Michael Rosch posted an article on GS on Tuesday about another article by Jeff Wagg. The following was originally a comment I was posting to his piece, but it got so involved I decided to just submit it as it’s own piece. Please to enjoy.
I read the Wagg article, and I think you’re misunderstanding it (or perhaps I did, maybe), but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that atheists don’t belong involved in skeptical movements. A large proportion of skeptics seem to be atheists (I have data to support). But I think there’s an important distinction between atheism and skepticism.
I’m a lot of things: a feminist, an atheist, a liberal, a Joss Whedon fan, a grad student, a bisexual, a nerd, a gamer, a woman…a skeptic. And yes, I’d say there is significant overlap in the various things I am. For example, my experience as a woman might have made me more likely to self-identify as a feminist. My skepticism might led me to the sort of examination resulting in the conclusion that I’m an atheist. My general nerdom might have led me straight into the Whedonverse. However, if I found that a majority of feminists were Joss Whedon fans (he does favor strong, female characters), could I say that being a Joss Whedon fan and being a feminist are the same thing? I certainly couldn’t. Because even if the experiences and characteristics I had that led me to Buffy also inspired my strong feelings about the equality of men and women in society, they are still two different parts of who I am.
What’s more there’s an important distinction further in skepticism and atheism – being an atheist (and there is debate here) roughly* means a disbelief in god. Being a skeptic means (and I see little debate about this) a commitment to the application of the scientific method.
They are different schools of thought – one a conclusion, the other a methodology.
About a year ago at SkeptiCamp NYC 2010, Michael De Dora presented that skepticism necessitates atheism (and we should ‘deal with it’). People debated this for awhile. But De Dora also made another statement I remember well (because of the visceral response that it inspired). During his intro in stating the title and thesis of his discussion he also equated skepticism to libertarianism (I believe he said something like, “I could also say it’s [skepticism] is the same thing as libertarianism”). I was enraged, frankly. Because while I acknowledge that a great many of my skeptical friends are of the libertarian persuasion, I (a proud and active skeptic) couldn’t fall farther from such a position politically. I resent being lumped into a political ideology I take serious issue with this simply because a great many of the people who belong to one of the same ‘clubs’ as I do hold these views. And in no way do I see how a commitment to the scientific method necessarily translates into a political ideology, any political ideology.
Anyway, it’s tangential, but it’s not. This constant proclamation that being a skeptic means you’re also X, well, it’s getting rather annoying. Being a skeptic means you’re a damned skeptic. It doesn’t mean you’re a coffee lover, it doesn’t mean you’re pro-choice, it doesn’t mean you’re a Michael Jackson fan (all other things that I am, by the way) and it doesn’t mean you’re an atheist. Being an atheist, and nothing else, means you’re an atheist.
Oh, something I forgot. I wanted to put a link to Massimo’s excellent piece from after last year’s SkeptiCamp, which addresses some relevant points:
http://gothamskeptic.org/one-more-on-the-relationship-between-atheism-and-skepticism/
If I can clarify a few things, I’m not saying I think Wagg or anyone else is arguing that atheists don’t belong involved in skeptical movements. Rather, I’m saying critical examination of claims is a legitimate part of skepticism. I don’t think the nature (or unnature) of the excuse for why sufficient evidence for a claim can’t be presented is relevant, only that sufficient evidence has failed to be presented. I don’t care if the excuse is an invisible god ate my homework or an invisible grand conspiracy theory ate my homework. Both are equally unfalsifiable and equally open to criticism.
The word “atheism” keeps coming up but I’m not talking about atheism. I’m talking about examining claims. If those claims happen to be part of a religious doctrine then so be it. They’re still subject to scrutiny and the burden of proof is still on the claimant.
Now perhaps the real distinction here is that I’m arguing for a broader methodology on which to evaluate claims. Political ideology is a different type of claim altogether, and one that I’d agree with you is not appropriate.
I wanted to put a link to Massimo’s excellent piece from after last year’s SkeptiCamp, which addresses some relevant points:
http://gothamskeptic.org/one-more-on-the-relationship-between-atheism-and-skepticism/
Couldn’t agree with you more, Lisa. It seems i’ve been having this argument forever. What’s perhaps more interesting for me, and I wonder if there is any data on this: are most atheists skeptics? Anecdotaly I would say no. At least not any more than in the population at large. Atheists seem to be very big on the whole holistic, natural, harmony, …
Is there any data on this?
Lisa,
I don’t recall equating skepticism with libertarianism. Recall that I also didn’t equate skepticism with atheism, but said that philosophical skepticism leads one to atheism.
Now, I might have said many skeptics are libertarians. That is certainly true. But I definitely do not equate them, nor do I think skepticism leads to libertarianism in any way.
A nice quote from Massimo’s piece that Michael Rosch linked to:
[R]eligion is the quintessential case of a-critical thinking, and as such it should be a target of skepticism. However, since it is the biggest and most entrenched target of them all, it may be better — tactically — to take it on step by step, starting with the obvious problems of creationism and intelligent design. But ultimately it is hard to imagine someone going around proudly wearing the skeptic/critical thinking badge while at the same time believing in the Big Santa Clause in the sky… In general, I think Michael’s idea of a “skeptical spectrum” is valid: we would not hesitate for a moment to criticize alleged skeptics who believe in ghosts and telepathy; and yet there are other issues about which the line between sense and nonsense is more fuzzy and debatable. The question is where along that line do we put things like global warming denialism (I’m looking at your, Penn & Teller!), or various types of religious belief.
All of the above said, I agree that skeptical organizations like NYCS do not need to get into advocacy of atheism: it is not their fight, and it is pragmatically counterproductive. But skeptics should not fool themselves into thinking that the most reasonable position is agnosticism, or simply not taking a stand: believing in anything without evidence is contrary to reason, and reason is the foundation of skepticism.
Religious belief is generally quite un-skeptical. People who believe in supernatural gods or Karma or whatever are just as unskeptical as people who believe in Bigfoot or UFO abductions, and actually more so. (You don’t have to believe in any antiscientific supernatural stuff to believe in Bigfoot or UFO’s. Bigfoot and UFOs actually could exist, without any basic conflicts with scientific knowledge; it’s just that the evidence for them is poor. Not so religious beliefs, including central tenets of all popular religion—the evidence is very much against such things.)
People may ignorantly and unskeptically accept ideologies like libertarianism or Marxism, but there’s a big difference. Libertarians and Marxists don’t claim that supernatural entities exist and guide them. They don’t make unverifiable claims that supernatural persons or forces reveal the truth, or that humans with thinly-veiled supernatural ESP can mystically intuit Deep Truth about the ultimate nature of reality. They don’t claim to have a Truth that is inaccessible to rational analysis based on evidence.
Religion and skepticism conflict at a very basic level. Religion is based on unverifiable basic ontological claims that are at variance with science—the existence of dualistic souls and/or disembodied minds with superpowers, and/or superpowers of humans that transcend mere reason. Science shows that such things very probably do not exist. (And explains why people are prone to believing in them.)
All popular religion is based on some form of supernaturalism that conflicts with scientific reasoning and modern scientific knowledge.
It’s very weird that people don’t seem to mind skeptics bashing beliefs in ghosts and ESP—of course skeptics don’t believe in ghosts and ESP!—until they start talking about the particular ghosts and ESP favored by religion. (E.g., the Western God or Eastern mystical transcendence.)
Let’s not pretend that deference to religion is anything besides deference to goofy antiscientific belief in ghosts, ESP, etc.
If we’re not going to take on religious beliefs under the rubric of “skepticism,” it’s NOT because religion is actually consistent with skepticism, and skepticism doesn’t apply. It’s just a strategic move of picking our battles, to avoid scaring away the suckers who can’t handle the truth.
I couldn’t currently have asked for a better blog. You’re ever present to present excellent information, going instantly to the point for simple understanding of your visitors. You’re undoubtedly a terrific professional in this subject. Thanks a ton for currently being there individuals like me.