|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 23:12:51 [Permalink]
|
| Okay. And I agree that it doesn't make sense to be a theist given the total lack of evidence for a god. Here's the deal. Some atheists are not skeptics. And some skeptics are not atheists. We all know that. Right? That's a great big, well duh! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 23:22:39 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
From the beginning Wagg and you have expressed concern that outspoken atheists are trying to conflate atheism with skepticism, and thus by extension kick theists out of the "skeptic's club." |
Where have I done that? You have accused me of that before in this thread and I have already said I was closer to Grothe's position on the subject. So where have I done that? You mean by defending Jeff? I'll say it again. This debate is going on all across the skeptical universe, and it's going on at a very high level too. In this thread, I have actually done my best to lay the debate out. Where I have been asked for my personal opinion I gave it. I'm kinda groping with this subject myself... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/21/2010 : 23:26:46 [Permalink]
|
Jim Lippard:
How many times can a conference called “Skepticon” be about little other than atheism and criticism of religion before it’s more accurately referred to as an atheist conference than a skeptics conference?
By the time you get to three in a row, I think it’s established itself as an atheist conference.
If a particular group has a conference devoted to a single topic, that doesn’t mean that the group isn’t devoted to broader interests, but if all of its conferences are devoted to that topic, it becomes less likely that it really has the broader interest.
The poll misses the point, in my opinion. |
Does it? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2010 : 23:29:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Humbert:
From the beginning Wagg and you have expressed concern that outspoken atheists are trying to conflate atheism with skepticism, and thus by extension kick theists out of the "skeptic's club." |
Where have I done that? You have accused me of that before in this thread and I have already said I was closer to Grothe's position on the subject. So where have I done that? You mean by defending Jeff? I'll say it again. This debate is going on all across the skeptical universe, and it's going on at a very high level too. In this thread, I have actually done my best to lay the debate out. Where I have been asked for my personal opinion I gave it. I'm kinda groping with this subject myself...
|
Ok, fine. I sensed that Wagg (and by extension you in defending Wagg) was looking to pick a fight with the "militant" new atheists and PZ (who you've admitted to disliking). I mean, if people aren't concerned the new atheists are trying to hijack skepticism, then what's the cause of all this hand-wringing then?
Edited to add: This comment from Screechy_Monkey at Pharyngula pretty much sums up my (admittedly subjective) impressions on this latest "deep rift:"At the TAMs I've been to, I've seen people criticize and ask tough questions of Penn Jillette on global warming, of Chris Hitchens on Iraq, of Richard Dawkins on "tone" and "militancy," etc. Nobody seemed terribly concerned that any of these speakers would be hurt and take their ball and go home.
But if people even begin to talk negatively about religion in the same room as Hal Bidlack or Pamela Gay -- let alone ask them a tough question -- it's a big scandal that OMFSM we're creating a hostile environment for these valued allies. |
I have seen this same knee-jerk defensiveness when it comes to the topic of religion and more than a bit of a double-standard when it comes to fears of alienating theists and I happen to think it's bullshit. But, Kil, I apologize if I mischaracterized you or your position on this matter.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/22/2010 00:35:35 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2010 : 04:15:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by filthy
A population of hard skeptics, by it's very nature is going to have a fair to large percentage of atheists; it pretty much goes with the territory. Hard skeptics take nothing on faith; there must be firm, physical evidence to back the claim. |
Wait, why does it imply a requirement for "physical" evidence? Are other sorts of evidence not possible for skeptics? Why?
|
Pickling the nit, are we? I wrote "physical" because I'm tired of writing "empirical," and it's easier to spel.'K?
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 08:11:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by filthy
A population of hard skeptics, by it's very nature is going to have a fair to large percentage of atheists; it pretty much goes with the territory. Hard skeptics take nothing on faith; there must be firm, physical evidence to back the claim. |
Wait, why does it imply a requirement for "physical" evidence? Are other sorts of evidence not possible for skeptics? Why?
|
Pickling the nit, are we? I wrote "physical" because I'm tired of writing "empirical," and it's easier to spel.'K? |
Anecdotal testemony, though at least partly viable in court of law, should be summarily dismissed as evidence in scientific skepticism. Unless it is used as a pointer to where more research is warranted, or as a guide to where to focus search for evidence. There's a reason why areas like sociology and psychology are referred to as "soft" sciences. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/22/2010 08:11:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 08:49:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Jim Lippard:
How many times can a conference called “Skepticon” be about little other than atheism and criticism of religion before it’s more accurately referred to as an atheist conference than a skeptics conference?
By the time you get to three in a row, I think it’s established itself as an atheist conference.
If a particular group has a conference devoted to a single topic, that doesn’t mean that the group isn’t devoted to broader interests, but if all of its conferences are devoted to that topic, it becomes less likely that it really has the broader interest.
The poll misses the point, in my opinion. |
Does it? |
Well, the poll is tongue-in-cheek, and I don't know that this year, Lippard's "little other than atheism" is correct.
Besides, "criticism of religion" certainly can be skepticism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 10:12:44 [Permalink]
|
Okay. So here is a little exchange I had with Jim Lippard in a Desiree Schell thread.
David Glück:
Okay. Here's where I get stuck. I know that atheists are not necessarily skeptics. And that skeptics are not necessarily atheists. But aren't those of us who reject religion based on a lack of evidence for a god doing so because we are skeptical of the claim? It's not as though we are in denial about a consensus view of god among scientists because god is outside of what science can test for. So what is that if not a subset of skepticism? Sure, it's not scientific skepticism, but the conclusion (tentatively held as always) is based in critical thinking about what to do with a claim that lacks evidence. And to my mind, what we do with that kind of claim is to doubt it. So where does that kind of thinking go? What do we call it? |
Jim Lippard@David Gluck:
My answer to your question is yes, it's perfectly reasonable to call that kind of position skepticism about religion (and probably not scientific skepticism). I think what we're seeing is a socio-political battle over the boundaries of what counts as "skepticism" for the skeptical movement and the "skeptic" brand, which many advocates of scientific skepticism see as being co-opted by atheists when they want it to be more open and inclusionary. I don't think there's an objectively right or wrong answer about how it goes in the end, and my own position is somewhat intermediate between the extremes. I think at least some of the new atheism is part of what I've been calling the "broader skeptical movement," but I also think there are good pragmatic reasons for the narrower skeptical movement to stick to scientific skepticism.
But I also think it likely that single-topic (or cluster of related topic) groups are more likely to be successful in the media and courts (of law and public opinion) without using the "skeptic" label. |
He adds:
Jim Lippard:
Shorter version: it may be better to use the "skeptical" adjective than the "skeptic" noun. "I'm skeptical about X because of Y" is a better argument than "I don't believe in X because I'm a skeptic, and we don't believe in such things." The creation of a self-identified group of skeptics seems to inherently push people towards the latter. |
Thoughts?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 10:49:22 [Permalink]
|
Humbert:
I have seen this same knee-jerk defensiveness when it comes to the topic of religion and more than a bit of a double-standard when it comes to fears of alienating theists and I happen to think it's bullshit. But, Kil, I apologize if I mischaracterized you or your position on this matter. |
Well... I don't see Pamala Gay picking up her ball and going home. I think she's a pretty tough cookie. As for Hal Bidlack, he may be a bit too sensitive on the subject but I still hate to see him go. It's his decision to leave the JREF. I hope he stays active in the skeptical community in general. His contributions are obvious. But who knows?
There is a lot of outreach going on and attempts to have critical thinking and skepticism taught in public schools. One of the problems that those who want to adhere to the brand of scientific skepticism is a fear that if atheism becomes synonymous with skepticism in the eyes of those considering adding such classes, they won't add them. So they see the narrower scientific skepticism brand as the best way in. And it should be noted that if skepticism leads to atheism, as it often does, then it will follow that once kids learn what even sci-skepticsm is all about, many of them will want to know more, start identifying as skeptics and many will become atheists. (It was by way of scientific skepticism that I became a skeptic. Many of us picked up our first Skeptical Inquirer and it changed our lives.) It's not that atheism isn't a subset of skepticism in general, but that a skeptical conclusions shouldn't become an impediment to teaching the method when working at outreach. That's at least part of the thinking. It's a matter of pragmatics which no doubt rankles the gnu atheists who are pushing to get people to stop demonizing atheism.
And thanks for the apology. The truth is, like Lippard, I am a moderate on the subject. But I keep asking questions.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 11:32:10 [Permalink]
|
Here's my take on the subject. I fully realize that my evidence is merely anecdotal and leads to a slippery slope argument but I'm willing to throw it out there anyway.
The anecdotal evidence:
Back in the 1980's Heavy Metal was evolving. Things started sounding considerably different from Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and Deep Purple. This spawned a proliferation of sub-genres of Heavy metal. Back then there were only a handful of sub-genres i.e. Thrash Metal, Glam Metal, Speed Metal, and Black Metal. By the mid 90's there were so many sub-genres that every band that came out was put into a different category. Now it has become very annoying to me that people argue about these sub-genres.
i.e.
"That band can't be Doom Metal because they have keyboards and Doom Metal doesn't have keyboards, that band should be Black, Doom, Power Metal!"
It's all just Rock-n-Roll, no need to have such passionate arguments about it.
Now for the slippery slope:
I see the exact same type of thing happening with the current skeptic/atheist argument. It will end up something like this...
" He's not a Scientific Skeptic...He's a Scientific Philosophical Religious Skeptic" or other such nonsense.
Anybody following me? |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 12:13:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
It's a matter of pragmatics which no doubt rankles the gnu atheists who are pushing to get people to stop demonizing atheism.
|
Well, that's part of it, certainly. No one likes being told to get back in the closet and shush up. But the thing is, as JT Eberhard made a point of indicating, attendance numbers have gone way up in recent years. I keep hearing from certain quarters that the new atheists are "hurting the cause," I'm just not seeing it. It seems to be the reverse. The new atheists have been a boon to the skeptical movement, adding energy, exposure, and new membership. In my opinion, it's people like Wagg who are throwing a wet blanket over the fire and killing the movement's momentum. I don't know if it's jealously or the founder's effect like Dave mentioned or what, but the criticisms feel petty and counterproductive.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/22/2010 13:03:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 12:21:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Thoughts? |
Yeah. I've never heard any skeptic say anything like Lippard's "I don't believe in X because I'm a skeptic, and we don't believe in such things." Maybe he has. I didn't know it was such a big concern. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 13:48:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
"That band can't be Doom Metal because they have keyboards and Doom Metal doesn't have keyboards, that band should be Black, Doom, Power Metal!" |
Yeah, but they're all metal.I see the exact same type of thing happening with the current skeptic/atheist argument. It will end up something like this...
" He's not a Scientific Skeptic...He's a Scientific Philosophical Religious Skeptic" or other such nonsense. |
Yeah, but they're all skeptics.
One of my favorite jokes:Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
— Emo Philips
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2010 : 14:08:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
"That band can't be Doom Metal because they have keyboards and Doom Metal doesn't have keyboards, that band should be Black, Doom, Power Metal!" |
Yeah, but they're all metal.I see the exact same type of thing happening with the current skeptic/atheist argument. It will end up something like this...
" He's not a Scientific Skeptic...He's a Scientific Philosophical Religious Skeptic" or other such nonsense. |
Yeah, but they're all skeptics.
One of my favorite jokes:Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
— Emo Philips
|
You are getting my point Dave.
What's happening is that people are arguing semantics now. We are really on the same side, no need for this division.
Maybe they can regulate how many talks are on specific topics at the conventions?
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
| Edited by - Ebone4rock on 11/22/2010 14:13:17 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Too many atheists?
