I’m going to be podcasting on this matter later, thanks to two very kind people who have responded to my request, and I’ll see if I can transcribe it.
But I just want to post a few links in response to PZ Myer’s ‘Should skeptic organizations be atheist organizations?’ which is in regards to Dr Pamela Gay’s Separation of Scientific Truth and Belief.
In short? No. And I am reminded again of some comments written by my friend Michael McRae:
“I don’t want to just draw the already skeptical or atheist together into a church group of non-believer. I want to do something harder – I want there to be more skeptics and more atheists in the next generation. And more still in the one after that. Mocking, fear tactics, derision…these things will not achieve that. In fact, they polarise the population into us and them. And that makes my job harder than it needs to be.”
“…Conversely, without even going into the literature on evaluating social epistemology and the effect of aggression, let me ask; if a religious person were to insult you now for being an idiot, what impact would it have? Would you laugh at them? Mock them back? Walk away? What is the chance you would nod sagely and reconsider your position, a position you feel comfortable in? I’d venture to think there is little chance hardcore mockery would do much to prompt you to reconsider, yet you’re insinuating it would for many others.
You’re asking if there are studies on the contrast of each approach. There aren’t, at least no direct ones on this specific topic. Yet if you’re truly interested, I’d suggest looking into cognitive psychology and a bit of pedagogy to understand the problem better. While there is no single study that will provide a clear conclusion for you, I have yet to find a person who studies the field of communications for a living come to a personal conclusion that mockery is an effective way of getting people to think critically.”
What particularly strikes me is that this is all happening just as Heidi Anderson has just presented on I Seriously Doubt It – Moving Skepticism from Snark to Substance at the CFI Leadership Conference (being held June 24-27 in Amherst, NY). These are the slides without the audio, but you’ll get the idea.
In closing – but certainly not finished with as far as I’m concerned… this is something I sent into the CSICOP website, a little while back – you can read the full interview at the site: The Deist Skeptic – Not A Contradiction.
From my own personal experiences I’ve had while teaching in faith-based schools, I’ve seen that religion and skepticism can coexist. I’ve attended skeptic conferences where skeptical people happily discuss their faith (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) over dinner; I’ve even heard the responses of those same people when presenters on a skeptic conference stage think they’re talking to atheist-only skeptics! Sure, the demographic of any sample-size of skeptics at a skeptical gathering will most likely contain plenty of atheists, but we cannot claim that those who hold religious beliefs don’t stand along with them.
My first experience with the “deist skeptic” question came from attending The Amazing Meet!ng 3 back in 2005. I recall some of the discussions that stemmed from that time—Penn Jillette made inflammatory comments about religious people from the stage, Julia Sweeney discussed her own journey of faith, and we spoke in person with the very approachable Richard Dawkins. Naturally, the question of whether skeptics could believe in God came up again and again, long after TAM3 ended, among skeptics online and in personal discussions.
There was even a panel discussion at TAM4 about deist skeptics—a podcast episode featuring Hal Bidlack on deist skeptics was presented on Skepticality. I’m certain that there are more and more people over time who will point out that Martin Gardner, the late Jerry Andrus, Harry Houdini, and even employees and forum moderators of the James Randi Educational Foundation believe in the existence of a god. I probably don’t have to point out the millions of blog entries online that approach skepticism with atheist leanings, but where are the blogs that acknowledge “the other side”? Where are the blogs that talk about how atheism and skepticism are not one and the same?
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Pamela was replying to my post here. A lot of people want to use the word ‘skeptic’ to mean ‘critical thinker about a lot of things’ or ‘supporter of skeptical causes’. To me, this is like using the word ‘Gay’ to mean ‘not a bigot’. It misses the roots and history of Skepticism and transforms it from a philosophical position to a social club.
People who take the popular view often deny this by claiming that people who strongly believe that all Skeptics either are now or will soon be atheists are being exclusionary or attempting to create a club. But that’s ridiculous… skepticism isn’t a club, and you don’t have to be a philosophical skeptic to enjoy skeptically themed events or gatherings.
What ends up happening is that people claim that philsophical skepticism is exclusionary and bad, and that ‘Christian Skeptic’ is not an oxymoron, and then proceed to mock the foundational ideas of theism, like the soul. This is like claiming that Black people are welcome in your social club and then regaling those that show up with your wonderful collection of racist jokes. It’s dishonest.
I think it would be more honest to hold the position that Skepticism is a philosophical stance fundamentally incompatible with belief in things that cannot be supported by reason or evidence. It doesn’t change anything except the expectations of people who are not skeptics when they wander into a group of skeptics. It’s better to admit and accept your differences with other people than it is to pretend they don’t exist.
I’ll be waiting for the podcast.
I don’t think that Skeptical organisations should be Atheistic. On the subject of mocking, well that’s possibly the discussion we should have, what’s the sort of language that deist and theist skeptics are uncomfortable with and should it be modified. Is the community(or prominent members within it) being impolite or are they asking questions that make certain skeptics uncomfortable.
I think what is being argued is that skeptics should be consistent. Perhaps we need to look at whether the skeptic community holds a double standard on issues such as religion. Is it not contradictory to say that you simultaneously believe in empirical evidence and a christian god?
Also, where do we draw the line. If Pamela Gay insisted that she could communicate with the dead, would she be invited to speak as a featured guest on a skeptic podcast? What if she were a vaccine denier? If anything, I think the question merits discussion, but I think the real question is… how do we define ourselves as a movement or sub-genre? That’s the thread that runs through all this.
@ Seth,
Thanks for posting the link to your post. Pamela’s second comment answers some of my questions. I think it does pay to be specific when we are being skeptical about claims whether it might be someone rising from the dead or believing that the movement of the planets impacts our personalities.
I agree with Sean in that Pamela does seem a lot more reasonable in her second comment. Where the first seems to be saying that skepticism should either avoid the issue of religion or become an atheists-only club (neither of which I’d want anything to do with), the second does a good job of explaining the need for specificity when addressing religious claims.
I’m still unconvinced by her non-defence of her religion in her own blog, though. It seems a bit of a copout, not that she has to justify her beliefs to me, and her claim that “the modern culture wars between the New Athiests and Young Earth Creationists are getting in the way of teaching science” seems to come from nowhere and go nowhere.
After many lengthy and frustrating posts and discussions on the subject (at Skepticality), I now defer to the character of Penny (The Big Bang Theory) as a good way to illustrate how I see the whole issue. I find this example fairly succinct, and typical of the argument I hear.
Penny:
I’m a vegetarian. Well, except for fish, and the occasional steak. I love steak!
I find the question odd. What would the consensus be if we asked “should sceptic organisations be a-homeopathic” or “a-psychic”?
Andy – answers hopefully given in the new Token Skeptic podcast episode. http://www.tokenskeptic.org.
You must log in to post a comment.