|
|
|
Bob Lloyd
Skeptic Friend
Spain
59 Posts |
 Posted - 12/05/2009 : 09:08:46
|
Skeptics sometimes shy away from considering religion to be in the same camp as Woo candidates like Reiki, psychic claims, homeopathy and the like. Whereas many skeptics will campaign vigorously against delusions such as homeopathy, exposing the rampant irrationality and outrageously misleading claims, they will shy away from applying the same criteria to religion.
Part of the problem is the emotional and psychological identification of the religious with the central tenets of their religious faith. Since the religious person sees their belief as being central to their character, their ego, then any criticism of their beliefs is seen as an affront to them personally. As a consequence, some skeptics are reluctant to push this particular issue.
But there are some pertinent questions. If a personal involvement in beliefs render them outside of the scope of criticism, how can they ever be challenged, how can they ever change? And if someone identifies themselves so closely with ideas that they will not countenance criticism, how is that different from many other totalitarian beliefs?
Religion is Woo just like the other branches and although the tactics that might be employed to wean someone off religious beliefs may be different from say exposing the fraudulent nature of Reiki pyramid selling schemes, we still need to grasp the nettle.
Sometimes religious groups support the opposition to creationism and we obviously should work with them on such issues, but we should not fail in clearly identifying religion as another form of Woo, belief in unevidenced phenomena for no good reason. It's just as irrational as believing in Reiki, and has the same level of evidence, i.e. none.
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2009 : 10:27:26 [Permalink]
|
I don't think you're going to get much disagreement about religious Woo being the same as any other Woo around here. The tricky part is how to approach religious Woo in a pluralistic society. We say; "yes, you have the right to believe whatever it is that you want to believe, but what you believe is baloney, and here is why..." Change does not come easy, especially when it comes to changing the attitude of a whole culture that has been indoctrinated from birth to believe a certain way.
The good news is that because of books like The God Delusion and God Is Not Great as well as some other relatively recent high profile books that take on religion itself, the discussion, once thought of as taboo, is out of the closet and has begun in earnest.
By Far, more than any other area of concern to skeptics, is the pervasiveness of religion. And that makes it our toughest nut to crack.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2009 : 10:47:06 [Permalink]
|
Bob Lloyd.....
Bob, you're not going to find many theists here in these fora. In fact, there's some current conversation going on as to how some of us may be too tough on the occasional Creationist crazy that drops in and begins spouting scripted nonsense about the illegitimacy of evolution.
Personally, I feel these people are dangerous, as are most deluded people. The harm they do in the political arena is obvious in every day's headlines. Apparently almost half of the nations's electorate is persuaded of absurd "Christian" beliefs that are anathematic to progress in areas like health care and equal rights for all citizens. The degree to which religious fanaticism has infected the legislative work of the Congress and the decisions of the Supeme Court is alarming.
The question is: How does a sane, rational atheist proselyte rationality to fanatics? I live in Northern Idaho, arguably the reddist, wrongist, racist, rabidist region of the United States of America. The politico-religious views of the average citizen of this super-Christian, über-Republican piece of timberland leave me aghast! This is truly the land of the Lumberjack lunatic!
Come up to this northern nexus of hyperconservatism and religious lunacy and try convincing these crazies that some supernatural Jewish carpenter is not their Lord and Master, and that abortion and homosexuality are not the only two real evils that the world faces!
It's scary to live in the midst of this wilderness of irrationality, but it drives home the enormity of the task that you have undertaken with your book, Bob. I'd love to see the local Costco stock in a few hundred copies of it, but I doubt that's gonna' happen.
However, I deeply appreciate your efforts! Keep up the good work, Bob! |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2009 : 10:56:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bob Lloyd
Skeptics sometimes shy away from considering religion to be in the same camp as Woo candidates like Reiki, psychic claims, homeopathy and the like. |
There are certainly skeptics who have "blind spots" - Michael Shermer & his vigorous defense of libertarianism is one example, discussed here previously. For some skeptics, religion seems to be a blind spot (like one member of my local skeptics group, who just can't put god/religion under the same microscope as everything else.)
| Whereas many skeptics will campaign vigorously against delusions such as homeopathy, exposing the rampant irrationality and outrageously misleading claims, they will shy away from applying the same criteria to religion. |
One problem is the difficulty in setting up controlled trials and having the results accepted by believers. At least when there's a defined "treatment" for which specific claims are made, one can investigate whether there's any objective evidence supporting those claims. Religion is more slippery - the religious always have an explanation that works for them to explain any observed result: "God works in mysterious ways", "God always answers: Yes, No, or Wait", "You can't test God!", etc. Built-in defense against rational inquiry, IMO.
| Part of the problem is the emotional and psychological identification of the religious with the central tenets of their religious faith. Since the religious person sees their belief as being central to their character, their ego, then any criticism of their beliefs is seen as an affront to them personally. As a consequence, some skeptics are reluctant to push this particular issue. |
Part of the problem, too, is this belief in Christianity (& Islam, I think) that one's eternal soul is at risk. Ups the ante. Anything that seems like an attack on their beliefs is not only a personal affront, but (to them) feels literally like a threat with very serious & eternal ramifications.
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2009 : 11:43:38 [Permalink]
|
It probably won't be possible to ever stamp out irrational thinking, and therefore religion, entirely. But the one area I have seen progress is the amount of deference and respect public statements of religious belief are afforded. Sure, it's still an uphill climb and, for many people, religion is used as a litmus test to determine a person's ethical character. But this is changing. People are now openly and publicly challenging the legitimacy of faith. Some points, such as uncoupling the link in the public's mind between religion and morality, are more easily argued and supportable by concrete evidence. Examples of immoral religious figures abound and scientific studies have failed to demonstrate any link between religiosity and ethical behavior (in many cases they have in fact revealed the reverse).
We might not be able to get everyone to give up their faith, but we can succeed in undermining the popular arguments for faith and in seeing the ideal of the "sacred" replaced by the standard of the "rational." And yes, I consider keeping up such pressure to be one of the most important obligations of the skeptical community.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2009 : 23:35:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
We say; "yes, you have the right to believe whatever it is that you want to believe..." |
Some of us say that "you have the right to believe whatever it is that you want to believe" is wrong. The few of us who are moral evidentialists think that we all have a duty to believe only according to the evidence, which pretty much means that we think that people are not entitled to their own opinions, but instead have to justify them just as they have to justify their actions.
Of course, this is pretty harsh stuff. Instead of just telling someone that their beliefs contradict reality, I'm telling them that they're immoral for holding them in the first place. This idea hasn't gone over well here, perhaps because of its brutality, and because of that, I tend to keep it in the closet (both here and in the real world). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 01:38:57 [Permalink]
|
I have to side with Dave_W on this. Except I think evidentialism is not really harsh or brutal, unless you consider ignorance to be some kind of human right. If, like me, you consider ignorance a blight on our species, then evidentialism is the cure.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 03:47:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I have to side with Dave_W on this. Except I think evidentialism is not really harsh or brutal, unless you consider ignorance to be some kind of human right. If, like me, you consider ignorance a blight on our species, then evidentialism is the cure.
|
There is nothing harsher nor more brutal than ignorance, particularly willful ignorance flying in the face of reality. The history of the various religions more than confirm that.
'Stilled off to it's essence, religion is nothing more than a grasp for power in a fancy dress. The blight upon the human community is that it works all too well with an overwhelming percentage of the populace willing to be willfully ignorant. Like lemmings over the fabled cliff, they follow the teachings of of the power-hungry, the greedy, the perverted, and the mad. They do their bidding and spread the infection to all that they can reach. I do not think it will ever be otherwise because ignorance, even willful ignorance is a human right and there's not a damned thing we can do about it short of forced lobotomy.
I have an icepick. Scratch that; it ain't PC.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 04:31:42 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if religion may be too broad a term to tackle. I think when you try to get someone to be specific about claims made about the supernatural, that makes it easier to deal with. What are the specific claims? I think what most people call religion are just sort of vague words and feelings that they haven't attempted to understand.
I think Chomsky has a pretty good grasp of that- 'Like everyone participating [in Science, Religion, Reason and Survival an Edge Discussion of BEYOND BELIEF] I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny.'
|
- while he's using a definition of atheism that isn't my favorite, maybe tongue-in-cheek. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/06/2009 04:33:37 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 08:52:01 [Permalink]
|
That's a damned good link, Gorgo. I've bookmarked it for later study. Thanks!
Here's something from OK that points up religious suppression as it is done today.
American Atheists filed suit in federal court today on behalf of an Oklahoma family who say their civil rights were violated by the Hardesty, Oklahoma Public Schools and the Texas County, Oklahoma Sheriff’s Department.
The daughter of Chester Smalkowski wanted to play basketball for the Hardesty Public Schools. She was forced from the team when she, an Atheist, refused to recite the Lord’s Prayer after a game as was required by the school. When the Smalkowski family complained about this unconstitutional practice, she was suspended. Further complaints resulted in criminal charges being brought against her father.
Chester Smalkowski refused to submit to a request from the District Attorney to move his family out of the County in exchange for the charges being dropped. His case went to trial last month, and he was acquitted of all charges by a jury. The Smalkowski children have been threatened and subjected to discrimination for the daughter’s refusal to participate in the prayer recitation.
|
I got this from the American Atheists site, so there might be a little bias here, but it's still a pretty nasty story.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bob Lloyd
Skeptic Friend
Spain
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 09:28:54 [Permalink]
|
In my experience, religious people are very keen to generalise the specific criticisms skeptics have. Even from a simple statement of atheism, not believing in a deity, that's quickly interpreted to be a generalised hostility to the entire way of life of a religious believer. That tendency to generalise, puts their resistance to the argument on a much more socially acceptable footing for them.
By claiming that my way of life is being threatened, I transfer the issue from one of the rationality of a belief, to an attack on my whole set of personal values, and that automatically confers on me the right to fight back, institutionally, politically, socially. And they do.
As a strategy therefore, when discussing religion, skeptics need to maintain the narrow focus. By looking at religion as a set of ideas, albeit considered as articles of faith, and explicitly separating the criticism of ideas from the criticism of people, we can maintain the focus on rationality. By illustrating that we can't perform controlled trials, we also show that the claims are not secure and propose alternative equally incredible claims.
I've found that religious people are willing to talk about the reasons for their belief only once they accept that atheism does not imply immorality or unethical behaviour. It seems to be a necessary precondition to stop them fearing that there is an all-out attack on their whole moral stance. So separating morality from religion is key. When Popes condemn the use of condoms in Africa in the fight against AIDS, it's relatively easy to make that distinction, showing that a different non-religious morality is more humane and ethical. I've found religious folks, including muslims, who are surprised that their moral values are actually secular values. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 11:02:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
We say; "yes, you have the right to believe whatever it is that you want to believe..." |
Some of us say that "you have the right to believe whatever it is that you want to believe" is wrong. The few of us who are moral evidentialists think that we all have a duty to believe only according to the evidence, which pretty much means that we think that people are not entitled to their own opinions, but instead have to justify them just as they have to justify their actions.
Of course, this is pretty harsh stuff. Instead of just telling someone that their beliefs contradict reality, I'm telling them that they're immoral for holding them in the first place. This idea hasn't gone over well here, perhaps because of its brutality, and because of that, I tend to keep it in the closet (both here and in the real world).
|
Perhaps I am picking a nit here, but Dave, putting aside what you consider a moral duty, which will not get much argument from me, it is still a right, in the legal sense, to be wrong about believing unevidenced claims. With regard to religion, the first amendment and especially establishment clause part of the first amendment gives us that right. Would you have it any other way? When I say a person has the right to be wrong about a religious belief, that's because they do have that right. And I would defend that right to protect my own right to be an atheist and to be critical of those who accept religion based on no evidence at all.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can't enforce what you consider a moral duty on those who don't want it. And this would be a scary place if you could. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 13:21:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Your (and Allan Wood's) position of embracing a moral obligation to require evidence before extending belief --a duty, as it has been put, raises the ghost of Emmanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. For those not familiar with this famous piece of deontology, it goes like this:| "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." |
Note that there is no reference in this commandment as written to a deity or higher power, the statement is purely secular, as opposed to the Divine Command formulizations of Descartes, Willem of Ockham, and Calvin.
I gather from you and Wood, that the Categorical Imperative is the syllogistic spine of what you refer to as "duty" From wiki on Kant:| The concept of the categorical imperative is a syllogism. The first premise is that a person acts morally if his or her conduct would, without condition, be the "right" conduct for any person in similar circumstances (the "First Maxim"). The second premise is that conduct is "right" if it treats others as ends in themselves and not as means to an end (the "Second Maxim"). The conclusion is that a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances (the "Third Maxim"). |
The predicate in question here is the assumption of knowledge of what is "right". Morality can only be defined in absolute terms by reference to an absolute standard- such as a deistic one. Without that, morality remains relativistic. And that means that there can be no categorical imperative to the exclusion of all others; "right" becomes a concept that is relative to a choice of moral standards.
Immediately, the "duty" to act ethically becomes dependent on what standards of ethics and morality one chooses -- and, of course, they are legion.
What is your, or Woods, answer to this deconstuction? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 17:35:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Immediately, the "duty" to act ethically becomes dependent on what standards of ethics and morality one chooses -- and, of course, they are legion.
What is your, or Woods, answer to this deconstuction? |
The answer is that evidentialism is no different from any other set of morals in that it's a choice. One picks a set of morals based on the goal(s) one would like to see society reach. I would like to see a highly rational world, and evidentialist "rules" are very much in line with that goal. I would like to see everyone living by such morals. Of course, since I'm also a pragmatist and a realist, I know that ain't gonna happen, but more is better than fewer, and I may persuade some people along the way.
Kil, there are lots of things that our laws don't address, but which are still moral failings. One has a legal right to cheat on one's spouse, but if one is a Congressperson, one will likely lose one's job over it. So I'm not talking about rights in the legal sense, but in the sense of things that a person can do which shouldn't be seen as evil.
What I'm saying is that believing things for which there is little evidence should not only be seen as intellectually sloppy, but as a moral failure. How much of a failure it is (by itself) is up for discussion: should we view it with the same repulsion as we view those who microwave kittens, or just as an annoyance, like someone interrupting a conversation without apologizing? Not all moral transgressions deserve the same response, and I'm not calling for slight evidentialist "sins" to be answered with the disgust one might reserve for a Hitler or a Stalin. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 20:33:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bob Lloyd
Skeptics sometimes shy away from considering religion to be in the same camp as Woo candidates like Reiki, psychic claims, homeopathy and the like. Whereas many skeptics will campaign vigorously against delusions such as homeopathy, exposing the rampant irrationality and outrageously misleading claims, they will shy away from applying the same criteria to religion.
Part of the problem is the emotional and psychological identification of the religious with the central tenets of their religious faith. Since the religious person sees their belief as being central to their character, their ego, then any criticism of their beliefs is seen as an affront to them personally. As a consequence, some skeptics are reluctant to push this particular issue.
But there are some pertinent questions. If a personal involvement in beliefs render them outside of the scope of criticism, how can they ever be challenged, how can they ever change? And if someone identifies themselves so closely with ideas that they will not countenance criticism, how is that different from many other totalitarian beliefs?
Religion is Woo just like the other branches and although the tactics that might be employed to wean someone off religious beliefs may be different from say exposing the fraudulent nature of Reiki pyramid selling schemes, we still need to grasp the nettle.
Sometimes religious groups support the opposition to creationism and we obviously should work with them on such issues, but we should not fail in clearly identifying religion as another form of Woo, belief in unevidenced phenomena for no good reason. It's just as irrational as believing in Reiki, and has the same level of evidence, i.e. none.
|
Bob,
I think the focus on the forms of Woo which do direct damage (such as Reiki, energy healing, faith healing, homeopathy, and psychic claims.
I am a theist. It fulfills within me a psychological need for ceremony and feeling closer to the universe. These are my needs and you may not have them. While Gorgo and you may argue that I would be better off without it and cite a complete lack of evidence for the existence of a supreme being, I would posit that since I am not
1) Forcing others to believe the way I do
2) Trying to sell something
3) Not thinking less of people who do not share my beliefs
4) Not allowing my belief to interfere with my analysis of claims except for the blind spot that I have for religion
I would say that this bit of woo is harmless and there are far more glaring items that should take precidence. (Don't get me started on magnets) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 22:52:23 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer......
Although you didn't finish your first sentence, I think I know what you're saying. Theism, as you personally practice it, seems indeed a relatively harmless vice. I think the problem lies with those who are indoctrinated in irrationality like religion at an early age and whose intellects don't mature sufficiently to deny the dogma later in life. Proselyting of any nature becomes dangerous and damaging to reason very quickly
And "religion", with all the preposterous baggage that that word implies, is a far worse affliction than Theism. My wife subscribes to a god of the vapours somewhat akin to the pantheistic supernaturality of the Shaivas, only without any of the distinguishable entities such as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva itself, etc. Hers is a true pantheism which sees God and the Universe as the the same entity with no anthropomorphic embodiments. Intelligence originates in a collection of astronomical bodies! Sheesh!
Now, to me, this is almost as silly as the old guy with a big beard envisioned by Michaelangelo; but I can see some emotional comfort, for those who need it, in imagining that there is an intelligence, design, and purpose engine churning away out there, somewhere, in charge of things.
Also, that part of that purpose and design might be individually concerned with little old me, my troubles and tribulations, and especially what happens to me after I have used up my allotted (short) time on this Earth.
All I can say, VD, is that would be nice to be able to entertain such comforting delusions. Like permanently being on anxiolytics or opiates. I just can't do it, however, and the older I get, the firmer my resolve.
What is your view of your God, VD?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why religion is Woo too
