Beware of dragon
“George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.”
- Sam Harris
If you replaced the phrase “Christians love him for it” with “skeptics must shut up” in the above quote, Sam Harris could be describing the current state of the skeptical movement.
Recently, one of my least favorite issues has resurfaced, what role, if any, atheism has within the skeptical movement. The controversy seems to have begun with Jeff Wagg writing a blog singling out a flyer and four scheduled talks at Skepticon3 focused on atheism or more accurately religious criticism, one of which with a heavy emphasis on physics. Though Wagg hadn’t seen the talks yet, he expressed more than mild disapproval of them based on their titles and his opinions of the speakers themselves. In fact, he suggested these topics have no right being discussed at a skeptical conference at all. According to Wagg, this doesn’t look like a skeptics conference at all, but rather something entirely different, “an atheist conference”…or worse “an anti-Christian conference.”
BUT DON’T PANIC!!!
Wagg also found another flyer for the event that better met his personal approval, even though it also promises to dissect “the pretensions of religion” and features pictures of the same exact speakers, all of whom are well-known atheists. Wagg also included the correspondence between himself and the organizer where the organizer assured him that numerous other skeptical topics would be presented and that it wasn’t just “an atheist conference.” The organizer even explained that since Skepticon3 was being held in the Midwest where religion is a particularly big issue, that may account for the larger than usual emphasis on religion.
But Wagg wasn’t happy with this answer because, like many other skeptics (who incidentally don’t believe in any deity for presumably good reasons), Wagg feels skepticism and atheism have no relationship at all:
As for Christianity, skepticism has nothing to say except about testable claims associated therein. Bleeding statues? Yes, skepticism comes into play. Jesus rose and is in heaven? Seems unlikely, but there’s not a lot more to say.
This has become a common sentiment among a growing number skeptics, which brings me back to the hair dryer. George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and skeptics must shut up. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I also fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.
Almost two years ago, the NYC Skeptics and the New England Skeptics Society collaborated to organize our first annual Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NECSS) and I don’t think I was alone in noticing that the issue that dominated the vast majority of that conference was criticism of the anti-vaccine movement. And much emphasis was placed on how much evidence contradicted anti-vaccine claims while nobody hesitated for a moment to even entertain the possibility that all the studies proving them wrong have been deliberately manipulated by powerful conspirators with an invested interest in deceiving the public about the true harms caused by vaccines, as most anti-vaccinationists argue.
An invisible grand conspiracy with seemingly infinite resources to cover up the truth is every bit as unfalsifiable as any appeal to an invisible, omnipotent deity, and yet no skeptic I know of considers it speaking out of school to reject this excuse flat-out unless compelling evidence can be presented. Further, when self-proclaimed “psychics” say that their powers fail when in the presence of a skeptic, I know of no skeptics who view this as a valid excuse that demands skeptics keep their psychic criticisms to themselves.
The reason for this is obvious. In fact, it’s almost become the skeptic movement’s unofficial motto: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” A key word here is “require.” When someone makes an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on them to provide sufficient evidence for that claim. If they fail to do so FOR ANY REASON, whether it be that their dog ate their homework or that their god ate their homework, an excuse is an excuse. If you fail to meet the required burden of proof, you don’t just get a pass for having come up with the most inventive excuse. Rather, you simply fail and no one is under any obligation to take your claims even the slightest bit seriously. Carl Sagan beautifully explains this principle with his invisible dragon in the garage analogy.
So why do seemingly all skeptics recognize this when it comes to every other kind of claim except those wrapped up in packaging with gods on it? As far as I can tell, it appears to be special pleading because skeptics want to grow our numbers and are worried about further alienating the religious, who make up a majority of the world’s population.
And to justify this inconsistency, some skeptics have invented their own myths like that those damned atheists in the skeptic movement want to kick out all the deists and theists from the skeptical movement or that Richard Dawkins calls all religious people stupid even though, as far as I can tell, he has done no such thing. In fact the only two instances I could ever find that even come close was when Dawkins made an off the cuff remark on Bill Maher’s show (3:40 mark), calling Francis Collins “not a bright guy” after initially defending him as intelligent until Maher said that Collins believed in the literal Garden of Eden and when Dawkins responded to Ray Comfort’s version of Darwin’s Origin of Species on CNN by calling Comfort specifically an idiot on the topic of evolution (which he in fact is). And both those incidents happened after the “Dawkins calls all religious people stupid” myth began.
For the record, I don’t think deists or theists of any kind should be banned from the skeptical movement. Nor do I think people who believe in psychics, homeopathy, Scientology, or any other form of nonsense should be banned from the skeptical movement. What I do think however is that a key element of the skeptical movement is critically analyzing your own beliefs and expressing criticism of beliefs that are not supported by empirical evidence. So I think that if you’re the kind of person who views fair, objective criticisms of your beliefs as unwelcome personal attacks, then this may simply not be the right group for you. Though what Wagg and the skeptics who share his position seem to be saying is that unapologetic atheists should be banned, or at the very least, their voices should.
Additional reading:
PZ Myers’ response to Jeff Wagg’s blog
Hermant Mehta’s response to Wagg
“Wagg feels skepticism and atheism have no relationship at all”
Considering that Wagg already said outright that testable religious claims are subject to skeptical inquiry, what you said is patently untrue.
I’ll certainly admit to perhaps applying a little hyperbole but I’ll point out that Wagg even objected to an “atheist” talk grounded in physics. If Dr. Stenger is addressing areas where religious claims directly violate the known laws of physics, why is that inappropriate subject matter for a skeptical convention?
Michael – Wagg specifically said that the Stenger talk should be there. Let’s look at his paragraph:
“Well, wait a moment. I obviously haven’t seen these talks, and I can see how Vic Stenger’s talk could be appropriate for a skeptics conference, but this really looks like an atheist conference to me. In fact, take a look at this flyer. Again, looks like an atheist conference. In fact, it looks like an anti-Christian conference.”
What he’s saying is that on its own, Stenger’s talk would have fit into a skeptical conference fine. What he is saying here is that seeing so many topics of what he perceives as an anti-theist bent all together suggest to him that the entire conference is weighted more on the atheist side than the skeptical side.
And yet he still felt the need to single out the Stenger talk as part of his argument that the event seems too atheist, and he seems somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of any skeptical talk entering the religious realm. But what if the thesis of a talk were “anti-theist”? If the arguments and scientific methodology are sound, why should that be questionable material? Again, I don’t feel religious criticism alone equates to a conclusion, nor do I feel that religious criticism and skepticism fall on different sides of any continuum. What matters is the quality of the arguments and the methodology being applied. As long as speakers aren’t misleading their audience about the facts and are presenting their position in a fair manner that gets people thinking, I see no problem with that.
“Though what Wagg and the skeptics who share his position seem to be saying is that unapologetic atheists should be banned, or at the very least, their voices should.”
Really? C’mon, if you read what he actually wrote there’s no way you could honestly think that.
What Wagg and the skeptics like him (like me) are saying is that skepticism and anti-theism are two very different things. Organized skepticism should focus primarily on methodological naturalism, and organized atheism can continue to combat the dangers of religion.
Jeff is, I believe, an atheist. As am I. I will even go so far as to say I think it is natural for a skeptic to therefore be an atheist, and I would also say it’s a bit odd for a skeptic to *not* be an atheist. I would even go father and speculate that Jeff and many others like us agree with that statement as well. Still, the battles against religion are very different in nature and tone from the science-focused areas typically addressed by skeptics. There are no shortage of atheist groups to take on the religious problems.
Jeff made it very clear in his article that he didn’t have a problem with the subject matter at Skepticon 3, nor did he have a problem with like-minded people doing the good work these guys are doing fighting the worst aspects of religion. What he objected to was the conflation of the terms atheism and skepticism, and he’s right about that. Like it or not a lot of people don’t want to work with ‘atheists’, but are happy to promote science. While diluting the term ‘skeptic’ to automatically entail ‘atheist’ is superficially understandable, it is not technically accurate (although it is, to be certain, close to being so), and it is strategically problematic, which is the primary concern.
This is a conflict of semantics and pragmatism, not science, and we’d all be better off if we approach the issue Jeff’s way.
It’s become a common, and disturbing, refrain among “unapologetic atheists” that voicing any concern about conflating “skepticism” (a process) and “atheism” (a conclusion) is de facto calling for atheists to be censored, thrown out of the skeptical movement, or claiming that religion should be off-limits to skeptical inquiry. I don’t think Jeff ever said, and I don’t know anyone who has.
Of course, I must now make it explicitly clear (as Michael did, above) that I don’t think atheists (of which I am one) should be banned or censored from skepticism, skeptical conferences, or anywhere else, nor do I think that religion should be spared critical scrutiny. Of course, I will probably still be accused of coddling religion, being an accommodationist, or suffer the wrath of “outspoken atheists” who feel they are being attacked.
But was the term “atheism” even used? It certainly wasn’t in the titles of the four topics Wagg singled out for criticism. I’d hate for this issue to simply boil down to semantics. I don’t feel the term “atheism” implies a conclusion, but if it does, I have no trouble divorcing the content of legitimate, scholarly religious criticism from the term “atheism.” I’d just hate to think that an accomplished physicist like Victor Stenger or someone like, say, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman would not be welcome as speakers at a skeptical event just because some skeptics are worried it will make the event seem “too atheist.”
I don’t think the issue is one of any given speaker being “too atheist,” but of overall content and, more importantly, intent.
Whether the overall content of Skepticon was “too atheist” is a subjective question. Jeff believes is was, and other may disagree. I find it interesting, however, that in JT’s reply to Jeff’s email he explicitly states the content of the conference “focuses primarily on religion.”
And regarding intent, JT explicitly states that they chose the name “Skepticon” because they believe that “skepticism leads directly to some brand of atheism…” and that “fit precisely with what we were wanting to do with the conference.”
This seems a pretty clear indication that the Skepticon organizers intended to produce a conference that focused primarily on religious content and chose a name that they believe directly implies atheism. In fact, it seems like a slam dunk.
And its only that last part (explicitly using the term skeptic to mean atheist) with which I take issue.
I suppose there may be skeptics who say this, but I must say this is far removed from the central issue: testability.
For Jeff Wagg, for Steve Novella, for me, and for many other traditional scientific skeptics, the distinction is not between religion and other kinds of claims, but between science and non-science. The issue is neither protecting religion (everyone universally agrees that all testable religious claims are fully in scope for scientific skepticism, regardless of how unpopular those investigations may prove to be) nor avoiding the stigma of atheism (Wagg and I are both public atheists, as are most of those pushing this demarcation issue). The issue is the scientific integrity of the skeptical project — consistency rather than special pleading. The idea is that skeptics should avoid pushing just any old sort of “truth,” but consistently restrict ourselves to the demonstrable, empirical evidence on all topics.
Nor is this an issue Wagg just cooked up to be difficult. The founding editorial of North America’s first skeptical organization laid this out explicitly in 1976, following in the footsteps of scientific skepticism’s pioneers, Houdini and Martin Gardner (who were themselves theists). This has remained the central organizing principle for decades of skeptical effort since that time:
Words change. Movements change. Perhaps the skeptical movement has permanently morphed into a wider philosophical rationalism, and left the restrictions of empiricism behind. But, if so, this represents a significant change in direction.
Rationalism is a fine project. I am a rationalist myself, a humanist, and an atheist. But none of those things are what has been meant by “skepticism” during the growth of the skeptical movement. I think something is lost if it means those things now.
Like the other commenters I feel that you missed the point of what Jeff was saying in his post.
What I find most disturbing about this ruckus is how the more passionate atheists like PZ Myers, JT Eberhard, The Good Atheist and others completely ignore that Jeff never says that religion should be off limits. You point out to then that Jeff said that the testable claims of religion are well within the grounds of skeptical inquiry, but they the passionate ones just ignore that, too. They’ve created a strawman.
I thought that fallacies like strawmen were what skepticism was all about combating when testing the claims of others? So do I get to call them crappy skeptics, too?
I don’t mean to come down harshly on Wagg specifically. Obviously I think we agree far more than we disagree and I certainly have a great deal of respect for everything he’s done and continues to do for skepticism.
However, I still don’t feel my core criticism has been addressed, that extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence to warrant being taken seriously, regardless of whether the excuses given for not being able to produce the necessary evidence are falsifiable or not. I’m not saying skeptics should take the formal position that “god doesn’t exist”, only the position that evidence has yet to support the claim that a god does exist and therefore there’s no good reason to believe in one whereas there’s also interesting positive evidence that directly conflicts with the claims of religion that are worth discussing in a skeptical setting. Now if some skeptics believe in a god or gods for no good reason, they’re welcome to it. I just don’t think skepticism has nothing to say about believing unfalsifiable claims for no good reason. Like the unfalsifiable grand conspiracy theory, I think we have every right to demand sufficient evidence for any extraordinary claim be presented or else the excuse along with the claim itself should be provisionally rejected until such time as evidence can be presented.
How is the invisible New World Order conspiracy or the invisible bad energy given off by skeptics any more falsifiable or subject to criticism than an invisible deity? If we as skeptics can’t even admit there are rational grounds to argue against the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan’s garage, then I don’t see how we can ever hope to defeat the pushers of nonsense.
You go right to the heart of things here. You’re quite right, of course: there are indeed rational reasons to dismiss Sagan’s dragon. They’re just not empirical reasons, which puts them outside the traditional scope of scientific skepticism. Scientific skepticism is a thing of value, and it’s important to me that it not be diffused into other movements — but it’s not necessarily the greatest of rationalism’s treasures. In important ways, scientific skepticism is limited. (The Novella / Bloomberg article I linked to above is a useful discussion of this old demarcation issue, and the arguments which have long circled around it.)
On the other hand, the proud, older traditions of rationalism and freethought are able to investigate questions when scientific skepticism’s empirical tools are powerless. While Skepticon drew support from the community of scientific skeptics, it seems that its foundation rests in those wider rationalist traditions. Moreover, it seems to have been a very successful rationalist event. Students bringing in almost 2000 members of the public for a free, multi-day conference — and exposing them to heavy-weight thinkers on deep questions? By any measure, that’s a remarkable achievement.
I’m very happy to hear the conference was a successful rationalist event and not the downfall of the skeptical movement.
Oh, and this article was divinely inspired.
Wagg praised the event for its success, and argued that it would be more accurately described with another name. I agree, and for the same reason. Scientific skepticism may be a smaller and younger tradition than rationalism; it may even be less important. All the same, scientific skepticism is something valuable in its own right, specific, and distinct.
This is my favorite paragraph. It sums it up so well, I think!
“The reason for this is obvious. In fact, it’s almost become the skeptic movement’s unofficial motto: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” A key word here is “require.” When someone makes an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on them to provide sufficient evidence for that claim. If they fail to do so FOR ANY REASON, whether it be that their dog ate their homework or that their god ate their homework, an excuse is an excuse. If you fail to meet the required burden of proof, you don’t just get a pass for having come up with the most inventive excuse. Rather, you simply fail and no one is under any obligation to take your claims even the slightest bit seriously.”
Now after reading Lisa’s new post and rereading Massimo’s from last year (linked to below), it occurs to me that the problem may lie in some legitimate definitional ambiguity. I’m more inclined to agree with Massimo who distinguished the scientific methodology of “skeptical inquiry” from what he called Michael Shermer’s definition of skepticism as “a science-informed use of reason to evaluate claims.” The latter is broader and I think better distinguishes skepticism from straight science. Massimo defined skepticism as “a philosophical position informed by science” and that seems to fit more with how I have been applying the term. And by that definition, I think that while science may not have anything to say about unfalsifiable god claims, skepticism does…or at least can. I don’t think our role as skeptics need be to behave just like scientists. And indeed, most of us aren’t scientists. I think our role is more about spreading critical thinking and even sometimes challenging beliefs.
http://gothamskeptic.org/one-more-on-the-relationship-between-atheism-and-skepticism/
@Daniel
“Scientific skepticism may be a smaller and younger tradition than rationalism; it may even be less important. All the same, scientific skepticism is something valuable in its own right, specific, and distinct.”
Do you believe that the thing that makes “Skeptics” cohere as a group is the mutual reliance on “scientific skepticism”? This is, of course, the thing that, strictly speaking, has brought us together. However, I don’t think that coming together to simply state, “Homeopathy is still silly”, is ultimately enough.
As Michael states, I believe correctly, the unofficial motto of our movement is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Skepticism, the movement/social group, feels to me like a gathering of minds who want to base our beliefs, as much as possible, on testable, falsifiable claims (ie. on a philosophically materialistic worldview). While I, like Michael and most other Skeptics, welcome the religious and spiritually inclined into our group, it is disingenuous to not have the same conversations about their faith with them as we do between ourselves.
Skeptical conferences, in my opinion, should not just be a place where skeptics gather to talk about “scientific skepticism” in strict terms. It is a place for skeptics to gather and talk about a list of things that interest them as a community – science, rationality, and religion being high in that list.
That being said, having skeptical institutions/groupings which officially maintain a neutral stance on religion makes complete sense, if only from a PR perspective.
@Scott Berjot-Stafiej: You’ve put your finger on another important distinction. Skepticism as a social movement is inspired by the ongoing research / outreach project of scientific skepticism, but it also comprises a mixed population with a range of priorities. (I’ve written about this distinction here and here.)
One end of the grassroots spectrum merges seamlessly into professional practice, and adheres closely to the founding ideals of scientific skepticism. Indeed, most of the serious practitioners of scientific skepticism are “amateurs,” perhaps employed in other fields (or retired). Think for example of the respected Independent Investigations Group as standard bearers for active skeptical research, or the Skeptics Guide to the Universe as one of our premier outreach projects.
At the other end of the grassroots spectrum, there are many who just kinda dig skeptical stuff — including but not necessarily limited to the traditional portfolio or approaches of scientific skepticism. The majority of conference attendees, consumers of skeptical media, and participants in online communities may fall near this end, having both wide-ranging interests and a willingness to deploy the full range of rationalist tools.
Near the center of this range, we sometimes see friction (I’d put the Skepticon blowup in this category). Is a Skepticamp an event for scientific skepticism, or for far-reaching rationalist exploration? It’s hard to curate uncurated events! What are the rules governing skeptical podcasts or blogs? Of course there aren’t any (and can’t be) no matter how popular or influential those media may become.
One of the common retorts to scientific skeptics over recent days has been, “You don’t own the word ‘skeptic.’” That’s true. The word has a range of meanings, and many stakeholders. It was in use two thousand years before modern scientific skepticism adopted it. However, Wagg’s point (and I agree) is that decades of effort have gone into developing scientific skepticism, here and around the planet. Skepticon draws upon that history and hard work, while presenting it as functionally synonymous with parallel rationalist movements which are historically distinct. That misrepresents scientific skepticism (as a matter of principle), and can make our work more difficult (as a matter of practicality). I think it’s appropriate for scientific skeptics to object — and seek to clarify.
Under a different name, the same conference would look very different: not contested ground, but (like other atheist and rationalist events) a friendly neighbor. Scientific skeptics would applaud a name-change on the grounds of disambiguation; many atheist activists would applaud a more explicit name on the basis of atheist pride. (See Reed Essau’s discussion of the atheist pride objection to Skepticon.)