:05 PM
Skeptic organisations should be dedicated to methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism. They should be atheist in the sense that they should promote critical thinking about the supernatural, but that's it. Scepticism is a tool, one that everyone can use. The more that learn to embrace it, the better.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 6:07 PM
No, I'm not kidding. You misunderstood. By the "we" I meant western-style representative democracy in general, not the US system in particular (that one's kind of the worst of the best, if you know what I mean). I'm Canadian myself and can think of several improvements to the details of my own representational system, but I was speaking in terms of broad general choices (direct democracy, dictatorship, plutocracy etc.).
No, not "muffle"--balance out. I don't like the idea of a tyranny of the majority. Especially when the majority are ignorant about most things. I prefer a system where the citizens elect representatives who (hopefully) are better informed than they are and whose job it is to think in terms of the public interest over the long haul. As it is, our representatives are pressured to make decisions for corporate interests and often for the short term of the election cycle, but these faults could be improved upon by tinkering with the details.
First, because at root, I think that the government should only rule by the consent of the governed. Second, because elite scientists (or, say, academics--why exclude the historians and social scientists?) are not immune to being ignorant--they can often be short-sighted when it comes to things beyond their fields.
Theoretically, it might not be a bad idea to have a kind of representative democracy where to be eligible to run for office you have to pass an exam or have some kind of higher education. Or perhaps to take a specialised certification course (like teachers do)--which would be publicly funded so as not to exclude the poor... But again, that's just tinkering with details.
Of course not. Not even if it worked as well as it possibly could with its current system. What I'm saying is that of all the available political systems, given real world facts, rep. democracy is preferable to direct democracy (as well as the other options).
In an ideal "best of all possible worlds," the world would be run by the most far-sighted, compassionate, practical, knowledgeable, intelligent monarch (or perhaps oligarchy) by unanimous consent of all (even moderately) sapient lifeforms on the planet. But then we're back to religion.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 26, 2010 6:08 PM
Why did the students go complaining to Dr. Gay instead of the professor who gave the exam? The students weren't looking to have the problem fixed or at least explained, they were looking for someone to agree that Christians are a poor, downtrodden, persecuted majority in the US.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 6:23 PM
I am not at all clear why kudos should be given to someone who has hidden her religious beliefs.
I once took a course in bioethics as an undergrad. The professor on the very first day made it quite clear she would not be talking about what positions she took on any of the issues we would look at in the course, because of perceived authoritarian bias.
likewise, anyone with religious leanings should indeed consider that people taking their classes might be influenced by her religious leanings.
In the case where your worldview essentially amounts to an opinion, and you are in a position of authority, you really should keep that opinion to yourself if you want to avoid biasing the discussion.
I note, though, that it is of course not BEING religious that causes the problem here, but natural authoritarian influence that many students adhere to.
Are you clearer, now, Matt?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 6:27 PM
Skeptic organisations should be dedicated to methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism.
Kel, you've said this repeatedly in many related threads, while never defining your terms here, or defending your position, frankly.
Also, you never actually spell out why you consider it is a bad idea to support the idea of skeptic societies making conclusions based on evidence, or lack thereof.
Don't tell me you've never considered that that is exactly what you are doing?
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 26, 2010 6:27 PM
'Tis wrote:
That’s something that’s always amazed me about Christians. A few greeters at a major retail chain wish somebody a happy holiday season, and suddenly we have a War on Christmas™ — never mind, of course, the fact that the same retailer spends nearly a third of the year hyping up Christmas, what with starting sometime in October to do everything in its power as a non-church to promote the day…and not stopping until sometime in January.
It’s ancient tradition, too. Think of Christians in ancient Rome, and you think of lions eating them in the Stadium for sport. Never mind, of course, that it was Christians who took over the Empire, turning into the Holy Roman Empire which, by far, was the longest period of the entire Empire — continuing even to this day, still a powerful political force not to be trifled with.
I get a mental image of Krishna in his Juggernaut incarnation boo-hooing because an ant insulted him by crawling away, instead of staying where it was so it could be crushed along with billions of its brethren under the wheels of the chariot.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 6:30 PM
Also, it seems odd that anyone should think that scepticism should not apply to any ideas. Is the soul a metaphysical claim any more or less than psychic powers are? It puts us on a very slippery slope if we can refrain from applying criticism to any claim. It's for social sensibilities, not because of the limitations of scepticism.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 6:32 PM
In a cosmology class, even a 101 class, would she really be ok with students answering something along the lines of, "I think that there isn't life on other planets because God made humans and our world unique."?
whether she would be ok with it from her personal perspective is irrelevant, or should be. Whether she would be ok with it based on what was taught in the course is the only thing that IS relevant.
I can't imagine an astronomy course where that in fact would be considered an acceptable answer, as it most certainly WOULDN'T be anywhere near based on anything actually taught in the course.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 6:35 PM
ditto.
I have never understood why a theist admitting they are being logically inconsistent is such a tooth-puller for them.
It really hurts their own arguments when they start off by defending being dishonest.
Posted by: flawedprefect
|
June 26, 2010 6:38 PM
I may be too far down on the comments list for anyone to read, but here goes: If we begin to exclude people based on belief, we do two things: One - we become just like fundamentalists of any relgious faiths who claim you must believe what they believe before you are initiated into their club. Two - We alienate ourselves from people who can benefit from learning how to think about things, and have not done so in their lives yet. A skeptical movement must be a movement of people who are all-inclusive, and offer a way to think about the world - not WHAT to think. We need to be clear on this. We need to be inclusive. I am a big fan of Dr Gay. She is prominent in the skeptical community, as far as I can tell - friends with such familiar faces as George Hrab, Phil Plait, and Fraser Caine - all non-religious.
Once folks have learnt how to apply critical thinking skills, they might turn it on their own world views (as many of us have). but this is not - and should not be - the AIM of skepticism.
Please, we need to be welcoming, offer the tools, and let people do with them what they will. It is only natural that people will choose to apply them how they will. It is nobody's place to tell them HOW to apply those tools.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 6:45 PM
Okay, taken from hereMethodological naturalism - naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.Ontological naturalism - There is a second meaning of naturalism, which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical-chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture. I did last time. I am a naturalist in both senses of the word. I think that ontological or metaphysical or philosophical naturalism is a good conclusion based on the success of methodological naturalism. I don't see how anyone can be anything but a naturalist other than through wishful thinking, but I can't disprove supernaturalism. It's the difference between making an epistemological and an ontological claim.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 6:46 PM
If we begin to exclude people based on belief
strawman radar is going off...
One - we become just like fundamentalists of any relgious faiths who claim you must believe what they believe before you are initiated into their club.
false equivalency radar is going off...
A skeptical movement must be a movement of people who are all-inclusive
assertion without evidence.
We need to be clear on this.
In the immortal words of Tonto:
"What you mean 'we', kemosabe?"
I am a big fan of Dr Gay. She is prominent in the skeptical community
argument from authority.
Once folks have learnt how to apply critical thinking skills, they might turn it on their own world views (as many of us have). but this is not - and should not be - the AIM of skepticism.'
the aim of skepticism SHOULDN'T be to encourage the application of critical thinking?
Please, we need to be welcoming
I say we just need to be a signpost and reference guide.
welcoming the dishonest with open arms will only get you burned, and them undeserved attention.
Posted by: articulett
|
June 26, 2010 6:49 PM
Religious memes ensure that a believer will feel personally attacked whenever their beliefs are attacked. Believers need to ask themselves whether the problem might be their unsupported beliefs rather than the people who mock them.
I don't think skeptics (or anyone) should have to know or care about the various supernatural things people believe in; I'd prefer that people keep their supernatural beliefs as private as they keep their fetishes or bowel habits.
I utilize the "Scientology test": Believers should not ask for respect or privileges that they would not extend to Scientologists. If Pamela wouldn't have problems with the SGU folks mocking the idea that junk DNA codes for Thetans, then she's asking for special privileges if she thinks they shouldn't mock the idea that genetic material codes for immaterial souls. As far as the evidence is concerned, all invisible immeasurable beings are cut from the same cloth (the cloth that the emperor's new clothes are made of), and skeptics are free to treat all such beliefs similarly.
To single out some brands for coddling seems far more dishonest to me; There's greater harm in enabling the idea that faith and feelings are a valid means of acquiring knowledge about the universe.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 6:50 PM
but I can't disprove supernaturalism.
it's irrelevant.
how many times have you heard the argument:
you can't disprove that unicorns exist.
sorry, but that you can't disprove any particular supernatural contention is not relevant to thinking the position itself carries no logical weight.
discard it.
Posted by: mistereveready
|
June 26, 2010 6:51 PM
didn't read the whole thing. some what felt like watching a starwars intro. but that seth guy seems to misunderstand what being a skeptic can be. it can be someone deluded, yet skeptical of other things.
most importantly, if people stopped poking shots at her silly beliefs, it'd be the purpose of being a skeptic. tougher to taunt someone for the truth than it is if its delusional. so she's rather asking for it. i mean believing in a talking snack food like jesus.
i still want a shirt with priest and the eucharist saying "Two nasty things that will stick to the roof of your mouth"
or just an image of the flying spaghetti monster eatinng jesus wafers, cross and all out of a pringles can.
anyhow i'm fairly sure this has been repeated before.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlhfJerwsjMVyXgNNE7lx--uprfaPCMo-c
|
June 26, 2010 6:52 PM
"However, this was a science class, something a bit more advanced than freshman 'rocks for jocks', so it is safe to assume from that context that the professor was expecting a science-based answer ..."
Was the shot at an introductory geology course really necessary, PZ? I think you'll find that a geology course is just as scientific and rigorous as one in astronomy. If only "rocks" did not rhyme so well with "jocks". For that matter, what is the issue with jocks in a science course?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 6:54 PM
It depends on how you define conclusions. Once you have a list of things that "these are what we believe and what we don't" then there is the accusation of dogma. It's commitment to a methodology for evaluating claims, not any claims themselves. It's important to maintain that conclusions fall out of the methodology rather than are basic assumptions. This should be obvious but you've seen how people even here try to dismiss this place as an echo chamber.Can an outsider tell the difference between the dismissal of psychic powers as a conclusion and an assumption? I remember a recent "debate" on NZ radio between a Skeptic and a homoeopath and the homoeopath went straight to attacking the metaphysical commitment of materialism that comes with being a Skeptic. It's nonsense of course, but that's what has to be guarded against.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 26, 2010 6:57 PM
flawedprefect, nobody’s even pretending to suggest that Dr. Gay deserves to be ostracized. Quite the contrary; everybody is singing her praises.
We’re also, at the same time, observing that she’s not perfect. And we’re not giving her imperfections a free pass simply because she does so much good elsewhere.
This is a form of compartmentalization similar to what she, herself does, though I would suggest that it is a much healthier form of compartmentalization.
Dr. Gay compartmentalizes her knowledge of cosmology from her belief that Jesus offers salvation for sin, which she in turn compartmentalizes from her knowledge that the Biblical source of that sin is the story of Genesis. Those beliefs are mutually exclusive, and compartmentalizing them must surely cause Dr. Gay a non-trivial amount of discomfort from the resulting cognitive dissonance.
PZ and the rest of us, on the other hand, compartmentalize our evaluation of Dr. Gay for her scientific and academic accomplishments from our evaluation of her ability to critically examine religious dogma. We acknowledge that she does the former superbly and fails miserably at the latter. For me, at least, there is no contradiction involved. I’m sure Dr. Gay would make every bit as miserable an NFL linebacker as she does a theological apologist (if not worse), but that’s hardly surprising. She’d mop the floor with the linebacker if they were to go toe-to-toe in an observatory
We all have our weaknesses. It does nobody any service to pretend that weaknesses don’t exist. It might or might not be constructive to rub somebody’s nose in a weakness. Making Dr. Gay feel inadequate because she can’t protect a quarterback from an oncoming 300-pound defensive lineman would be as silly as it would be counterproductive. On the other hand, challenging her to apply the same intellectual rigor to her religious beliefs that she so admirably does to her scientific studies is entirely appropriate — so long, of course, as one still welcomes her academic achievements for being as valuable as they are.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 6:58 PM
@143
I'm not sure I get what you're saying, because it seems so ridiculous. The sceptical community should only talk about scepticism and sceptical thinking in the abstract and never seek to apply it to anything in the real world? Not faith-based "medicine", not creationism, not psychic phenomena, not crystals and unicorns, not religion, not science denialism of any kind?
Then what's the point of having such a community?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 6:58 PM
Once you have a list of things that "these are what we believe and what we don't" then there is the accusation of dogma.
that's not relevant to those posting the list, but rather an interpretation of those reading it.
dogma, after all, does have it's own definition.
It's commitment to a methodology for evaluating claims, not any claims themselves.
no, again, it's a simple conclusion based on pragmatism.
there is only ONE method that has been shown to be consistently productive in both explanatory and predictive responses to observational questions.
only one.
to conclude then, that one should encourage its use over others is NOT dogmatic at all.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:01 PM
It's nonsense of course, but that's what has to be guarded against.
Nonsense is what must be guarded against?
no, just because there are a lot of people that embrace nonsense, does not mean the argument gains any logical ground.
Posted by: rudenessman
|
June 26, 2010 7:06 PM
So, unless you buy into everything in the party platform you can't join the club? Even the republicans aren't that rigid. Well, before Cheney anyway. Oh, look. Someone different from us. Git 'im.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 7:09 PM
Sure you can join. You just can't expect the parts you disagree with to be struck off and rendered taboo to discussion.
Posted by: cnocspeireag
|
June 26, 2010 7:09 PM
I can't believe for a moment that a professor in a present day university could have offered such a question in a degree exam.
I taught for many years and was always careful to pose questions in as fair a way as possible, which meant that the marking was transparent.
The ridiculous question 'how do you believe the universe will end'? could only be given full marks for any grammatically correct answer and could never have been posed by a professional educator. Anyone who set such a question should never be allowed to set an exam before retraining and without external scrutiny. I doubt that the anecdote is true, but I don't expect honesty from faithheads.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 7:11 PM
I agree that we should encourage its use, that's what Skeptic societies are for. But that methodology has its limits. Those limits should not mean that at the limits one can put whatever they want there, I'm still advocating the critical evaluation of any claim. You don't get a free lunch by saying something is beyond science. But I can't support the notion that we should be pushing those conclusions as if supported by the science, which is in-effect what we are doing. It's scientifically-informed philosophy.I think that anyone who pursues scepticism on supernatural claims should become an atheist or agnostic (in the Huxleyian sense), but I don't think that Skeptic societies should be about that conclusion. Promote the methodology, promote critical thinking. Evaluate any claims that people make. Skeptics should go after the power of prayer just as vigorously as they do psychic power. If you just give people the conclusion without the reason they are going to think of it as another dogma. You say that's irrelevant and based on interpretation and I agree to the latter. It's relevant because that's how people interpret it. It's the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:13 PM
But that methodology has its limits.
then let the limits stand, and utilize OTHER groups to employ whatever alternative tactical methods you deem fit.
why impose on a skeptical society to NOT be skeptical?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 7:15 PM
Here I was thinking that Skeptic societies were in the business of trying to get people to guard themselves against nonsense. It does matter that a lot of people embrace nonsense because that's what the focus of the Skeptic societies are.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:15 PM
Then what's the point of having such a community?
exactly.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 26, 2010 7:17 PM
Kel wrote:
I can.
No, seriously.
First, we need to agree upon some definitions, of course.
Something is natural if it does not violate any natural law. A natural law is something that is absolutely inviolate. Never mind why it is inviolate, or the source or nature of the law; if there is no way the law can be broken, it is a natural law.
The supernatural is anything which can violate a natural law.
Now, it should already be pretty obvious that I’ve defined the supernatural out of existence, provided that some such inviolate natural law actually exists. (And if no such law exists, then it is naturalism that is ruled out, of course.)
(If any of y’all object to my definitions, now would be the time to offer better ones.)
So, are there any inviolate natural laws? Well, as it turns out, the universe is thick with them.
It is logically and physically impossible, for example, to draw, on a flat sheet of paper, a triangle with two or three right angles. (It is, of course, possible to do the trick on a sheet of rubber stretched over a globe, but that’s no more remarkable than drawing a “triangle” on a flat sheet of paper with curved “lines.”)
It is also logically and physically impossible to accelerate an object in the observable universe to a velocity faster than that of light in a vacuum — and the reasons why this is so are essentially the same as why it’s impossible to draw a square triangle. And a super-being “outside” the universe altering Einsteinian space-time in such a way as to accomplish the trick would be no more remarkable — though, to be sure, a hell of a lot more impressive — than swapping the sheet of paper for a sheet of rubber and stretching it over a globe.
At this point, the never-ending stream of natural laws should be readily apparent. It is impossible, for example, to build a general-purpose computing device that, given the code and input to another computing device, will determine if the device to be tested will ever come to a halt, as Alan Turing so eloquently proved. The cube-square law will prevent the breeding of a real-life Godzilla. And Shannon put all sorts of limits on how much data you can move from one place to another with a given amount of time and energy.
So, yeah. There’s no need to hold the door open to supernaturalism. The universe itself never had a door for it to open in the first place.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:17 PM
It does matter that a lot of people embrace nonsense because that's what the focus of the Skeptic societies are.
you've twisted your point around, Kel.
you're the one playing the accommodationist position, remember?
You're the one who essentially said that because there are many who embrace nonsense, skeptics shouldn't embrace non-nonsense oriented conclusions, even ontologically.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 7:20 PM
I'm not! You're taking the wrong conclusion out of what I'm writing...Posted by: articulett
|
June 26, 2010 7:24 PM
Anyone is free to call themselves a skeptic or participate in skeptical blogs or skeptical events. And people are also free to believe whatever they want. We skeptics are free to use our free speech to goof on whatever beliefs we find goofy... even if some other skeptics use their free speech to declare offense.
If Pamela is miffed when people goof on her dearly held beliefs, and she doesn't want to examine those beliefs to understand why she is miffed, then maybe the skeptic movement isn't for her. After all, she can thicken her skin or change her beliefs, but she's got a huge sense of entitlement if she thinks that hurt feelings ought to to shut up those who find her supernatural beliefs unsupported, silly, or harmful. After all, no one is stopping her (or Seth) from mollycoddling the delusional (as she apparently did for the students in the example). But it's ridiculous of her to think that all skeptics should be like her.
If beliefs can't stand up to criticism, then what good are they anyhow?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 26, 2010 7:29 PM
Hm. What do you mean here by supernaturalism?
By one definition, supernaturalism is incoherent; an inherent contradiction in terms.
By another definition (Richard Carrier's, for example: “Therefore, "supernaturalism" means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things”), supernaturalism refers to a particular class of concepts for which evidence could be presented, but has not been.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
June 26, 2010 7:29 PM
flawedprefect #143 - You might want to re-read PZ's comments. At no time does he call for excluding anyone based on their beliefs. He is simply saying that having unsubstantiated religious beliefs does not make you immune from criticism.
Au contraire, that is precisely the aim of skepticism – to make us question our world views and apply critical thinking to what we believe and why. To call your self a skeptic yet simultaneously sequester certain beliefs as “untouchable” is disingenuous to the statement, “I am a skeptic.” Doing so is certainly within the rights of the individual but this choice does not make you immune to the skeptical criticism of others or special treatment as a skeptic.
If a person chooses to use a knife by holding the blade should we allow them to continue because that is their choice without at least attempting to explain how to use it? Similarly, if a person chooses to misapply logical thinking tools we are not obliged to keep our mouths shut simply because it would hurt their feelings. If you don’t use Occam’s razor to open the package of your own beliefs then ultimately someone will do it for you.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 7:31 PM
But I'm not taking the accommodationist position! That's the problem, pointing out the difference between the methodology and the conclusion is not being an accommodationist. I'm not making the same point as Chris Mooney, I'm not asking people to refrain from criticism on the grounds of the supernatural. I think the supernatural should be criticised and I have made this point repeatedly. No I said there's no reason to enforce ontological naturalism as a requirement of being a Skeptic. I'm not even asking people to refrain from criticism of the supernatural, I think it would be horrible if Skeptics didn't go after any unreasonable thinking even in their own. Follow methodology to conclusions, I have maintained this position. Otherwise we're telling people what to think without the journey of how to think.Posted by: mikee
|
June 26, 2010 7:32 PM
As a scientist and a skeptic it is logical to me to be an atheist or at the very least agnostic.
However, I have always had colleagues who have been christians. I've never quite understood the compartmentalisation they must use, however, from talking to some of them I get the impression that they "believe" in religion because of some of the good teachings and values - e.g. humility, kindness etc they associate with religion. I suspect some of this comes from strong cultural or social drivers in their lives.
To me this is being selective about what the bible says and I can't see the logic in it, but pragmatically I have no problem with their position so long as they don't start preaching that the bible is the word of god or start expressing some of the darker ideas from the bible.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 7:43 PM
here, Kel:
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/06/religious-accommodationism-at-evolution.html
No I said there's no reason to enforce ontological naturalism as a requirement of being a Skeptic.
I'm not even sure WHAT you're advocating any more.
the point was not that it be a precondition, but that it is the ONLY logical conclusion.
why bother beating around the bush?
Posted by: ereador
|
June 26, 2010 7:55 PM
PZ, I love this point and bring it to bear often in discussions with woo-sayers:
Interestingly (maybe), there is a view of the Buddhist concept of "no-self" which interprets it as no independent self; that is, no "self" independent of worldly causation -- no "magic essences."/Back on topic -- Brian, DoTT @#40:
It is not defensible to postulate something for which there is no evidence and "[not] much point." Induction is a legitimate method for beginning inquiry, but just making shit up is not induction.We can excuse bronze-age peoples for having primitive beliefs, and we can excuse ourselves as skeptics for having unfounded or unexamined beliefs occasionally (we are human), but unfounded beliefs that persist on a large scale are what skeptics always need to challenge. Question everything; nothing is off-limits. Ever.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
June 26, 2010 7:58 PM
If that genuinely was the question posed, then it seems to me that the professor might have been intentionally using it as a kind of shibboleth in order to sadistically smack down anyone who didn't give a properly un-Christian answer. That is to say, he was bringing religion into the classroom in an underhanded way. If the girls gave their answer as a way of telling him to fuck off with his piddling little challenges to religion, then I should have some sympathy for them, but judging from the subsequent wailings and gnashings of teeth in Dr Gay's room, they didn't. But I have small respect for a professor who sticks into an examination either what is a poorly-worded question or what is deliberate attempt to put students on the spot.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 8:01 PM
Because you're trying to fit me into a false dichotomy. I don't think the notion of a soul should be off limits to sceptical inquiry, it's basically saying that if you can call an idea religious then it's beyond criticism! No, I can't support that. What I do support is that a Skeptic is one who uses a methodology to take it to a conclusion. It's meant to be about teaching critical thinking and the promotion of science.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:01 PM
Induction is a legitimate method for beginning inquiry, but just making shit up is not induction.
QFT
Posted by: kimpatsu1
|
June 26, 2010 8:05 PM
A couple of nitpicks, PZ:
Here's a third alternative.
No, here's a third OPTION. "Alternative means "either/or". You can only ever have two alternatives; you can have three or more options.
What Gay is describing is not belief; it's faith. I have belief but no faith, because I have evidence for all that I believe. Make that distinction clear, and teistic obfuscation of the point vanishes.
Salute.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
June 26, 2010 8:06 PM
@Kel
I'm confused. Who's saying anything different?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:08 PM
No, here's a third OPTION. "Alternative means "either/or". You can only ever have two alternatives; you can have three or more options.
learn something new every day.
cite in support?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 8:11 PM
...seems to be a bit of debate, but overall favors your interpretation, FWICT.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternative
Posted by: rudenessman
|
June 26, 2010 9:06 PM
#156, You're right of course. I've been reading this blog long enough so I should of realized that. I'm just a bit of an astronomy groupie and I kind of reacted emotionally - which is sort of what I was objecting to. Sorry for coming off tone trollish.
OT, but does anyone else think that hearing Pamela Gay's and Rebecca Watson's voices in the the same 'cast is just sooo sexy?
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 26, 2010 9:14 PM
Kel, OM #140 wrote:
That's pretty much how the scientific skeptics who continue being religious frame God's existence: that's a "metaphysical" claim which science can't address. The problem is, they're rather vague and fuzzy on what constitutes something that's "metaphysical," and it's not at all clear that the existence of God is one of those mega-questions on the nature of reality which would apparently look the same either way, whether it's true or false. They believe in God, based on evidence, and do indeed think that a world with God, would look different than a world without. God is ESP in the form of a person.
They're protecting their empirical claim, then, by systematically making category errors. "The universe was created by an intelligent force using the power of intention" is somehow supposed to be as subjective and personal as "I like chocolate" or "I need a hug." Or perhaps it's like a moral statement, or maybe it's like an expression of wonder. Not a moral statement or expression, mind you -- but like those things.
Theistic skeptics tend to lean heavy on what I call The Argument from Generalized Vagueness. This is when they insist that God is something so great, so other, so important and significant and unlike anything in our experience, that the only way we can bring it down to our level and understand it is by referring to it in veiled metaphors. It's all very vague, and encompasses all sorts of general things like thoughts and emotions and morals and meaning -- though it's not those things, specifically. Of course. It's like those things. It's in their categories.
By taking out all the content and moving religion into the area of personal therapy and binding community, they can't be wrong. Whatever you think God is, it isn't really that, that's only an analogy. It's deeper and better than that. And it helps us be better people, and brings people together.
I think this is just plain sloppy -- and disingenuous. I agree with PZ. Of course religious people can be a valuable part of the skeptic 'movement' -- but their religious beliefs are fair game. They need not be brought up at every opportunity, no -- but refusing to allow them to ever be addressed is inconsistent. They don't need to be protected.
Upthread, someone mentioned skeptic Penn Jillette and his libertarian views. To his credit, he apparently loves it when people want to argue over politics with him. He doesn't start whining childishly about how hurtful it is when people disagree with him (I loved Hurin's comment at #38).
And that's what skeptics ought to do when people question their dicier views at a skeptic convention. Or, they should bow out with an apologetic admission that they should be up to it, but aren't.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
June 26, 2010 9:36 PM
Religion's poker hand has been revealed to consist of
* Special Privilege card
* Extortion & Violence card
* Joker
* Joker
* Joker
...and they play the first one an awful lot, for that is all they have short of the second.
Posted by: icusmiling
|
June 26, 2010 9:36 PM
I used to head up a local skeptic group, and here's my take:
1. I truly believe skeptic groups should address religion, otherwise how would you address related claims, like faith healers?
2. Being a skeptic means that no matter who you meet, you're probably going to piss them off eventually. You can meet a very skeptical person about everything EXCEPT on idea close to their hearts, "Yes, I agree with you on UFO's, evolution, etc, but DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION HOMEOPATHY!"
That being said, in a local skeptic group you tend to deal with the public on a one-on-one basis and try to promote in the local media. In this context, addressing religion, or even being associated with atheism can shut down all of your efforts. Once people realize that you are an "Atheist group" or even "Atheist friendly", they become disconnected, and in some cases, less likely to believe anything you say, because if you are an atheist, you must be wrong about everything.
So on a local level, it was more effective to not address it, unless there was a specific claim to be addressed, in the hopes that you could sow the seeds of doubt, and start a person on the path of skepticism one step at a time, that might lead to their own personal evaluation of religion.
If a person chooses to evaluate their own beliefs, that is often much more powerful than a confrontation. As a skeptic group, it was much more valuable, and more effective to focus on the skills of critical thinking, than to focus on the outcome.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 26, 2010 9:58 PM
icusmiling #182 wrote:
Yes -- and many of the paranormal or extraordinary claims are an integral part of a spiritual or religious system. Attacking New Age pseudoscience isn't staying away from the religious issue. Even alt med is linked with "spirituality."
And this is why groups which are specifically atheist or humanist are so crucial. It's all very well and good to point out that atheism is simply one conclusion within a larger system of skeptical and scientific thinking, but, as long as 'atheist' is seen as an insult equivalent to 'irrational crank,' skepticism will remain stunted. People will continue to draw lines on which forms of magic are true -- or off limits -- and it will vary for everyone. The religious believer who agrees that weeping statues are fair game, but not angels, will be offset by the devout who agrees that fairies can be debunked, as long as we keep our hands respectfully off the angels.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 26, 2010 10:38 PM
Ping: http://tinyurl.com/2euqgwk
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 26, 2010 10:49 PM
Wow.
Rarely have I been so badly misunderstood by so many over so trivial a point.
First of all, the idea espoused by some above that I want some "special privilege' for Christians is absurd. I am in fact one of the few people who actually thinks that the word 'skeptic' has a meaning, and that dogmatists cannot be skeptics.
For some reason, many of you seem to believe that by saying that Pamela Gay is not a skeptic, I seek to exclude her from the skeptical movement. This is also absurd. I have personally driven Pamela Gay to skeptical events. I was glad to do so.
Unlike some of you, I believe that people who are not skeptics can be worthwhile and valuable people to engage with when working on common causes. You do not have to be a skeptic to have a conversation with me.
And unlike some of you, I am not moved by Penn Jillette's fame or popularity. If he is unmovable in his libertarianism by evidence or reason, he is not a skeptic, he is a dogmatist. I doubt, however, that this is the case.
I think the more likely case is that Penn has not yet been convinced that his political and economic ideas are not supported by evidence. This may be because they are. Certainly, when people dismiss them they don't point to any reason or evidence that contradicts them. It seems to be an article of faith that he must be wrong.
Personally, I would reserve judgement on this matter, because I'm not familiar with exactly what he thinks in enough detail to know whether or not he is working from evidence. Those of you who are complaining probably don't either.
And of course, your analogy is fucking awful. Markets exist. The claim: "If policy set X were in place, wealth and happiness would increase" is a predictive claim about the physical world. It is an utterly different kind of claim than the claims of religion. This is obvious.
But what I think is the real problem is the underlying dogma that "no one can be a skeptic about everything." This position is not supported by logic or reason or evidence or in fact by anything at all. It is simply a statement that people believe is true. But of course this is absurd. A person is a skeptic about everything if they accept the philosophical premise that all beliefs should be amenable to evidence and reason. That's it.
Who here doesn't accept that premise?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 26, 2010 11:00 PM
Have you considered the likely possibility that you are misunderstood because you write poorly? You're the one who set up the peculiar dichotomy that we either have to reject people like Gay as skeptics, or silence our criticism of religion.
And if you are unwilling to accept that explanation, well then, we've just found something that you aren't skeptical about.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:00 PM
@Greg:
sorry, did you say something?
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 26, 2010 11:00 PM
Who here doesn't accept that premise?
It is an acceptable premise as long as it does not mean that a true skeptic actually does have a reasoned well informed evidence based decision (or model, or whatever) for everything in his or her life.
I know a lot of "skeptics" who know fuck-all about the science of vaccination, and who have read zero peer reviewed articles on the anti-vax claims, but who proudly proclaim that they, being all skeptical and stuff, will vaccinate their children. Their pro-vax stance is a belief. A correct one, as it turns out, and one based on having a reasonably good idea of what sources to trust, as it turns out, but a belief nonetheless.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:02 PM
A correct one, as it turns out, and one based on having a reasonably good idea of what sources to trust, as it turns out, but a belief nonetheless.
a belief based on prior experience.
there's a difference.
one you REALLY like to gloss over.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 26, 2010 11:06 PM
Ichthyic: You missed my point entirely. But, I think it is clear why.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:07 PM
shorter sethman:
I DID NOT put up a giant strawman!
really!
oops, maybe I did...
Unlike some of you, I believe that people who are not skeptics can be worthwhile and valuable people to engage with when working on common causes.
yes because we all said that Ken Miller is worthless.
please, don't do what the religious do, and assume that we equate a person with an idea they hold.
we can shred ideas all on their own, thanksverymuch.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:09 PM
Ichthyic: You missed my point entirely. But, I think it is clear why.
*sigh*
You make a poor psychologist, Greg.
I've noticed that about you over the last year or so.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 26, 2010 11:10 PM
please, don't do what the religious do, and assume that we equate a person with an idea they hold.
You lie. Or, maybe you just don't know. Yeah, maybe that's it.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:12 PM
here, Greg, let's look at what you said from a different angle:
but a belief nonetheless.
nonetheless implies you have a problem with the word "belief".
why?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:15 PM
You lie. Or, maybe you just don't know. Yeah, maybe that's it.
you assume, or maybe you're just an asshole. Yeah, maybe that's it.
I've played your game before, Greg.
I'm happy to play again if you want, though I'm sure it would bore both of us to tears.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 26, 2010 11:25 PM
icusmiling: 2. Being a skeptic means that no matter who you meet, you're probably going to piss them off eventually.
Often, but not inevitably. One could try not being an asshole about it, sticking to one's guns nonetheless. It is possible. Some individuals will still get pissed off because of how they manage their beliefs, but not everyone. Or at least, that has been my experience.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:30 PM
One could try not being an asshole about it, sticking to one's guns nonetheless.
still working on that one yourself, I see.
:)
yeah, yeah, same here.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
June 26, 2010 11:32 PM
Ysterius: That answer would be wrong even in a class on religion. The universe isn't supposed to end with the second coming of Jebus, just life as we know it.
I was wondering the same thing. Hey, if we are going to get it wrong, let's get it right!!!111!!!
Posted by: Redhill
|
June 26, 2010 11:44 PM
icusmiling @182 on the art of being a skeptic & the importance of focusing on critical thinking rather than confrontation.
Great comment that sounds like it is informed by experience.
A skeptic does not need to confront people about the stupidity of their religious beliefs if the issue at hand is about quack medicine or pseudo science. But if those religious beliefs are driving that quack medicine and pseudoscience, then they should be confronted.
There is work for all out there in the group mind.
On integrity and honesty, I am a little surprised that so many posting here seem to see the poor old human mind as a unitary thing that must be logical and consistent or be condemned for lack of integrity and dishonesty.
We are all made of many bits, some of which we rarely expose to public scrutiny or even to our own scrutiny. Working with our own minds is almost as much a political process as is working out in the group mind.
To me, it makes no sense either in terms of describing or persuading people to say that skeptics must not only be atheists but must be outspoken about their atheism.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 11:58 PM
On integrity and honesty, I am a little surprised that so many posting here seem to see the poor old human mind as a unitary thing that must be logical and consistent or be condemned for lack of integrity and dishonesty.
um, because we can speak of an ideal doesn't mean we don't recognize how things actually work.
I'm SURE the word "compartmentalization" has been used previously in this thread?
*looks*
yup.
the dishonesty comes from those who defend with rationalizations their particular compartmentalizations, instead of just admitting that that is all they are.
again, this goes to the idea that somehow, as an idea, religion deserves some special dispensation.
I like to use Ken Miller as a case example. He has actually used the "quantum world" rationalization to defend his particular compartmentalization of Catholicism and Science.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm
Sorry, but I see no good reason not to attack that rationalization as both inconsistent and dishonest.
further, if Ken had simply said something like: "I see no need to defend my religious leanings. They are what they are, and I like them, and I keep them separate from science, they being entirely irrational and without support"; I would have far less problems with that.
Hey, I have fantasized about how cool flying dragons would be. I do, though, recognize that as pure fantasy, and would not be so dishonest to try and shoehorn some post-hoc pseudo-scientific rationalization to try and explain my fantasizing about dragons.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 12:04 AM
drat, that link to Miller was regarding his explanations in general as to "why he believes" (see the last couple of paragraphs), where he defends it by saying science doesn't answer the question:
"Why does science work?"
the quantum woo stuff was detailed in an article discussed by Jerry Coyne, here:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/ken-miller-cant-win-p-z-and-i-gets-pwned/
that's better.
Posted by: mikee
|
June 27, 2010 12:06 AM
@icusmiling
I disagree. Being a skeptic doesn't have to mean you piss everyone off. It all depends how you go about being a skeptic.
In the same way not all christians piss me off - just the ones that push their views aggressively and condescendingly.
Posted by: interliminal
|
June 27, 2010 12:12 AM
One of the things which makes skeptical discussion about religion so difficult is that religious claims are intended to be both intensely personal and utterly authoritative.
As Sastra noted, religious beliefs are on one hand perceived to be sort of like taste preferences -- "I prefer butter pecan"-- in that there's no grounds for arguing about them. I mean, I could try to argue that butter pecan is somehow objectively better than vanilla or strawberry, but there is no actual Scale O' Justification on which we can weigh my claims and your claims and see which one is better. There is no *better* ice cream flavor. People who seriously argue about these sort of things are considered jerks, and rightfully so.
On the other hand, religious beliefs supposedly have a special status in that they come from some ultimate authority, or that believers have special epistemic access to Supernatural-astral-fairy-place, or that the beliefs exist in a totally separate realm of justification. Therefore, questioning religious beliefs comes off as useless at best (in Special Epistemic Status world) and as impossible & merely angrily rebellious in the worst (Special Authority world).
Religion is particularly dangerous because I think it may be the only realm in which both kinds of exemption from criticism come together. I think in the case of the other skeptical domains failure to critically think is attributable to the first type of error; a "well, it's just my opinion!!! you can't argue with an opinion!!!" take on a lot of beliefs, mostly in the case of New-Agey type of stuff. I think anti-vaxxers, ESP/UFO believers, etc. are a case of the above, or they think they have evidence for their claims (anecdotes, terrible History Channel programs) & the problem is their standards are way too low.
In any case, I think a lot of atheists and skeptics fail to appreciate how entrenched, pervasive, and touchy the personal opinion/ultimate authority combo is. Though certainly skeptical organizations shouldn't give religious claims an exemption from critical analysis, specific religious claims or the idea of the supernatural/religious understanding/God cannot be addressed without first breaking down the idea that these things are unquestionable. It is easier to establish that "Bob done saw a UFO over his barn" can be questioned and is a statement in need of evidence like anything else than establishing that "Questioning religion is jerky thing to do!" is. There are religious, social, etiquette, etc. norms, as well as the rule itself, standing in the way of critical analysis.
This doesn't mean that they should not be critically analyzed, but we should be aware that for many believers (but not all), anyone who tries to do so is automatically in violation of a number of deeply held principles. Questioning religion-- especially as a whole, or the existence of God/higher authority--is different in an important respect than questioning homeopathy or Santa, or even particular doctrinal claims. Breaking both the authority and subjectivity of religion is harder, and there is far more at stake; I can't blame skeptical organizations for wanting to stay out of that sort of process.
Posted by: mikee
|
June 27, 2010 12:18 AM
@Ichthyic
For someone to be dishonest, they have to know what they are proposing isn't the truth. I suspect many believers of irrational ideas can't see that they are irrational. When we try to "reason" with them they interpret our ideas as irrational based on their experiences. I think Michael Shermer's ideas on intellectual attribution bias fall into play here.
What we are doing in essence is expecting someone who is behaving irrationally (about a certain belief) to accept a rational argument against their beliefs, when by their beliefs they have demonstrated that rational thinking isn't a strong point? I suspect not everyone is capable of skeptical thinking as easily as many of the people on here.
Posted by: flawedprefect
|
June 27, 2010 12:21 AM
Guess I wasn't too far down to be noticed! @Ichthyic - thanks for pointing out my logical phallacies. I'll be more careful next time - I am only human, and not a logical fallacy-detection machine. True - we could all be better skeptics, but I can only improve if someone points them out.
I guess what I wished to say was, I am a fan of what Dr Gay has taught me about astronomy through the Astronomy cast podcast. I admire her expertise - not her authority.
I certainly don't condone mollycoddling the religious just for being so. She does good work in her field, and I am eager to learn about astronomy from experts such as hers - the fact she identifies herself as Christian doesn't phase me, as she has never taken the side of an apologist, or tried to shoehorn her religion into her science and vise-versa.
Cheers guys. I can always learn from making your points clearer.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
June 27, 2010 12:23 AM
It's a bit much for people to be whining about Steve Novella & co being mean to Christians/Christian belief.
I get the impression that the SGU team makes quite an effort not to pick on religion too much, even though it's such an easy target. But when religion intrudes they don't shrink away from it or treat it like it shouldn't be criticised.
I think their approach is fine and completely honest. They declare their non-belief up (Steve & Rebecca at least; not sure if I can remember the others stating their positions) but they don't unnecessarily antagonise their audience, much of which is bound to be religious to some degree.
Besides, the idea that junk DNA codes for a soul is just silly. After all, even libertarians have junk DNA.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 12:26 AM
For someone to be dishonest, they have to know what they are proposing isn't the truth
actually, that isn't correct.
that would be willfully dishonest.
I've met a lot of creationists who I would categorize as not being willfully dishonest.
they are still, however, being dishonest.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 12:30 AM
"Have you considered the likely possibility that you are misunderstood because you write poorly?"
Yes, I have. However, it's fairly clear that many commenters didn't actually read my post, and it's also clear from your post that you don't understand words like "irony". So I think it's at least as likely that you misunderstood me because you didn't bother to read with any intent other than attacking your preconceived notion of what my position was.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 12:35 AM
"yes because we all said that Ken Miller is worthless."
No, people said he--or at least, someone like him--was a skeptic. And then they said that to say he wasn't a skeptic would be to say that he was worthless.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 27, 2010 12:37 AM
You win the Internet.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 12:40 AM
"They declare their non-belief up (Steve & Rebecca at least; not sure if I can remember the others stating their positions) but they don't unnecessarily antagonise their audience, much of which is bound to be religious to some degree."
What they actually say is that religion is out of bounds for skepticism. And if they actually believe that, they don't have any grounds for mocking belief in a soul other than personal prejudice.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 12:43 AM
What they actually say is that religion is out of bounds for skepticism. And if they actually believe that, they don't have any grounds for mocking belief in a soul other than personal prejudice.
do YOU think there are no grounds for attacking the concept of a soul beyond personal prejudice?
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2010 12:48 AM
Could you clarify where, exactly, you were being ironic?
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 12:56 AM
"Could you clarify where, exactly, you were being ironic?"
It is PZ who used the word irony, and he used it incorrectly.
To answer Ichthyic: What possible relevance could my beliefs have in a discussion about the inconsistencies between the behavior of the SGU and their editorial claims?
Posted by: Redhill
|
June 27, 2010 12:59 AM
Thanks Ichthyic @200&201
I had a look at both Miller related posts.
In terms of reasoning, I agree with you. Miller's depiction of a sly and subtle god is a straight-forward rationalisation of a belief he holds for reasons we can't know.
He probably doesn't know either. But he does appear to keep enough separation between his god and science "compartments" or mental agencies to allow him to do science and to oppose crude religious incursions into science.
So how does attacking him help persuade the wider public to accept reason and naturalism over revelation and supernaturalism?
I am not well versed in this "accommodationist" debate, but sometimes it seems to be more about purity of position than practical persuasion.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 1:00 AM
What possible relevance could my beliefs have in a discussion about the inconsistencies between the behavior of the SGU and their editorial claims?
?
I'll try re-reading that after I've had some dinner.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
June 27, 2010 1:00 AM
I am in favor of religious skeptics. After all, being skeptics it must be that they are religious because of overwhelmingly compelling evidence for the truth of their beliefs - just like any skeptic demands for any claim. So presumably these religious skeptics are bringing the evidence! Finally! Yay!
...Oh, wait. You say the "evidence" is some old book of dubious provenance that's been edited and re-edited? What kind of skeptic would buy that?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
June 27, 2010 1:04 AM
please, don't do what the religious do, and assume that we equate a person with an idea they hold.
I do. What is a person but a bunch of ideas and some meat? Without ideas, the meat doesn't do much, really.
Posted by: jm_birkett#20113
|
June 27, 2010 1:15 AM
There's something ironic about the whole religion in skeptical circles controversy. Skeptics are by definition keen to find fault with their own beliefs and alter their beliefs when presented with good reason to do so. So if the religious people in the skeptical community really do have good reasons for their religious beliefs, it seems to me that their skeptical colleagues are ideal targets for prosthelytizing. The fact that this seldom works is pretty revealing.
On the other hand, it's only a convinient simplification to call a person a skeptic at all. It's the method of thinking which is skeptical, and as PZ rightly pointed out, no-one can be relied upon to think skeptically about everything.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 1:17 AM
Ichthyic: I will simplify.
I wrote a post on my blog. The post concerned an episode of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. I pointed out that the editorial position of the SGU is inconsistent with a joke they made. I felt that this illustrated a larger problem.
I am commenting on PZ's response to my post. PZ has a different point of view about this joke and the larger problem. We are discussing this point.
Your question does not seem, to me, to relate to that discussion.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 1:29 AM
"It's the method of thinking which is skeptical, and as PZ rightly pointed out, no-one can be relied upon to think skeptically about everything."
Skepticism is actually a philosophy with a 2300 year history. It is not a method of thinking: that method is called "critical thinking". However, definitions do change, so "skeptic" could be viewed as a convenient but largely meaningless label for "part-time critical thinker". However, I think that we can agree that any definition which includes every sentient being lacks utility.
A more useful definition might connote that a person accepts the basic premise of skepticism. That premise, that 'truth' is a statement of probability and not certainty, is one that a Christian cannot hold, because it is fundamentally incompatible with idea of faith.
The claim that no one can be relied upon to think skeptically about everything--even if true--is therefore not actually overly relevant to the point. To accept a premise and attempt to be consistent in applying it does not require perfection.
Posted by: mikee
|
June 27, 2010 1:31 AM
@Ichthyic
I don't think we share the same definition of dishonest. For someone to be dishonest I had assumed they need to know they are not being truthful.
So what you are saying is that someone can be unwillfully dishonest?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 1:35 AM
I wrote a post on my blog.
that's nice.
your response TO ME had no relevance to the question I asked you, which DOES have relevance to the earlier discussion we had including #209 and previous.
you apparently are having two conversations with me at once, only one of which is relevant.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 1:37 AM
Seth, I read your post and I don't get it. In the Skeptic movement, there is pretty much constant mocking of creationism - a purely religious idea. What makes creationism any different from the concept of a soul?To ask this question another way, should the Skeptic movement refrain from criticism of anything that could be constructed as religious? A resounding NO! would come from all involved. So why the distinction between a soul and creationism?
I see the Skeptic movement as a commitment to how to think, not what to think. Relgiious ideas shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny nor should they be automatically dismissed on the grounds that they are religious. Nor should one be excluded on the grounds of holding a religious idea. That's going beyond the methodology.
To cut a long story short, it's now what they think but how they think that makes them a Skeptic. If you're going to start excluding people on what they believe then you're making it a dogma!
Posted by: articulett
|
June 27, 2010 1:41 AM
Redhill:
Who's attacking him and why do you consider it an "attack"? If he used quantum mechanics to justify Scientology type beliefs would you consider the response an attack?
Treating one brand of faith differently than others encourages the wrongful notion that some brands of faith are worthy of special respect. It gives lip service to the notion that faith is a means of accessing "higher truths" without the believer ever having to provide evidence that there are/ such things as "higher truths".
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2010 1:44 AM
Hm. Where do they say this? It does seem inconsistent of them.
By the way, after looking at the actual quoted words, it seems to me that your interpretation of the exchange was needlessly uncharitable.
After all, I am (fairly) sure that whatever Dr. Gay's beliefs about the soul are, they do not extend to the soul being in junk DNA.
Why should people not be allowed to joke about something that their guest does not actually believe?
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 1:44 AM
"your response TO ME had no relevance to the question I asked you, which DOES have relevance to the earlier discussion we had including #209 and previous."
How in the world is your question relevant to whether people say that Ken Miller or Pamela Gay is a skeptic?
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 1:46 AM
"Hm. Where do they say this? It does seem inconsistent of them."
Check the episode with Daniel Loxton for an express statement of this position.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2010 1:49 AM
And particularly, in the junk DNA of a bacterium...
If there was more context before the topic of souls in general was brought up, you did not include it.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 1:56 AM
How in the world is your question relevant to whether people say that Ken Miller or Pamela Gay is a skeptic?
no, it's relevant to whether they are rejected as such for their beliefs.
again, we seem to be talking cross-purposes.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 1:57 AM
"To cut a long story short, it's now what they think but how they think that makes them a Skeptic. If you're going to start excluding people on what they believe then you're making it a dogma!"
This is a common canard, but it misses the point that religious faith is a way of thinking and evaluating claims.
Historically, Skepticism is the rejection of Dogmatism. Not rejection of a specific Dogma, mind you, but rejection of the principle that knowledge can be certain or the product of special revelation. A person who does not reject dogma in principle is therefore not a skeptic as a matter of definition.
So the problem is not what a Christian believes, but why they believe it. As far as I'm aware, all arguments for the validity of Christian metaphysics are dogmatic arguments, so I am currently of the opinion that a person who accepts those arguments is not a skeptic.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 2:05 AM
"no, it's relevant to whether they are rejected as such for their beliefs."
Fair enough. If you read what I've written above, you should have a very clear picture of what I mean by "skeptic" and why I don't think the term applies to Pamela Gay or Ken Miller.
But to answer your specific question, as far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence to support the assertion that such a thing as the 'soul' exists. In fact, I don't think that there is a consistent logical argument that begins with any observation and ends up supporting the idea that there are souls outside the body.
If I'm right about the above, then the only reason to accept the idea that there is a soul is because there is some Dogma that dictates that there is a soul.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 2:15 AM
I don't think I did. If someone were to trumpet "there is no God" because their parents told them, we'd both agree that it's as unsceptical as someone making the opposite claim on the same grounds. Ask believing sceptics why they believe and a large percentage of them choose design. Not faith, but design. Now that could be a rationalisation of a belief they came to for non-smart reasons, but I'm not so sure anymore. We intuitively see agency in the world, that something bears the markings of design seems obvious to us and there has been work done on this. Maybe the tenets of Christianity in particular are on faith, but a lot of the general underlying principles are transcultural suggesting it's something more. That's the issue, isn't it? It's not what, but why. And you're making an assumption that this is believed on faith. I'm really not so sure any more, a lot of these beliefs have parallels in other beliefs which aren't purely a product of dogma. It might be a product of how the mind works, an intuitive sense that only comes out in the word soul in our culture but carries the same markings as vitalism or essentialism.So why does Pamela Gay believe in a soul? Surely that's the question that matters. It's not that she believes in something religious and that should be off-limits, we know that not to be true by looking at creationism or faith healers or the supposed power of prayer. Religious ideas are indeed within the bounds of Skeptics. Is the soul in an ontologically different category? I think not. It's the reasoning that matters, not the idea itself. You're just serving to show your own bias!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 2:24 AM
Though on the other hand, if you can show that by necessity that all religious claims are faith claims in their nature, I'll concede the point.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 2:25 AM
" You're just serving to show your own bias!"
No, I'm really not. You're sort of making that up.
For one thing, the design argument is logically fallacious and unsupported by evidence, so it's a faith based position. For another, I'd like to see your citation for the claim you're making.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2010 2:27 AM
Some of the ancients argued that the soul died with the body.
I watched a show about Aristotle a while back, and the host, geneticist Armand Leroi, suggested that what Aristotle meant by the soul was what modern biologists referred to as "the system"; all of the organs and tissues interacting together while the organism is alive.
For whatever that's worth. That is obviously distinct from anything like an incorporeal soul.
Posted by: icusmiling
|
June 27, 2010 2:27 AM
When I said, "you will eventually piss them off" was not a reference to being an asshole, but I've found that many people, as was mentioned earlier, "compartmentalize" their beliefs, and can be skeptical in some areas, but not others. Putting up a wall excluding critical thinking based on religion, political leanings, or personal desire.
Often times people suspend critical thing when they need it the most. when a person is faced with a concept they already accept, they may take in new information, even if it has no basis in reality, simply because it is consistent with their earlier beliefs, and that's often were I see issues, especially regarding politics.
Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the term "skeptic" now. It's become a catch-all term for anyone who is against anything. This causes skeptics to be bundled in with "vaccination skeptics" or "holocaust skeptics" even if we are on opposite sides of the scientific spectrum.
I would prefer to use something like "Critical Thinking Groups or Educators" which would remove some of the negative connotations associated with skepticism, focus on the core mission of what we are trying to accomplish, which is understanding the tools of having rational thought, and the ability to utilize it in any situation, regardless of our own desire to set them aside.
I have often told people that it's easy to be a critical thinker when you don't want to believe something. The real test is when you put the same skills to something that you want to believe.
With the tools as the focus, then things like astrology, free energy, etc. become ways for people to hone their skills, and then if they choose to use those skills to examine their own religious beliefs, that is their own decision.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 2:33 AM
"We intuitively see agency in the world, that something bears the markings of design seems obvious to us and there has been work done on this."
Interestingly, the Dogmatists were big proponents of intuitive truth. Skeptics rejected this sort of reasoning because there was no way to differentiate between truth and falsity in these sorts of intuitions. So what you're describing here is sort of the essence of Dogmatism.
My counterproposal runs like this: If you can present *any* logical or evidence based argument that starts with *any* observation and concludes with consciousness continuing after death, I will accept your proposition that it is at least theoretically possible to be both a Christian and a Skeptic.
Because as far as I know, no such argument exists. And if no such argument exists, than all Christians are accepting a dogma.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2010 2:37 AM
Do you recall where in the episode?
Posted by: Redhill
|
June 27, 2010 2:38 AM
articullet @225 on attacking Miller.
I agree with the main drift of your comment which I take to be that someone who misuses science to justify religion deserves criticism...as does someone who claims to have access to truths about the natural world or any other truths through faith or revelation.
But I still hold to my point that the "accommodationist" debate can appear to a disinterested outsider as about nothing more than positional purity, somewhat akin to the debates within the old Marxist Left around terms like "splitist", "revisionist", and "accommodationist", or the current debates in the US about who is a real conservative.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 2:43 AM
By that standard, you're excluding a lot of people who self-identify as Skeptics. While I'm sure almost everyone who posts here could give a scientific and philosophical deconstruction of design (it comes with the territory), a lot of people wouldn't be able to articulate that. Some people think design is destroyed because of Darwin, hence that continual false dichotomy between Darwin and Design keeps coming back. Once you start down this path, you'll find there's very few you can actually call Skeptics because a lot of people who accept ideas on an evidence-base really are doing so on the assumption of an evidence base. I'm not a biologist, I have to rely on biologists and philosophers of biology to show me the way. Just as I rely on physicists, physicians, logicians and the like. Okay, fine.Regarding the claim about Skeptic believers, I took it from: Michael Shermer - Why People Believe Weird Things (2002 Edition) page 297. In a chapter called "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things", he gives statistics on why people believe in God, the answers were as follows:Arguments based on good design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity of the world or universe. (28.6%)The experience of God in everyday life/a feeling that God is in us. (20.6%)Belief in God is comforting, relieving, consoling and gives meaning and purpose to life. (10.3%)The Bible says so. (9.8%)Just because/faith/or the need to believe in something.(8.2%)Now of those 5, the top 2 (nearly 50%) aren't faith-based claims. They are claims of evidence and experience. Whether or not they are drawing the right conclusions is another matter, but like I said, once you start down this path you find no Skeptic left...
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 2:48 AM
Also, in Michael Shermer's How We Believe (second edition 2003, p77), he puts the values for a survey of why Skeptics believe in God. Design was again the most common answer at 29.2%.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
June 27, 2010 2:52 AM
Um, I don't think the SGU guys have ever considered religion "out of bounds". They just make an effort not to antagonise religious listeners and guests.
They have spent a lot of time talking about ID. Should that be ruled "out of bounds" under the religion heading? If junk DNA encoding for souls isn't ID I don't know what is.
Steve really seems to like and admire Pamela. If she felt offended, big deal. Friends inadvertently offend friends all the time. Jesus, what a non-event.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 2:53 AM
Only in the same way that atheism is the essence of Communism. That dogmatists use intuitive truth doesn't mean that using intuition is all bad. For instance, we have an intuitive sense of gravity. There's a good reason for the way intuitions are, and they aren't all bad. Are you going to say that a precursor to being a Skeptic is to cast away all intuition? Again, you won't have any Skeptics left.Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 4:00 AM
"Um, I don't think the SGU guys have ever considered religion "out of bounds". They just make an effort not to antagonise religious listeners and guests."
If they don't consider religion--and by religion I mean the foundational ideas like "God Exists"--out of bounds for skepticism than I'm at a loss to explain why they have explicitly stated that the existence of God is outside the bounds of skepticism.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 4:19 AM
"Now of those 5, the top 2 (nearly 50%) aren't faith-based claims. "
Yes, they are. A "feeling that god is in us" is a faith based claim. When you accept intuition *as evidence*, you're following the philosophical position of dogmatism.
The idea that your perception of beauty or design is evidence of a creator or designer is similar: it substitutes intuition for evidence and reason. There is simply no *reason* to think that the experience of beauty implies a creator. That's dogmatism: the substitution of intuitive or revealed truth for rational analysis or evidence.
The relationship between intuition as truth and dogmatism isn't in any way similar to the relationship between atheism and communism. Intuitionism is a dogmatic philosophy by definition.
Possibly the problem here is that you have an incredibly loose definition of 'intuition'. By any reasonable definition, we don't have an 'intuitive' sense of gravity. We have a physical experience of gravity. We don't float away from the surface of the earth. That isn't an intuition, it's just an is.
As for eliminating self-identifying skeptics... yeah. I do. Because frankly, a lot of people who aren't skeptics identify as skeptics. Just because they say they're skeptics doesn't mean I have to agree.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 4:25 AM
Babies think that if you drop something it will fall straight down. This was shown in experiment with a tube from a vacuum cleaner which took the dropped ball off course. Two-year olds kept looking directly underneath where the ball was dropped despite the tube being in full view. In other words, despite actually being able to see how the contraption worked, the young children followed their intuition even when it failed.And to pre-empt the citation question, this experiment is written up in Bruce Hood's Supersense.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 4:36 AM
Okay, for the sake of argument, what exactly is a Skeptic? Can you give some examples of who embodies it? Because to me it feels like you're gutting the term to the point that you're discounting the entire movement!Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 27, 2010 5:14 AM
Hm. They might have been intending to refer to unfalsifiable noninterventionist/impersonal God concepts there. Richard Dawkins dedicated the first chapter of The God Delusion to explaining that was exactly the sort of thing that the rest of the book would not be about.
But all (potentially) falsifiable interventionist/personal God concepts might well be fair game for skeptical analysis.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 6:04 AM
That's a mighty fine scarecrow you've made... Am I arguing that truths are intuitive? No! I'm talking about the use of intuition in part for our reasoning. But I don't need to make the case for intuition, I'll let Michael Shermer do it.In an evolutionary sense, do you think that given how important the brain is to our species that it wouldn't have evolved to be able to intuitively grasp certain aspects of the environment around us? Even causality is intuitive, our brain has expectations of how things interact. We use intuition as part of our reasoning whether you like it or not. I'll make myself very clear: I'm not advocating that truths are intuitive. I'm just saying that we use our intuitions as part of reasoning. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But you're going to get nowhere if you don't recognise this fact.
Posted by: Paul Macgowan
|
June 27, 2010 6:15 AM
Sickem PZ, could not agree more
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 6:24 AM
"Okay, for the sake of argument, what exactly is a Skeptic?"
A person who holds the philosophical position that absolute truth is probably unobtainable, and that therefore any truth claim that they make should be contingent and supported by reasoning and evidence.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 6:35 AM
So by that criteria, what rules out someone believing in a soul?Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 6:37 AM
"In other words, despite actually being able to see how the contraption worked, the young children followed their intuition even when it failed."
Wow. So two years of seeing a consistent behavior from the universe are now considered "intuition"?
I'm not failing to recognize that we use intuition as part of our reasoning. I'm making the point that you can't substitute intuition for evidence and reason, or prefer intuition over evidence and reason, and consider yourself a skeptic. And taking the design argument or the beauty argument as evidence that there is a god is doing precisely that.
As for making a scarecrow... jesus, dude, read this.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 6:41 AM
"So by that criteria, what rules out someone believing in a soul?"
The utter lack of reasons or evidence supporting the idea of a non-corporeal soul.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 6:53 AM
"Hm. They might have been intending to refer to unfalsifiable noninterventionist/impersonal God concepts there."
Sort of. Basically, Novella takes the position that Science and Skepticism are basically the same thing, or at least the Skepticism is a sort of science cheerleading, rather than the generative philosophy of science. But weirdly, although he maintains that position, and he says that science is agnostic on the God question, he doesn't continue the reasoning and say that skepticism implies agnosticism... or at least I've never heard him say so.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 6:53 AM
I'm not saying that you can. If the evidence and reason goes against intuition then intuition should be abandoned. But intuition is not all bad and at times it takes something powerful to break it. And when it comes to design, we know that design can be accounted for by designers. This is the beauty of Paley's argument. It's got many problems and we do need to abandon it, but we abandon it because reason and evidence has gone against that intuition. Not because it's intuitive but because the intuition is misleading. To you, maybe. But that's the problem, can you say that to another individual they would look at the same evidence and same reason and come to the same conclusion?Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 6:57 AM
So what of the experience of qualia? What of the experience of free will? And who is to say a soul has to be non-corporeal? Playing devil's advocate here, but are you serious that you can see no way one can believe in a soul and have reasons / evidence for it?Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 7:02 AM
"But that's the problem, can you say that to another individual they would look at the same evidence and same reason and come to the same conclusion?"
That beauty implies god isn't an evidence based position at all. It's pure intuition.
And actually, yes, I think that given evidence and reason, reasonable people should in principle be able to either agree on a conclusion or agree that the evidence is inconclusive.
And if the evidence for the existence of a god is inconclusive, the skeptical position is not to believe in that god.
Paley's argument has always struck me as utterly asinine and empty. A crab doesn't look remotely designed. It looks complicated. Designed objects are generally quite simple. Paley's argument is the imposition of dogma on observation, not a conclusion from observation.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 7:06 AM
"Playing devil's advocate here, but are you serious that you can see no way one can believe in a soul and have reasons / evidence for it?"
If by 'soul' you mean an emergent phenomena from biological process that terminates with that process, no. If by 'soul' you mean anything non-corporeal that continues after the termination of the biological process, yes... provided that by reasons you mean something more substantial than 'I just feel like it's true."
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 7:10 AM
I'm talking about design, not beauty. It's like you saw one word in there (keep in mind it was a collection of written responses collated by similarity) and then run with that. When I first brought it up, I mentioned design. I keep talking about design. Somehow you think you're actually addressing it by talking about beauty?Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 7:13 AM
Exactly. You're putting qualifiers on there, well done. You can categorically deny the capacity ever to have a good reason for something if no good reasons are offered. You must feel so proud!Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 7:14 AM
"Somehow you think you're actually addressing it by talking about beauty?"
It isn't my fault that you claimed that the argument from beauty was evidence based. But in fairness, I've addressed design as well. In that specific comment, actually. So I think you're sort of swinging wildly here.
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 7:21 AM
"You can categorically deny the capacity ever to have a good reason for something if no good reasons are offered."
What bullshit. If you define 'reason' as 'I just want to believe this', than I can't claim that people have no 'reason' to believe in a non-corporeal soul. I can claim that your definition of 'reason' is useless crap, but I can't claim that by your useless crap definition of reason, reasons can't be provided.
But if you define 'reason' as a rational conclusion based on critical thinking or evidence, I can in fact claim that no one has ever, in the entire recorded history of human thought, offered any 'reasons' for believing in a non-corporeal soul.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 7:21 AM
I did not! I included the word beauty in there because that's what the survey said. I was talking about design, nowhere once did I say beauty was evidence based other than the word was used as one of a category of explanations which people picked as a reasonable option. Yes you have addressed design. I can see you addressed design. I agreed with you that there are problems with design. But in the context of the skeptic movement this has now turned into the validity of individual claims, whereas I'm defending that one can use reason even if it does lead them astray and still be a Skeptic.One thing you need to learn is that humans are not robots! If you have the expectation of Turing complete humans then you're never going to be satisfied with anyone. That someone can follow a bad path is perfectly fine, we all do it. If you think you're perfect and not prone to the same mistakes as the rest of us, then congratulations. That's not what makes a Skeptic however...
Posted by: sethmanapio
|
June 27, 2010 7:31 AM
"One thing you need to learn is that humans are not robots! "
Again, bullshit.
I know that. I've written extensively and amusingly about it. Turing Complete, by the way, has nothing to do with being passionless or perfect. Humans are in fact Turing Complete, because the human brain can execute any algorithm that a computer can, which is what Turing Complete means. If we weren't, we couldn't program fucking computers.
Jesus.
I did not claim that skepticism implies infallibility or perfection. That is a story that you're just making up. I was extremely clear about my definition of a Skeptic, and those concepts were neither in it nor implied by it.
Posted by: John
|
June 27, 2010 8:14 AM
I think I see where Seth is coming from in his blog and the posts above. Firstly he defines how he sees skepticism and he considers by his definition people of faith cannot be considered skeptics.
However he acknowledges religious people can add value to the skeptical community in a positive manner. So whether we invite them to the community because we consider they are skeptics in areas other than religion or purely because of the contribution they can make, whilst not considering them skeptics seems a moot point. we both want them as part of the community.
His second point is that if we want people of faith to be part of the community we should not mock their faith purely for humour as this alienates them and may adversely affect their willingness to contribute to the skeptical community to our loss.
I don't think Seth is saying that we cannot debate religious issues skeptically where it affects society, be it in the classroom promoting intelligent design or in society in large on issues such as treatment of women, homosexuals and many other issues, just that we shouldnt mock peoples beliefs purely for humour.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 27, 2010 8:23 AM
This is like not talking about alt-med because you're at a table with Bill Maher.
Not a road I want to see a sceptical movement go down.
And just like Bill, can religious sceptics make useful contributions, hell why not.I might not understand the mental gymnastics and compartmentalization they have to go through to arrive at their particular "religious sceptic" position, and find said position rationally and logically untenable, but what the heck .
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 27, 2010 8:29 AM
Although, having been at a table with Bill Maher where several people were itching to rage at him about alt med, the problem wasn't an unwillingness to go after him -- it was that Maher shunned everyone and refused to talk to anyone about anything at all. Except to complain about how slow the waitstaff were at meeting his demands for bottled water.
Posted by: Steve
|
June 27, 2010 9:05 AM
I've always thought that atheism and skepticism go hand in hand, and am surprised when I meet atheists who believe in magic and psychic phenomena and so on. However, atheism and skepticism are both 'negative' positions, in that they are both about what one does NOT believe. I therefore prefer to call myself a physicalist, which is a 'positive' position because it expresses what I do think, namely that only the physical world exists. Skepticism is an attitude and an approach, and atheism is a conclusion. Physicalism is an answer to the question, "OK, so you don't believe in God - what do you believe?" Most atheists and skeptics are physicalists, whether they call themselves that or not.
Posted by: theswede
|
June 27, 2010 10:27 AM
"OK, so you don't believe in God - what do you believe?"
Who says I have to believe? As far as I know, I don't, and I have no intention to start claiming I do just because my lack of belief might make others uncomfortable.
Posted by: Foster Disbelief
|
June 27, 2010 11:49 AM
*Sigh*
I've always been a fan of Astronomy Cast and enjoyed and respected Pamela Gay. I knew she was a Christian, but it didn't interfer with her science or her skepticism. This really disappoints me. She has every right to believe whatever she wants to believe, but we have every right to not limit the beliefs we subject to skepticism and the demand for evidence.
What about the astrologers who are skeptical about every thing else? Or the skeptic who has a soft spot for homeopathy? Or Bill Maher? Are we supposed to tip-toe around their cherished beliefs so as not to alienate a potential ally?
I'm sorry, but there are no sacred cows. Religious beliefs have been unquestionable for too long, and it needs to come to an end. Any claim about the natural, material world requires evidence. If I believe that the center of the earth is a giant ball of yarn, and want others to take my belief seriously and not mock me, then I better have evidence. It's no different if my claim is that Odin and Bael tag teamed to created the planet Neptune as the one true place of salvation.
I will gladly welcome the religious into the fold of skepticism, just as I'd welcome the astrologers, the homeopaths, the ufologists, the ghost hunters, and all the like. It's a plus when anyone embraces the methods of science and the search for evidence. But all beliefs are open to skepticism, even your most cherished.
Even religion.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/9P5w5b43meweapiixUirC7qjcl6ISwg-#f2bb2
|
June 27, 2010 12:05 PM
This is all histrionics after the fact. It has been some time in the West since religious beliefs were unassailable. If you begin with Martin Luther or the decline of the Church as governing institution, it has been quite some time. The scathing, intolerance evident in this blogger's words and those of many of the respondents, on the other hand, is symptomatic of an age-old, arrogant othering. It's not scientific prerogative to judge the fitness of philosophies and ideologies.
Faith is, after all, defined as belief in the absence of evidence. It is akin to trust, which is anathema to skepticism. Only in profound ignorance do we assume either that people of faith are unaware of the difference between demonstrable, physical knowledge of the natural world and the philosophical beliefs and mythologies which help them understand and cope with a human's role in society. And only in profound naivety can we assume that a world without ideals and aspirations beyond the state of nature would be utopic or even improved.
http://www.antiantichristian.com/?p=98
Posted by: Pluto Animus
|
June 27, 2010 12:06 PM
Sigh.
It's blog entries like this one that reveal the boundless joy that PZ Myers finds in carefully exploring ideas. It's a real treat that he shares it with us, considering what an intellectual desert we live in.
His delight with critical thinking and exploring evidence deserves a fancy name. I say, let's coin something from German:
Denkenfreude: the joy of thinking.
Posted by: theswede
|
June 27, 2010 12:10 PM
And only in profound naivety can we assume that a world without ideals and aspirations beyond the state of nature would be utopic or even improved.
And you base this rather amazing dogpile of a sentence on what, exactly? You really hold that if supernatural goals are removed nothing will get better? And this in the face of evidence to the contrary?
If your link is to more turds of the same kind you can keep it, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: deriamis
|
June 27, 2010 12:17 PM
So, why can't I marry my husband, then? (I am a gay man.) "Marriage" is supposedly a state-sanctioned and "sacred" religious concept, and I have to accept a different word for the same thing, if I even get the same thing.Also, as an atheist, I could never have aspirations for public office because not believing in a deity is a great way not to get very many votes - regardless of whether people agree with my policies. For some reason, being religious is much more important to the average voter (most of whom are overtly religious) than whether my tenure would serve their secular interests.
Religion may not be unassailable, but it is certainly not the powerless institution you make it out to be.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
June 27, 2010 12:24 PM
Hmm. Late to the table again. Oh well ...
Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls (#40)
Some would take issue with that, on the grounds that ascribing agency in a non-temporal context is self-contradictory. Unless of course the "eternal God" of the hypothesis is postulated to exist/have existed in some entirely separate temporal frame of reference (e.g., another universe).
The potential defensibility of theism (or in this case deism) doesn't just hinge on a lack of empirical disproof. Rather, having an internally coherent hypothesis is the first hurdle it has to overcome, before any questions of empirical testability can be raised.
Or as T.H. Huxley put it: "The first duty of a hypothesis is to be intelligible".
(#55)
Actually, keep it sufficiently vague and it can be quite legitimately attacked and dismissed on the grounds of lack of meaningful content.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
June 27, 2010 12:58 PM
#273
Prerogative? Perhaps not, and certainly not exclusively. However, science and the scientific method remain invaluable components in the judging toolbox.
This faith=trust trope gets wearisome. Trust can be justified empirically, and still count as trust. Faith can't.
And only in profound ignorance do we assume that all people of faith are aware of the difference.
In any case, with the possible exception of a vanishingly small minority of theological non-cognitivists, even those believers who see their religion as "philosophical beliefs and mythologies which help them understand and cope with a human's role in society" are still often given to claims which can, and should, be critically scrutinised. The issue here is skepticism, and the skeptical approach isn't necessarily limited to empirical questions.
Posted by: Tmax01
|
June 27, 2010 4:49 PM
Huran @ #38:
Worth repeating. Most religionists and faithiests always sound to me like Ann Coulter complaining about how "Liberals are Hateful."
The whole "non-overlapping magisteria" thing just elevates ignorance to the same level as knowledge.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 5:52 PM
It was in response to this: When Simon Conway Morris was on SGU, he was asked about his opposition to materialism. He mentioned qualia - is that him being non-skeptical? Perhaps. But from his perspective that is powerful evidence for more than the material. Not faith, but evidence.This is not about taking ideas off the table or making an ontological distinction, it's about the fact that different people have different factors in their reasoning, their own preconceptions, their own biases - you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions about humans being generally reasonable. Notice that most people outside the sciences can't abide by Darwin's strange inversion of reasoning? Even some in can't abide by it. Education, experience, cognitive ability - all these factor in.
Again, your bias is showing. Bad Skeptic!
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 27, 2010 6:13 PM
It is the very rare theist who admits that he believes in God only on faith, and has faith only because he wants something to be true. They usually see faith as allowing them to make a very small leap indeed. They believe in God, on evidence. It explains something -- even if it explains only why they feel a certain way. Their refusal to consider other explanations for their feelings or intuitions doesn't mean their conclusions aren't, in theory, empirical.
Dowsing is, in theory, testable. The fact that dowsers invariably start coming up with excuses for why the controlled test "didn't work" only shows that dowsing can be untestable in practice, because humans can be stubborn. Dowsing itself isn't "beyond the ability of science to say, one way or the other."
I think the confusion on this issue may be because they believe in God on bad evidence, and so it is tempting to say that they don't believe on evidence at all.
Does someone who believes that the moon landing was a hoax have evidence for their beliefs? Yes ... and no. Depends on how you mean that.
Posted by: Punk'd by Entropy
|
June 27, 2010 7:24 PM
There is a wide variety of interpretation of beliefs both in and out of skepticism. There are cultural discussions among some skeptics on weather the word skeptic should be skeptic, or sceptic.
IMHO, not one person here can make a valid point that the body of Dr. Gays' work can be thrown out by some sort of arbitrary or subjective atheist discipline that trumps any scientific or mathematical discipline.
It is my opinion that there are many, perhaps most, among the population that cling to their religious beliefs out of fear,guilt, and shame. From a personal perspective once I was able to remove the yolk of fear, guilt, shame, and superstition, I was able to look upon the world as it is, rather than than judge it through some ancient dogma.
No doubt someone will cry bullshit, but helping someone overcome the fear, guilt,shame, of religious superstition can be more useful than citing the follies of those personal beliefs.
Posted by: Redhill
|
June 28, 2010 2:22 AM
A late comment on skepticism:
I think Sethmanapio at #252 provides a fine working definition of skepticism: "A person who holds the philosophical position that absolute truth is probably unobtainable, and that therefore any truth claim that they make should be contingent and supported by reasoning and evidence."
To me a lot of the discussion above about whether all skeptics should be atheists revolves around how broadly a skeptic should apply Sethmanapio's philosophical position.
I think most skeptics focus on local and specific knowledge claims and any flaws in the reasoning and evidence underlying them.
They may or may not want to broaden their focus into big vague questions about the nature of the universe, pantheism, theism, atheism and the like.
Of course, in most cases, a skeptic's interest in what makes a knowledge claim valid will lead them to be skeptical about big universal claims about gods, the universe, and the meaning of it all.
But as a rule, I expect most skeptics to be more interested in reality than fantasy, except for entertainment, and in epistemology, how we know stuff, than in the murky waters of metaphysical dogma.
Returning to Dr Gay's case, she may well be capable of local skepticism about specific matters while she drifts on the metaphysical deep.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
June 28, 2010 4:12 AM
Punk'd by Entropy:
I don't see anyone here making a claim it should. Good science is not defined by the scientists personal beliefs or lack thereof, it's just what it is. But letting irrational beliefs pass unridiculed is false civility.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 4:14 AM
Of course to think the case for God is purely on an evidential basis would be a mistake. It's partly a philosophical justification and beyond the realms of science. It's not to say critical thinking doesn't apply, but it should be no surprise that theists will include miracles as evidence, something of which we would say is impossible. Methodological naturalism can explain away miracles (think James Randi replicating Uri Geller's tricks) but it can't explain them. Those questions are beyond the realm of science and into philosophy. I agree, good evidence is what matters. I think the lunartics fail because they have constructed an even more implausible narrative in order to dismiss where the evidence points to.Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 28, 2010 4:22 AM
But the modern skeptic movement is not and ought not to be a philosophical movement. It should be about the promotion of critical thinking and science. If you're going to extend it beyond that into making philosophical commitments (however sound), it's defeating the whole purpose of why people are doing it and why it needs doing.Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 28, 2010 1:37 PM
I really shouldn't be weighing in on this old thread without reading all the answers, but I just have to say that any college professor who suggests that answering something about the second coming should have been acceptable or that the question being poorly worded is an excuse for giving a lame cop-out answer is either really stretching for something to argue about, lying, or grossly incompetent. How many tests did Professor Gay take during her education? How many has she given since? No matter what the subject or the nature of the course, a question like that automatically implies that one will discuss how the material learned in the course informs the answer, rather than giving a flat answer. That may have been written in the instructions for the exam as a general rule, discussed in class, or (especially for an upper level course) simply assumed. But if you are in college and you are answering an open ended question like that, you darn well better discuss it in terms of the material covered in class, however it is worded. There is no one correct answer, but if you can't justify your answer using material from the course (and additional material) then your answer is garbage. You could give the "correct" answer, but if you couldn't actually discuss it in terms of the course material, you still wouldn't get 20 points. These kids either thought they could pull a fast one and get away with their cop-out answer, or they were pissed off before the test even started and answered the way they did as an act of protest. Either way, they got the grade they deserved.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 28, 2010 7:56 PM
Agreed. But unlike Pamela Gay, Jilette doesn't start a whinefest whenever someone applies skepticism to his loopy beliefs.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkK9cJ22s_BWm-q2XJTYABcoFSNBbsWHv0
|
June 29, 2010 4:42 AM
I just listened to the podcast in question, read the blog, read Gay's post, read this blog, read SGUs response to the drama and i arrived at this conclusion:
For the most part the topic would have been irrelevant and treated as a "minor incident" if in fact Gay would not have posted that little story about the students.
The whole situation is basically blown way out of proportion (by the ever-present drama on the internet)
Incidentally Gay's story reminds me of this Calvin and Hobbes
Posted by: podblack
|
June 29, 2010 5:16 AM
I've completed an interview (in two parts - the first part will appear on the Skeptic Zone podcast) with Dr Pamela Gay for the Token Skeptic show - details are here:
http://tokenskeptic.org/2010/06/29/episode-twenty-seven-on-separation-between-scientific-truth-and-belief-interview-with-dr-pamela-gay/
Posted by: moderation
|
June 29, 2010 5:23 PM
Since so much of this post was devoted to the comment by Seth, I wanted to address that issue. I think Dr. Myers is missing one major point when comparing Pamela Gay to a dowser. Pamela Gay was an invited guest and a caller who is a dowser is not. Common courtesy would dictate that, especially if you know it ahead of time, you do not mock an invited guest's beliefs, unless they are there to specifically debate their beliefs.
If I am a dowser and call in to a skeptics show, I should have an expectation that my beliefs in finding water with a stick might be mocked. But, if I am an invited guest to speak on a particular scientific topic, it is in poor taste to make fun of their beliefs.
Posted by: tarotgameplayer
|
June 30, 2010 11:29 AM
"We've all also got limited time; I think tarot cards are complete bunk, but I haven't spent any effort on ripping them up, just because I've got other targets I find more interesting." I know this is a small portion of the article but why not play card games with tarot cards? They weren't really meant to be this superstition that they are mostly sold for. They were really made for game playing. The tarot game is very popular in places like France and Canada.
There is a small number of skeptics like myself who are promoting the idea that game players should reclaim the tarot to both demystify it and to also have a good time.
http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Tarot
http://gameoftarot.com
Posted by: max.sandwalk
|
July 5, 2010 5:54 PM
Hello there. you will probably answer this comment billion years later so I will assume you will allow me to translate this (and many others posts) to spanish for my blog godlessboy(dot)com. And since you are coming to Mexico, translating your posts may be a great deal to nonenglish speakers. We are waiting for your in Coloquio Mexicano de Ateísmo 2010.
Many Thanks...
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 5, 2010 6:02 PM
Lots of people ask to do translations...and the answer is always yes, as long as it includes a link back to here.
Posted by: spinn.wordpress.com
|
July 5, 2010 9:48 PM
I think you're pretty spot on here, except for the bit about the essay question. Putting aside for a moment the likelihood that there are missing details in the story -- if I were that professor and saw the answer "Jesus will end it", I would have to re-evaluate the question itself. And if some smart-aleck student wrote "The Smurfocalypse", I would give him the credit only after he came to my office and gave a credible explanation why he would believe that. But to say that is a bad answer to a (bad) question denies the fact that there are credible scientists with religion. (And come to think of it, your reaction also sorta denies the fact that there are sometimes just bad questions on exams.)
I mean, there are realities, of course. The professor's the one with the grading power and there's a type of answer he's clearly looking for. But if I were religious and presented with that question, I would be hard-pressed to answer it with anything other than what I actually believe.
Posted by: eleutheria
|
July 23, 2010 11:23 PM
I grew up in a religious family and was myself quite religious until I reached middle school and began studying evolution. I was fascinated with evolution, but I was being told by religious folks that it was evil. My science teacher said nothing about religion. So I began the slow and painful process of letting go of god. If my science teacher had simply said what my ecology prof. later said in college--that science and religion ask different questions--I might still be religious. And I would also accept evolution.
Not that I regret becoming as I am, but my point is that science teachers have to realize that they are dealing with children, not adults or robots. Depending on their background, these children may not have yet encountered the kinds of critical thinking skills that skeptics so value. Religion may be a very emotionally-charged topic, and who knows what they are hearing at home. And while the teacher's intent may have been to champion the cold edge of reason, he may have ensured instead that those children will never again take a science class. This kind of polar division is exactly my problem with fundamentalist atheists/skeptics.
Someone's got to budge if conversation is going to open on the issue of, let's say evolution in schools. If atheists and skeptics really want to expose people to their enlightened point of view, why do they turn the religious away? I think atheists/skeptics would be taking the high road if they were the ones to open up--not to teach creation as a scientific theory, but to sensitively embark on a challenging topic. To help children understand that they can make their own choices based on their experiences--this is what becoming an adult and a skeptic is all about.
And to call the religious childish...well, I think we are all childish. A century or two from now we may find particle physics as quaint as the idea that the earth is flat. I thought the biggest lesson of all to science-minded people was that we must be humble. I'm not saying we should coddle religious people or make exceptions in skeptic discussions, but I don't think we should turn them away, either--especially not children.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 23, 2010 11:49 PM
eleutheria, to address each paragraph in order:
1. Kids today have the internet, not just their science teacher. Different circumstances.
2. I suspect teachers are aware that they're teaching children.
Also, teaching critical thinking skills may be "a polar division" to the teaching religion, but that's not a good reason to avoid it.
3. You claim that atheists and skeptics turn the religious away.
Do you mean we have the temerity to disagree, or what?
4. Your belief that we are all childish is noted.
Also, can you elaborate on how religious people are humbler than atheists and skeptics?
--
PS Note that you're not being turned away.
I write this because you clearly exhibit religious thinking, whether you're theistic or not.
Posted by: eleutheria
|
July 24, 2010 1:29 PM
1. Especially with the internet, kids need help developing a framework for understanding what they read--for learning how to deal with information that may contradict (or seem to contradict) what they have experienced or heard from family.
2.What I meant here is that PZ/commenters seem to hold the children to the same standard of critical thinking and thick skin as they would an adult. While I agree that children should have those skills, many don't because their parents don't/never taught them. So, for example, while I would expect that any adult of any background coming to a skeptics meeting should be prepared to debate anything and everything, I wouldn't hold a child to the same standard.
And I'm not convinced that the distinction between belief and thought was ever made clear to these girls--had it been, their answers might have been different.
Lastly, and I should have been more clear about this, I see a polar division between the religious and the anti-religious that prevents evolution and other science topics from being fully understood by the public at large. Most people encounter two extremes, when the reality is that most folks are somewhere in the middle--ex. they may believe in a little god, but they also accept evolution. The invisibility of this position creates an impasse that prevents us from resolving issues like having creationism in biology textbooks--it doesn't belong there, but until we can find a way to bridge that impasse, Texas is gonna find a way to print those abominations.
3.I don't think disagreement is the problem. I think drawing a hard line and saying that religion is always a bad thing/that it has to be eradicated turns religious people away.
4. I don't think that religious people are humbler--what I meant there was that it is arrogant to assume we know the answers--I have seen so many skeptics and atheists take this condescending tone towards religious people and I think it's just silly. Sure, we have observation--but science is a way of exploring and understanding the world based on observable phenomena, and that understanding changes over time. It can't test whether god exists or not. It's one way of understanding the world that involves a leap of faith in the scientific method. While I personally consider it to produce a higher quality of information than praying or reading the bible, the truth is that I plain don't know. I can make an educated guess, but none of us is omniscient.
I don't see where I exhibit religious thinking...where do you get that?
Getting back to the topic at hand, I do see the value of keeping atheist and skeptic discussions separate, in that skeptics don't address religion, but I think it's also hard to keep that boundary closed. In the skeptics group I attended in Tallahassee, it was the same people from the atheist meetup and we inevitably strayed toward religion. It's hard not to when you're talking about things like alternative medicine.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 1:48 PM
There is no leap of faith involved with science. There is evidence and theories. The word faith (belief without evidence) has no use near science and scientific theories. Some religious people try to pretend science is faith based, which is false. And that does make scientists, skeptics, and rationalists a bit peeved as it is offense to us.We keep asking religious folks who post here about how they know things. It all comes down to faith, belief without evidence, on their part. Or revelation of something they can't and/or won't explain. Faith their deity exists, and faith their holy book isn't mythology/fiction. They have no cogent evidence based explanations. And we don't take them seriously without those explanations and evidence.Posted by: John Morales
|
July 24, 2010 8:48 PM
eleutheria, thanks for the response.
1. Perhaps. But having to evaluate the information one finds on the 'net (where all points of view are covered) is a much better position to be in than not to have access to that information.
2.
Your apprehension does not accord with mine, though admittedly I have the advantage of having been a regular reader here for some time.
FWIW, I can assure you that this is not my position, and I don't consider myself an outlier in this.
If religiosity is a continuum, then clearly there will be extreme anti-religious and extreme religious, with the bulk being somewhere in between.
Be aware that religiosity and atheism are only loosely-coupled — there exist religious atheists as well as irreligious theists.
3.
Then you should be aware that PZ (and Pharynguloid consensus) is that, (to paraphrase PZ) "religion should be akin to a hobby, rather like knitting, rather than a social and political force."
That's as hard-line as most of us get (yes, there are exceptions).
4. What Nerd said re "faith in science", with the clarification that (in a loose sense) inductive reasoning is a form of "faith".
--
Amongst other things, your contention that science is faith-based.
How is theism not superstition, and thus outside the purview of skeptics? Seems to me you're engaging in special pleading, here.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 24, 2010 9:00 PM
PS I should note that more than one declared theist has been awarded this site commenter award, the "Order of the Molly"¹ (OM).
That's a counter-example to the claim that theists are turned away.
--
¹ (In honor of Molly Ivins — cf. the "Commenters" link in the grey bar at top of page for details.)