Dodging elephants

It has been awhile since I have posted here – finding it hard to actually give a damn about some of the so called movements I have been a part of.

But here’s a series of posts by Barb Drescher that mirror some of my thoughts:

Take Back Skepticism, Part I: The Elephant in the Room

August 6, 2011, at 11:30 pm

I was planning a short rant about some ironically irrational arguments made by self-described rationalists at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin a couple of months ago. However, events of the past two weeks have left me frustrated, angry, and a little bit sick. Since they are all connected, I have decided to discuss them together in one long post, broken into three parts for easier reading.

The Nutshell

Arguments over scope and the conflation of atheism and skepticism have reached a fever pitch, as have arguments over tone. I will talk about some of this, but I will not attempt to explain all of the issues in any detail because everything that needs to be said has been said here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here… Well, you get the picture. In fact, if you want to argue the definition of skepticism or Skepticism* in the comments of this post, don’t bother. Instead, read what I wrote about it last year, which I would simply repeat in answer. It is clear from the comments on these posts that those who need to are not listening and I am rarely in the mood to spin my wheels. Instead, I will try to focus on the main reason these arguments should not be abandoned: it would be bad Skepticism.

In my opinion, the tone and scope arguments dance around a bigger problem and I do not believe that we can afford to ignore the elephants in the room any longer. We should not give people ‘a pass’ simply because they claim to be on our side.

In both his TAM6 and TAM9 keynote addresses, Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about a letter he wrote to the editor of The New York Times regarding a case in which a teacher was accused of promoting creationist-style anti-science (bold mine):

To the Editor:

People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah’s ark carried dinosaurs.

This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York, Dec. 19, 2006

Similarly, what I suggest is this: Skepticism, as a movement, is not hindered so much by the conflation of atheism and skepticism, the ridicule of believers, or attempts to promote values-based ideology as it is hindered by the blatant ignorance, arrogance, and irrationality displayed when those acts are committed.

In a field dedicated to reducing ignorance and irrationality, a field in which arrogance is toxic, I find this kind of behavior offensive. It is time that we reclaim Skepticism and restore its credibility and integrity.

A Tiny Bit of Background

The issues of tone and scope have been widely discussed for years, but Phil Plait’s now famous “Don’t be a Dick” speech at TAM8 has become a centerpiece in the debate over tone and Daniel Loxton has become its whipping boy. Daniel also advocates for the limitation of scope for the movement for several reasons. It is the most basic of these limitations that seem to kick up the most dust: empirical claims. It is the dust around religion that I would like to talk about in these posts.

But before I do, let me say this about tone: decades of research tells us that it matters. The next time you read something like, “Neither method is well-supported” or “They can’t prove that my way doesn’t work”, remember that the Discovery Institute still produces propaganda about the irreducible complexity of baterial flagella, despite having been educated about the clear and indisputable counter-evidence repeatedly over the past decade. Then read Tavris & Aronson’s Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

What the research tells us is that swearing, sarcasm, and ridicule are great ways to rally your followers and gain new followers. This behavior polarizes groupthink, excites, incites, strengthens group cohesion, and promotes ‘othering’ of outgroup members. The target of ridicule and sarcasm is extremely likely to polarize as well, adhering more strongly to their beliefs** as those beliefs are threatened. Although direct and non-confrontational criticism of a belief is not likely to change the mind of the believer either, it is a seed with chance to germinate and is less likely to strengthen the belief.

Just so that you don’t think that I am a hypocrite, I will say right now that have very little hope that the targets of my criticisms in these posts will allow anything to grow; that soil is hostile. Planting seeds is not my goal. Okay, enough background. Let’s get back to the point:

Skepticism 2.x has been costly.

It is unclear when the tide turned, but at some point the expansion of skepticism as a movement began to get ugly. With “Skepticism 2.0″, the rise of wonderful and creative independent and grassroots efforts made possible by technology, came a wave of fresh new voices. Unfortunately, this has coincided with changes in culture and education practices which seem to be rooted in the United States, but are spreading beyond our borders very quickly – practices which reinforce shallow thinking when it is accompanied by overconfidence. The result is that too many of the new voices are – to borrow wording from Greg Laden – speaking out of their nether regions.

One factor is that self-identified skeptics in general do not seem to be much more rational than the general public. Intelligence is not enough. A rational person is one who has two things:

  1. the tools (knowledge and intelligence) to reason well in a given situation.
  2. open-mindedness and flexibility of thought; the ability to consider that their current knowledge might be wrong.

Without both of these characteristics, individuals resolve cognitive dissonance in all manner of ways except the rational way, which is to alter their current knowledge to accommodate new evidence. I do not believe that anyone has done the research, but it makes sense that self-described skeptics and atheists have more of the first characteristic than the general public. Atheism is correlated with education and IQ; it seems reasonable that skepticism would be as well. However, I have seen little evidence that, beyond many successful professional skeptics and scientists, they are any more open-minded or flexible than the general public. In fact, I would not be surprised to find that the opposite is generally true. And although there is “generational” component to this phenomenon, some of the most stubborn people that I have seen in the Q & A sessions at meetings, shouting that “some people are JUST WRONG!!” and putting people into two categories: atheists and irrational people, were middle-aged white men.

The behaviors which, in my opinion, are the most troublesome, are:

  • conflating atheism with skepticism. This goes beyond the old arguments about testability and method vs. conclusion. In recent years, I have see these terms used interchangeably far too often. More and more speakers at major conferences (like TAM) have little connection with Skepticism and more atheism-laden conferences are adopting names and promotional language which suggests that the meeting is about Skepticism. I suspect that the overlap of ‘members’ of the atheism and skepticism movements is at the root of this.
  • calling for social change related to political ideology or other values. Attempts by Michael Shermer and Sam Harris to promote their values were at least attempts to provide scientific support for those values. More recently Shermer publicly acknowledged (during the climate change panel at TAM8) that political values are outside the scope of Skepticism. However, there remain a large number of Skeptics who continue to argue for the promotion of ‘progressive values’ and Liberal ideology in the name of Skepticism.
  • insisting that offending and ridiculing believers is an effective means of outreach.

These behaviors are troublesome because they impair us in various ways. The impairments are severe enough to see daily if one is on the front lines of grassroots work. For example, recruiting students to my campus club was easy. Retaining them was not. Several of my students abandoned the work they’d begun after encounters with other ‘skeptics’ at meetings and online. This happened with students whose beliefs can be described as agnostic and atheist; imagine if any of my recruits were Christians.

Even more troublesome than these behaviors is the uneducated groupthink that arises from these behaviors. By ‘uneducated’ I mean incorrect. Or so far afield that it’s ‘not even wrong’. This ignorance (and refusal to learn) is another very influential factor. If one of the major goals of Skepticism is to educate, shouldn’t we all understand the material?

Arrogance and ignorance, along with some shallow thinking, need only a cause to produce mob behavior. Opinions become stronger, more polarized, and more emotionally-laden they are spewed by overconfident people with an audience. When groupthink grows, hate often grows with it.

There is a very large overlap in the make-up of atheist and skeptic communities. My Facebook friends list is full of people whom I suspect sent requests only because I am an atheist. Despite little interest in atheism or religion, I once supported atheism-related activism. I continue to be a die-hard supporter of secularism. However, I will think twice before supporting any endeavor with the label ‘atheism’ in the future. In my opinion, the current climate of the atheist movement is making the work of Skepticism much more difficult. It has become, in my opinion, a septic tank of arrogance and hate.

For example, when reports spread that the man suspected of killing more than 90 people in Norway was a Christian, I read comment after hate-filled comment on Facebook and Google+ calling for the annihilation of Christians. Comments which claimed that Breivik was mentally ill were quickly attacked under the straw man that mental illness somehow absolves him of responsibility. I don’t happen to agree that an illness is more than an explanation of behavior (even in court, ‘insanity’ is much more than a diagnosis of ‘illness’), but that’s beside the point. What we wish to be true has no bearing on what is true. Even if, as reported at the time, some of the evidence suggested that he committed these acts as part of a God-loving crusade, the idea that he would not have been just as motivated by some other extreme ideology (e.g., anti-capitalism ideology) is absurd and an individual acting alone is much more likely to be mentally ill than to be part of an organized terrorist effort. His manifesto eventually revealed that he was fueled by any ideology that fit into his clearly delusional view of the world.

Some argued that all terrorists are mentally ill; there is no difference between Breivik and an organization like Al-Qaeda. Or they described all terrorists as ‘evil’ – an evil created by religion, as if religion is the only reason that people commit terrible acts. This simply is not reality. Psychologists have studied ‘evil’ relentlessly since the atrocities of the holocaust during World War II and we have learned that average people will commit some fairly heinous acts if situational factors are aligned. If we do not recognize that good, sane people are capable of bad acts, we will be helpless to prevent it. What’s more, such extreme ‘othering’ may make us feel better, but it closes our eyes to our own potential for wrongdoing.

The right-wing propaganda machine has done its best to paint Breivik as an isolated, politically-motivated nut job who was not a Christian. This is clearly wrong. However, painting him as part of a Christian terrorism-laden culture is equally wrong and serves only to fuel even more hatred. Hate breeds hate. Following are some examples of the kind of hate that I see growing among atheists.

A comment on a link to a report that the Westboro Baptists plan to protest at the funerals of the Norway victims made by a now ex-Facebook friend who claims to work for ‘The God Killers Inc’ (and two replies):

“FUCK THE Westboro Baptist Cult, and the God they pray to. I hope someone guns down this whole fucking group of hate fueling motherfuckers.”

“Hopefully the Norwegians will take them into custodian at the airport then fly them far north and dump them on a shrinking iceberg!”

“I always wondered why that hasn’t happened already? What a sad world we live in where innocent children are slaughtered and WBC isn’t? WTF OMG LMFAO…not really :(

A Status update from the same ‘God Killer’ quoted above:

“Got banned on Teens Need Jesus page for telling the truth on the BS they were slinging trying to suck teens into their cult. Only took 1 day before I got banned this time. The Truth Is Consider A Crime By The Religitards.”

A commenter wrote this about a member of a Christian teens group:

“sick fucks are everywhere and need to be grouped together and sent to antartica or somewhere nice and cold”

…then posted a warning about a Facebook virus without first doing a simple search to find out if it was a hoax (it is).

Another now ex-Facebook friend whose comment, “fucking religitards!” prompted me to visit his wall, which reveals contact information that includes links to several Herbalife sites. His ‘activities and interests’ section includes ‘fuck Walmart’, ‘fuck religion’, ‘profanity’, and ‘rationalism’. Yeah, ‘rationalism’. Because God is fucking stupid and Walmart is fucking evil, but Herbalife really works, right?

Finally, one former Facebook friend blew me away with this series of equal-opportunity status updates and link introductions:

“The fat behind the desk rush said the heat index is all made by the government. And the earth is cooling f ing idiot”
– on an article about Rush Limbaugh

“Xtains fundies are diferent musnutts fundies”

“This guy is bat shit crazy and be taken awaywith men in white coats” – about Glenn Beck

“Pat was funny he’s jusy bat shit crazy now.” – on a post titled Tell MSNBC to Fire Pat Buchanan!

“Another bat shit crazy” – about Donald Trump

“Just found out 22 dems votedfor bonehead biil the f ing retards”

And the shocker (bold mine):

Hate spreads quickly with the idiots he he bought his clips from the US” – on a link titled Norwegian Shooting Suspect’s ‘Manifesto’ Inspired By American Right-Wing Thinkers

Which was followed the next day by:

“F ing republicnuts I hope they get what coming to them” – on an Article in The Daily called How Republicans Screwed the Pooch

When I can’t tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’, there are no good guys.

And this leads me to something I’ve been trying to write about for weeks. In Part II I will discuss examples of irrationality and hypocrisy at the World Atheist Convention.

*”Big-S Skepticism” refers to the work of the skepticism movement in promoting the practice of skepticism.

**In my writings, the word “belief” refers to anything that an individual holds to be true. This includes those things that we accept on faith, because of convincing evidence, or as a philosophical conclusion.


Jewish Community leader tells of Sexual Abuse ?INCOMPLETE?

8 July 2011

Once again showing the sexual abuse is not confined to any particular culture/religion, that as a society we must demand that institutions religious or secular must submit to the rule of law.   Jewish Community leader tells of Sexual Abuse

You may have noticed an absence

30 March 2011

of my presence that is.  Let’s say I am on sabbatical.  Taking a break from blogging about religion, crazy superstitious beliefs, homeopaths and dodgy chiropractors.  I may or may not start blogging here again.  I just don’t have the compulsion at present and it’s something that a good month or so hasn’t fixed.

I am blogging about books over here at Adventures of a Bookonaut.

10:23 Campaign Melbourne

9 February 2011

Campaign Melbourne


Bravo to Victorian Skeptics and The Young Australian Skeptics.

Powerbalance Shuffle

14 January 2011

I overheard a curious conversation in my local purveyor of woo food products and cheap chocolate raspberries yesterday. 

A woman at the counter had questioned the proprietors sale of Power Balance Bracelets, she’d obviously seen something about the ACCC decision (go team Skeptic and other critical thinking Australians).

The proprietors response was most interesting(unfortunately it was hard to hear without making it obvious I was eavesdropping).  He seemed to indicate there was nothing wrong with the product itself, just a problem with the wording in the advertising, that you can’t scientifically test or prove “’performance enhancing technology”.

One wonders how you can then make claims about it enhancing performance, when you can’t do the research in the first place – how do you find out it works initially?  Do you just make shit up…  oh wait

So what I am wondering is if this is just some poor retailers response, an effort to move a product that’s become unpopular or if distributors are providing suggestions in how to deal with the bad publicity?

Perhaps its time for Skeptics to run some spot checks on their local retailers?

Ghost Hunting at Gladstone Gaol

4 January 2011

Well this Christmas and New years period has been rather pleasant, beautiful spring weather(in the middle of Summer mind you) so beautiful in fact that I decided to take a day trip.  Now I must admit I do love going on Ghost tours, whether the host hams it up (the Rocks Ghost Tour in Sydney) or they are a little more serious(Port Arthur tour in Tasmania) I am always open to the possibility of being shocked and bewildered at some appearance of some ethereal interloper.  Most of the time it’s just jolly good fun seeing other adults, become for a moment that inner child that believes something might be hiding in the cupboard.

Unfortunately the day trip didn’t coincide with a ghost tour(it being daylight for one).  We were however assured by the Host( a previous correctional officer at the Prison – a wizened Dutchman) that people regularly captured pictures of Orbs in B block.

Gladstone Gaol – A little History

The gaol was built between 1879-81 and was originally used for ‘inebriates and debtors’. From the time of its opening until the 1920′s it never housed more than 86 prisoners.

It housed both men and women and there were apparently  a number of babies born on site. During World War II it was used as an internment camp for Italians and Germans. It remained unused between 1943 and 1953, when it became a corrective training complex for 18-25-year-old offenders.

Following extensions in 1955, the complex increased to 125 cells.  It was closed in 1975 with prisoners being moved to Port Augusta – the reason being that they were required to install toilets in each of the cells and it would be cheaper to move prisoners to more modern lodgings in Port Augusta then retrofit the prison.

Visitors can enjoy day trips or enjoy B & B accommodation if they dare – muhahahaha …ehem sorry.

Here be Ghosts or Not

Below is a slideshow of the shots taken at the Prison including some shots of rather relaxed Kangaroos.  Much to my disappointment there were no ghostly apparitions in appearance, though my other half did notice some odd smells (sorry dear it was the curry).


Very observant and diligent Australian film aficionados might recognise the prison from the Bryan Brown film STIR

Power Balance revealed as a SHAM, finally!

23 December 2010

Though I may have trouble convincing the old gents down at the Bowl club.  They were sold some line about the ‘real’ power balance bands working, but not the cheap Chinese knock-offs.  Try telling someone who’s paid $60 bucks for one that they are one and the same and you get into “loosing friend”  territory.

But it’s official, after complaints and much good work from Skeptics around the country:

A bracelet worn by high profile sports stars that claims to improve athletic performance has been exposed as a sham by the consumer watchdog.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has ordered Power Balance Australia to refund all customers who feel they were misled by the supposed benefits of Power Balance bracelets.

[Read more]


Oops he did it again

21 December 2010

The Pope I mean.  Made a colossal fuckwit out of himself just as I was settling down to enjoy a rant and anger free holiday period while the fundamentalists fight a war against figments of their imagination who are attempting to destroy Christmas.

And I was getting ready to bitch and whine about the umpteenth time I have seen Ricky Gervais’ rehashed, retweeted “Why I am an atheist” missive.


You see Pope “foot in his mouth” has gone and blamed the promiscuousness of his paedophile priests on secular society.  Check out the article below:

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI told Vatican officials Monday that they must reflect on the church’s culpability in its child sex-abuse scandal, but he also blamed a secular society in which he said the mistreatment of children was frighteningly common.

In his traditional, end-of-the-year speech to Vatican cardinals and bishops, Benedict said revelations of abuse in 2010 reached “an unimaginable dimension” that required the church to accept the “humiliation” as a call for renewal.

“We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen,” the pope said.

Benedict also said, however, that the scandal must be seen in a broader social context, in which child pornography is seemingly considered normal by society and drug use and sexual tourism are on the rise.

“The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times,” Benedict said.

He said that as recently as as the 1970s, pedophilia wasn’t considered an absolute evil but rather part of a spectrum of behaviors that people refused to judge in the name of tolerance and relativism.

As an avalanche of cases of pedophile priests came to light, church officials frequently defended their previous practice of putting abusers in therapy, not jail, by saying that was the norm in society at the time. Only this year did the Vatican post on its website unofficial guidelines for bishops to report pedophile priests to police if local laws require it.

“In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the pope said. “It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than.’ Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

“The effects of such theories are evident today,” he said.

[Read more]

The sexual abuse of children is a society wide problem.  It’s the responsibility of each and everyone of us to look out for the welfare of others especially the young.  It is interesting to note that when conducting my mandatory reporting training at the start of this year, Ministers of Religion were still not required to attend the training before operating around children.

In other news…it’s all about family

Christmas that is.  It seems that most Victorians probably sail closer to Tim Minchin’s feelings about Christmas than the Salvation Army’s.  See below from the Herald Sun:

HAVE Victorians lost the spirit of Christmas? One in five sees it as a celebration of Christ’s birth, survey says.

When asked which of three statements summed up Christmas, the Galaxy Research poll of 800 people found 75 per cent said it was about good times with family and friends.

Only 20 per cent said the day was about the birth of Christ.

Church leaders expressed mixed reactions to the poll.

Uniting Church moderator for Victoria and Tasmania, Isabel Thomas Dobson, said the results offered a challenge for Christians.

“There is a bit of work for us Christians to do,” she said.

[Read more]

I think Tim Costello wins the diplomacy award on this one (see his comments further down in the article).

Perhaps we are just all tired of being lectured to by hypocrites and trust ourselves to know what’s best for our own.

The Origins of the Santa Claus myth

13 December 2010

Thanks to Russell Blackford I came across this sample chapter of a book attempting to unravel the mythology that surrounds Santa Klaus, Saint Nicholas and the most ancient of our gods, the Wild Man. Interesting holiday reading.

Photo by: deliverySushi of Krampus Celebrations