by Dave Silverman, President, American Atheists
[A response to Massimo’s post about the recent AA ad campaign, following up on Ed Buckner’s response]
Here you go Massimo. A civil response to a civil attack.
Thanks for handling this issue as you did. You're a gentleman (who is sometimes wrong), and I respect that.
I want to start this article by thanking Massimo for his civil tone and frank honesty. The billboard about which he writes has generated a substantial amount of discussion, and many of its detractors have been anything but civil, instead devolving into ad hominem and personal attacks against American Atheists or me. It is my hope that the entire movement can learn how to attack ideas without attacking people from Massimo.
I also want to state categorically that Massimo is still counted as one of my friends, a friend of the organization (of which he is a Life Member), and a serious player in the movement. As we all know, atheists don’t always agree, and we will never progress without acceptance of our own diversity.
I have learned over the past three months (as American Atheists’ new President) that it is an unhealthy and wasteful use of my time to debate online. I write this reply for Massimo, but I hope all viewers will understand that I cannot get into a back-and-forth on this.
First and foremost, yes, all religions are scams. I find it difficult to grasp that there is really any disagreement here, since it is so blatant. They promise an afterlife (which we all know doesn’t exist) and further promise that adherence to some set of rules, which include giving money or power to the preaching church, will somehow improve that afterlife, which is of course a false promise. While some groups claim to be ‘nontheistic religions,’ we specify on our web site that these groups are not included in this assertion. Theistic religions are all scams.
It makes no difference if the purveyors know they are peddling falsehood – it’s still happening, but some scams are multi-leveled. For example, homeopathy is a scam, always, whether the so-called practitioner believes in it or not. Homeopathic practitioners are either liars or victims, and the same goes with clergy, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that promises are being made and never kept, and the buyers/believers are the victims.
But the billboard doesn’t go that far. It challenges people to consider whether THEY know they’re all scams, without making the global statement itself. The implication here is “we know it, and we dare you to admit you do, too,” and frankly, I think Massimo missed the mark here on what it says and the meaning it conveys. He is inferring what is not implied.
Massimo’s second and third assertions are really both the same – that this is just an overall bad strategy from multiple angles. I respectfully challenge this as complete supposition and assumption, unsupported by any facts.
The good news is I do have facts. I have the fact that our membership is up 20% since November. I have the fact that we’ve seen a surge in purchases and donations. I have a nearly sold-out regional convention – in Alabama. I have more new members in the local Alabama group than they’ve gotten in the past 9 months combined. I have literally hundreds of emails to American Atheists from people who our message has reached, from all over the world, who truly appreciate our efforts. So, quite frankly, the assertion that we are “driving people into the closet” is simply an assumption Massimo uses to support his conclusion that the strategy is faulty. That’s not factual. We are succeeding quite well.
But American Atheists is not only about itself, we are about the whole movement. The biggest, A-number-one problem in this whole movement is (say it with me now) awareness — the closeted or unconnected atheist’s ignorance of organized atheism. Please don’t make the mistake that we have eliminated this major issue! This is our immediate need, and our common target market, and the problem cannot be solved without using the press.
Press coverage of a billboard substantially increases the value proposition and must be considered when weighing its success. I have reports or mentions on O’Reilly, Colbert, Olbermann, and every major TV news outlet in Alabama as well as many in other states, all from this SCAMS billboard. If we include the first “You KNOW it’s a Myth” billboard, we can add every major news network several times over, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Colbert (again), Saturday Night Live, and national news in 6 other countries. This amounts to over $10M in total coverage, much of which hits our direct market, NOT including web logs and discussion boards ($millions more), all from two billboards!
All of this raises awareness, and benefits the whole movement. We won’t get that kind of play with the ‘nicey-nicey’ billboards. We will get it by pushing the envelope of political correctness by challenging the assertion that religion deserves respect, and that religious practice is anything but an exercise in self-delusion.
Let’s not get out of hand when we talk about our message. Massimo makes it sound like our motto is ‘American Atheists: F@ck your God.’ So please take a moment to reflect. Are we really being THAT offensive? No. We said religion is a scam, and the parishioners are its victims. That’s the message that got out. No profanity. No hate. No insults. Not negative, not raunchy, not even angry. I’m sorry, I cannot believe that our message drove anyone away that wasn’t already leaving.
So Massimo’s assertion that this is bad PR is simply wrong. We have all the numbers and active feedback we need to back it up – people do, in fact, know they’re all scams. He doesn’t like our campaign – but he is not the target market! The target markets are the closeted atheists and the press, with whom the billboards are home-runs, thank you very much.
This is not to say that Massimo’s comments have gone unheard. We can all see the nuances that separate us on a philosophical level, and we will take this into account as we continue forward.
However, the billboards and other ad campaigns will continue. American Atheists is never going to shy away from telling the blunt and honest truth about the greatest scam in history: religion.
Disagree if you wish, Massimo, that’s OK (remember, our principle difference here is “all” vs. “some” religions are scams). The next time we get together we’ll talk about the 99% of things on which we DO agree. First round is on me.
To everyone else, I urge you to donate your money and time to the movement, and get the organizations with which you most identify to start/ramp up their own ad campaigns. This movement is diverse, and we will never all agree on approach. Instead, we should delight in this diversity, and make it clear to newcomers that atheism has many facets and faces, many angles and attitudes. We are one movement with the same goal, but if we are to succeed (and we will), we must look outward for a fight.
I’ll be on the front lines.
Sincerely,
David Silverman
President, American Atheists, Inc
I want to thank Dave (as well as Ed, again) for engaging in this discussion, which has been both informative and civil, including the streams of commentaries by readers.
ReplyDeleteDave draws a parallel between religion and homeopathy, but of course homeopathy is eminently empirically testable, and usually homeopaths don't says that they believe in homeopathy by faith. They all think it is a natural, alternative remedy. Not so for religions, where the claim is often one of faith, not of empirical evidence. How does Dave know that religions don't deliver on their promise of an afterlife? Yes, of course, we agree that they don't, but you can't just show this to the believer or the practitioner in the same way in which you can show that homeopathy doesn't work. The two are in different (pretty crazy) ballparks.
On Dave's second point, I fail to see that there is a substantial difference in daring to admit someone that he too thinks that religions are scams and stating that they, in fact, are scams.
I will grant Dave his numbers about a surge in AA membership, possibly related to the ad campaign. But I have seen this happening in the past, and usually these surges are transitory. Moreover, of course, we don't know how many other atheists ran the other direction, and more importantly how many fence sitters were turned off by the campaign. Yes, AA received hundreds of emails in support, but we are not told how many critical ones they received. If what I've seen in the press is a reflection of the general situation, the negative responses outnumber the positives by orders of magnitude.
Dave then proceeds to argue that we need awareness campaigns. But I never questioned this. As I said in my original post, Reasonable New York did one - very successful - campaign last year in the city's subways. The issue is what sort of message we send, and what kind of face do we give to atheism, not whether or not we need ad campaigns.
And it is factually wrong to state that "nicey-nicey" campaigns (a somewhat unnecessarily derogative term, in my opinion) don't get press coverage: ours got covered by the New York Times, Fox and the BBC, among others.
And of course I do accept Dave's promise that the first round of drinks will be on him the next time we meet. I'll have a dirty martini, vodka, straight up, with olives.
I know it's wrong, but that is an awesome motto.
ReplyDeleteMassimo, you said:
ReplyDelete> Dave draws a parallel between religion and homeopathy, but of course homeopathy is eminently empirically testable, and usually homeopaths don't says that they believe in homeopathy by faith.
...but is that distinction relevant?
You've criticised Dave et al for describing religions as scams because you say it's bad to use the word 'scam' if the participants aren't deliberately deceiving. Dave argued you wouldn't be so critical if they were describing homeopathy as a scam, even though homeopathy's participants aren't deliberately deceiving. It seems to me that you four options:
* claim homeopathy's participants are deliberately deceiving,
* claim you would be just as critical of the word 'scam' in the case of homeopathy,
* accept that it is reasonable to call religion a scam even if its participants aren't deliberately deceiving or
* admit an inconsistency.
For Dave's analogy to work, he just needs homeopathy to make unsubstantiated claims and to have participants that aren't deliberately deceiving. Of course, we could point to plenty of distinctions between religions and homeopathy: one involves pills more than the other; one involves ancient texts more than the other; one is more empirically testable than the other. However for any of these differences to stop his analogy working, I think you need to argue that it means that homeopathy's participants don't deliberately deceive.
GG,
ReplyDeletegood point, I would say that homeopathy is not a scam when its practitioners practice it in good faith. Which of course doesn't justify the practice or the practitioners. I really think that despite Ed's hairsplitting scam implies intention to deceive, which is why of course the AA board is particularly offensive.
David, I ask again: why should we accept your claim that religious leaders don't actually believe what they say they believe? I have not yet seen reason or evidence presented for this claim.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have enjoyed the exchanges on this topic. Just a couple of thoughts:
ReplyDeleteMassimo grants that the billboards may have increased numbers, but then seems to detract from this by saying surges of this kind are normally transitory.
Firstly I'd say surges are transitory by definition (just me being picky, I know). Secondly, I'd say surges due to adverts are the reason advertising companies make money - you can't stop after one advert and expect the increase of numbers to continue - you put out another advert!
Of course Massimo understands this, which is why I am confused by his inclusion of the statement in question.
If the billboard worked, it worked. Of course that doesn't mean some atheists wouldn't be put off by it, but that's why we need a range of approaches.
Rob, I don't see why surges are transitory by definition. Numbers of X could surge and then plateau but remain stable, without going down again.
ReplyDeleteSecond, again, it depends on what we consider "success" here. Short term increase in AA membership by hard core atheists? Okay. Long term effects on the atheist community at large and/or cultural fence sitters? Much more doubtful.
And of course there is the fundamental question of truthiness, as Colbert would say: is it ethical to increase one's membership by putting out a message that is likely false and certainly not demonstrably true?
@Massimo
ReplyDelete> good point
Ta.
> I would say that homeopathy is not a scam when its practitioners practice it in good faith.
I see. Well then that deals with my point. Ta.
> I really think that despite Ed's hairsplitting scam implies intention to deceive
Aye. My feeling is that 'scam' strongly suggests intention to deceive (but probably doesn't completely entail it). This strong suggestion is enough for me to dislike the advert and to broadly agree with your original criticism of it.
That said, as is often the case, I generally agree with Jerry Coyne:
* I think your post is weakened rather than strengthened by you seeking to use this example to make generalisations about many atheists.
* I think you're eager to dismiss those who disagree with your views of the philosophy of science as ignorant, naive or simplistic. In fact, I think there are many smart, thoughtful, well (philosophically) read people who simply disagree with you. I think this isn't an issue where all such people will necessarily reach the same conclusion (as with say evolutionary biology vs creationism).
* I wouldn't think someone calling homeopathy a scam was correct but nor would I suggest they were being exceptionally rude or angry. So I find it for religion.
What is such a big deal about being a Life Member of AA? Is it voted on like the Hall of Fame? If so, who is the most (whatever it is that gets you into the club) atheist that isn't a Life Member? [tongue in cheek]
ReplyDeleteI don't want semantics to distract from the much more important point of the discussion (even though most of it has been based on the meaning of 'scam'), but I think we're using surge in different ways.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be adding extra meaning to it, specifically that the number won't decrease again. If the surge wasn't temporary, numbers would never plateau - they would rise continuously. I understand what you mean though - that the increased numbers will be temporary, not the surge itself.
As I said, I think a range of approaches need to be used (by different organisations, if neccesarry). However I basically agree with you in this instance.
I don't see how "intent" enters into things.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone seriously saying that deciding whether, say, a pyramid scheme may or may not be a scam depending on whether the person who sold it to you was convinced it was good?
That sounds like some crazy post-modernist stuff. I think that 'scam' is a feature of the setup and structure (promising goods which can't or aren't delivered), and not of intent or we get some mad results.
The crux of the disagreement seems to be, 'Does the religious practitioner realize that his religion is false?'
ReplyDeleteLet's assume all believers to be 'true believers' as few of us would care about offending those who are knowingly scamming people via religion. I understand the need to potentially separate people who promote a scam from those who *are* scammers, but we can explain 'scam' from 'scammer' when necessary.
Most people who espouse religion of any form are going to be 'true believers'. While the term 'scammer' indicates deception, it shouldn't matter with religion since religion itself is a scam, even if promoted by someone who doesn't realize it. However, why would someone be religious if they realized this?.
Think of it like this:
A drug-store employee is selling magnetic bracelets purported to improve all kinds of functions in the human body, which we know is a pure scam of the scammiest sort (since these things can be tested, just like many god claims).
If a believing or logically apathetic employee pushes these bracelets with tales of miracle cures and makes the company millions of dollars, is it any less a scam because the employee is ignorant about the scam? In my view, no. The innocent person pushing a scam is a victim of the scam, and when the scam is exposed you're doing that person a favor (though they will probably be offended in the process).
I often refer to religion as a fraud, scam, fairy tale, myth, lie, etc. to drive home the point, and start getting honest inquiry from the theist.
Most theists aren't knowingly lying, either, but the religious myths they promote are lies, frauds, fake, unlikely/impossible, etc.
The term, 'scam' is the least of their troubles. Instead, they should thank those who make an effort to expose religion to skeptical review so they can break free of the madness.
Great discussion. The root of the argument seems to boil down to semantics, specifically the connotation of the word "scam" in this context.
ReplyDeleteMassimo, I'd like to know what words you would find acceptable to replace "scam" that would both no longer offend you and what you predict would be equally or more effective?
Shams? Myths? Fakes? Untrue?
And what metrics would you pick to measure effectiveness?
It may be possible to empirically test your complaint...if AA were to run billboards again.
To say that we all know an afterlife doesn't exist has several problems with it. First, it overgeneralizes. Not all people "know" that. Further, if we take this as his own statement that he knows an afterlife doesn't exist, I would have to ask him exactly how he knows that? The statement is a violation of logic: one cannot prove a negative. On the flip side, lack of evidence is not proof of lack of existence (to answer that claim right off). So in the end, to claim that there is no afterlife is as much a faith claim as the claim that there is one. The only ones who are not making a faith claim, then, are the agnostics who honestly say they just don't know.
ReplyDeleteI know you can't should have done something, but perhaps the billboard would have better served American Atheists by asking the question, "Have you ever wondered if you're being scammed?" It's thought provoking no matter what you believe. It would probably generate a lot of discussion and get plenty of news coverage. Honesty about the reader's own beliefs are the only question.
ReplyDeleteTyro: "Is anyone seriously saying that deciding whether, say, a pyramid scheme may or may not be a scam depending on whether the person who sold it to you was convinced it was good?"
ReplyDeleteA pyramid scheme is called a scam because the person or people at the top of pyramid are conning those at the lower levels of the pyramid. Again, "scam" still implies intentionality.
GG, I don't dismiss people that disagree with me on the grounds that their understanding of philosophy is bad. But Jerry has been saying a lot of philosophically naive things over the last couple of years, and I simply pointed that out. I'm sure he does that all the time when someone writes simplistic things about biology, as he ought to.
ReplyDeleteNorwegian, the big deal is that Ellen Johnson gave me life membership in AA as an honorary title, it simply shows the strong ties I have with the organization.
Dave, I wouldn't use any of those words. I would put out a board that has a more positive message, along the lines of the Reasonable New York one.
Ophelia, sorry if I overstated the case, but you were so measured and positive... ;-)
"American Atheists is never going to shy away from telling the blunt and honest truth about the greatest scam in history: religion."
ReplyDeleteIt is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. -W.K. Clifford
It's really an ethical question then. Why should a movement which generally prides itself on critical thinking stoop to accepting poor inductive reasoning? It seems, for me at least, the impetus behind Mr. Silverman's support for this billboard comes dangerously close to a desire for proselytes and not rational beings. Which, if true, implies not only an ends over means mentality but a mirroring of the institution of religion itself.
@JJ
ReplyDeleteA pyramid scheme is called a scam because the person or people at the top of pyramid are conning those at the lower levels of the pyramid. Again, "scam" still implies intentionality.
The pyramid is the key, not the motives of the potentially deluded participants. It is structurally incapable of delivering on its promises which is why it's a scam no matter what the state-of-mind of the people involved.
You're right that the intent to scam is present in many people but this isn't necessary or sufficient.
More importantly, are you contending that your interpretation isn't merely the best but the only possible meaning of "scam"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we celebrate "raised awareness" of a movement that engages in the same kind of baseless, rhetorical attacks that characterize religion at its worst?
ReplyDeleteWhy should we celebrate a patently false message being associated with atheists on the Bill O'Reilly show? O'Reilly himself is of sufficient intellect to refute the "scam" allegation (which speaks volumes in and of itself). Do we really want O'Reilly's audience believing that this is all the atheist camp can think to put on a billboard?
Oh, how I wish Bertrand Russell were here.
@Massimo
ReplyDelete> But Jerry has been saying a lot of philosophically naive things over the last couple of years, and I simply pointed that out. I'm sure he does that all the time when someone writes simplistic things about biology, as he ought to.
Hmmm... but I think there's a difference...
Those biological corrections would presumably be the sort that would not be contested by any smart, honest person who is well read in the area. Hence if a smart person expressed a contrary view, it would be reasonable to work on the assumption that it was because they were unfamiliar with some part of this body of knowledge.
My impression is that these philosophy of science (PoS) issues are massively contested and that there are plenty of smart, thoughtful, (philosophically) well-read people who have a PoS closer to JC's than to yours. Hence, someone expressing a different view cannot be presumed to be ignorant or stupid. My impression (unsupported by evidence) is that quite a lot of scientists, fairly well read in PoS, have found much of that material to be unhelpful knot-tying and conclude with a view similar to JC's. You might find that frustrating but it doesn't mean you get to write off their arguments as naive.
How could we test whether it's simply a matter of greater expertise rather than a difference of opinion? Well, in the example of JC correcting simplistic biology, he could presumably point to stuff that would immediately make the vast majority of smart people think: "ah yes, now I can see why that other view was naive and simplistic".
...and yet, despite numerous posts and comments, I don't feel like you've been able to point to anything that begins to prove it's a matter of your greater expertise rather than JC's different opinion. For example, at the end of the "Jerry Coyne, then and now" thread, I didn't feel you'd convincingly argued much more than that you have a different view to JC. Please see the comment I posted near the end of that thread: http://goo.gl/Os0ni
GG, I really don't wish to rehash once again that whole thing. I think I made my arguments clearly, if you (or Jerry) don't buy them you don't buy them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, the main difference seems to be that Massimo uses a more restrictive definition of scam than Ed or Dave and many of the commenters. But I have no idea why. A scam is a fraudulent deal. Fraudulent means false or phony. Religions are indeed false and phony, so why aren't they scams? I disagree that scam implies intentional deception.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think homeopathy is an apt analogy, even though it makes directly testable claims, unlike theistic claims. The testability isn't what's being analogized. It's the falseness of the claims, not the method that one reaches (science, and philosophy respectively) that matters.
@Massimo
ReplyDelete> I really don't wish to rehash once again that whole thing
No - fair enough. :-)
> I think I made my arguments clearly, if you (or Jerry) don't buy them you don't buy them.
Indeed. Again, fair enough. I'm completely happy to agree to disagree and chalk it up to a difference of opinion. :-)
However I would suggest that doing this probably involves not repeatedly and publicly stating that the contrary view is naive. Doing that rather suggests an unwillingness to agree to disagree and chalk it up to a difference of opinion.
Apologies if I have worn down your patience. I post in good faith (no pun intended) with no aim to annoy.
BTW, where's Julia been for this latest debate?
Quite all right, Massimo! :- )
ReplyDeleteAh, Julia goes through periods of eclipse, and no astronomical theory has been able to predict when they start or end. Any insight into the matter would be greatly appreciated.
ReplyDeleteNow this I don't get at all:
ReplyDeleteBut the billboard doesn’t go that far. It challenges people to consider whether THEY know they’re all scams, without making the global statement itself. The implication here is “we know it, and we dare you to admit you do, too,” and frankly, I think Massimo missed the mark here on what it says and the meaning it conveys. He is inferring what is not implied.
But the ad says, in plain English, "You KNOW they're all SCAMS." Caps in the original. Saying "you know" is not "challenging people to consider" - it's asserting that they know. That's exactly why I object to it - I object on epistemic grounds: it says more than anyone can possibly know.
Thus I don't think the implication is at all “we know it, and we dare you to admit you do, too.” That would work for "they're all SCAMS" but it can't possibly work for the "you KNOW" version.
I've heard that astrological theories have remarkable predictive powers. Perhaps you should look into some of those. ;-)
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I too disagree with "Jerry has been saying a lot of philosophically naive things over the last couple of years."
ReplyDeleteI had an amicable discussion of the issue on the apologies thread in November. I still think Massimo doesn't disagree with Jerry all that much - they seem to come out at the same place, philosophically naive or not.
Here's what I said:
On the substance - what you say about supernaturalism at least partly answers a question I've had about your view throughout this erm discussion.
"science has nothing to say about the supernatural because the latter is too vague to constitute anything like an explanation of any sort, let alone a scientific one."
My question has been along the lines of: "You say science has nothing to say about the supernatural, but does anything else have anything to say about it?" The quoted passage seems to imply that you would answer "no." Is that right?
In any case - what you say is saying the relevant thing about the supernatural, isn't it? Isn't the fact that it's too vague to constitute anything like an explanation of any sort precisely why Jerry and others think there is an epistemic conflict between religion (of the supernatural variety - not religion-as-social and the like) and science?
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/11/apologies-to-jerry-coyne-et-al.html?showComment=1288973502210#c4824672827968441097
Massimo pretty much said yes, at least I think so.
I would argue a major business of philosophy is precisely to examine the epistemic and logical content - if any - of statements, which is why I find (science-informed) philosophical objections to religion more convincing.
And yes, there is a deep conflict between science and religion - which is why I do not consider myself an accommodationist. However, the major source of that conflict, I think, was aptly summarized by Richard Feynman (in "The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist") when he said that science is based on open inquiry and questioning, while faith takes precisely the opposite stand.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/11/apologies-to-jerry-coyne-et-al.html?showComment=1288977700554#c8509500986705410368
For what it's worth, I disagree with the wording, 'You KNOW religion is a SCAM'. I think telling someone what they know isn't quite as effective as telling them why they should know. Theists use this tactic all the time, 'You know there's a god', but it's not a great rhetorical device.
ReplyDeleteI think 'Religion is a scam' would have been better, along with some improved graphic design (specifically: font size/choice/spacing, composition, etc.).
Tyro, if you look at, say, Wikipedia's page on "Scam" (which redirects to its page on "Confidence trick"), you get this definition:
ReplyDelete"A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, swindle or bamboozle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence."
If you click on the link text "defraud", you get Wikipedia's page on fraud, and if you scroll down to the section on "Elements of fraud," you get this list:
1. a representation of an existing fact;
2. its materiality;
3. its falsity;
4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.
Note point 4 in that list.
Note, too, that Ed Buckner, in an earlier post attempting to defend against the claim that "scam" implied intent, failed to avoid describing "scam" in terms of fraud, which -- as our blog host's reply to him pointed out -- undercuts the very point he was trying to make.
The idea that "scam" can reasonably be taken to mean "falsehood" or "myth" just doesn't wash.
The technical definition of a word may take precedence in a white paper or treatise, but in colloquial form one needs to take into account how the word comes across. In the vernacular of the street "scam" definitely implies overt dishonesty and I don't think most people believe that their pastors or fellow adherents are deliberately deceiving them.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, all this talk about a movement makes me squeamish. I know this has been covered ad-naseum in the atheist, freethinker, brights, secular humanist realm. I realize that there might be a need for a movement and that an amount of good can come from it, but I don’t like it.
I also don’t agree with the implication we need an atheistic society. We need a society that basis laws and policies on evidence and reason and for that I would gladly accept rational theists (or deists) such as Thomas Jefferson, etc. – even those who recognize that their religious views are subject to doubt and have no place in political or earthly matters can have a seat at the table.
Thanks for the post. While I was opposed to using the word scam before, I found the argument made here actually very convincing. Personally, I would nonetheless not have used a billboard like that.
ReplyDeleteMassimo:
Dave draws a parallel between religion and homeopathy, but of course homeopathy is eminently empirically testable, and usually homeopaths don't says that they believe in homeopathy by faith. They all think it is a natural, alternative remedy. Not so for religions, where the claim is often one of faith, not of empirical evidence. How does Dave know that religions don't deliver on their promise of an afterlife? Yes, of course, we agree that they don't, but you can't just show this to the believer or the practitioner in the same way in which you can show that homeopathy doesn't work. The two are in different (pretty crazy) ballparks.
It is surely no use to start down another discussion about whether anything even remotely relevant would be left of religion after we subtract everything that can be rejected beyond reasonable doubt based on lack of empirical evidence that should be there if the proposition is true - but let me try another angle here:
If showing that homeopathy works is really so much easier than showing that there is no afterlife, then why are there homeopaths? To me, "I feel that it works for me, so I don't care about your control-group experiments" seems to be well within the ballpark of "I feel it in my heart that god exists".
Alex, the two sentiments may be analogous, but there is a clear and simple response to the first one, not so much to the second one, but of course my reasons for that go back to our much rehearsed discussion, so let's not go there.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, as I commented above, I wouldn't qualify homeopathy as a scam either, unless the people that are pushing it know that it doesn't work and push it nonetheless.
"all religions are scams. I find it difficult to grasp that there is really any disagreement here, since it is so blatant. They promise an afterlife (which we all know doesn’t exist) and further promise that adherence to some set of rules, which include giving money or power to the preaching church, will somehow improve that afterlife, which is of course a false promise."
ReplyDeleteWait a second. In a reform Jewish temple (theistic, definitely!) there's none of this promising of goodies in the afterlife. In fact, I see no promising of anything (having been a member of one for some time). Literally, nothing.
But take the religion that does promise. Is that even a scam? What if the good stuff that comes from participation is actually this worldly? For example, one benefit is that as people age, they have the advantage of being part of a community, instead of becoming isolated, and they feel good about the way their death and burial will be handled. So: the religion promises X in the afterlife, but in reality it offers people Y in this life. Is that a terribly disgraceful scam? I would think not.
It's sort of like adult education classes that promise to teach you how to speak French but actually mostly help you meet new people and have fun. To jump up and down about that wouldn't make a lot of sense.
If religion promised something and delivered nothing, that would be very, very naughty, but if you just talk to people you find out that's not the case. Studies shows this too--religion gives people all sorts of stuff they want, even if it gives them nothing other-worldly. So I'd back off on the complaints about what a big scam it is.
What makes the homeopathy and religion analogy fail is that a person who really believes in homeopathy has not done due diligence by definition. Its very easy to show that homeopathy doesn't (and can't) work... this is testable. Religion is a different animal all together and is not at its core 'testable' in the same way. If someone "believes" I don't think that they are guilty of "scamming" anyone.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am with Massimo with his approach to atheism, I do so only on a personal level. I do think that civil discourse and a 'diplomatic' style of commnication is probably the best single approach, but I also think that "it takes all kinds." There is room for a more in-your-face activism, and this approach may reach certain people and situations in which a softer approach wouldn't. I think that it is important to challenge and question people who may be doing things that are counterproductive in a given movement, but I don't think that there is a single correct way to influence people. There is a diversity to atheists that does not need to be suppressed.
ReplyDelete@MDD - having grown up among many professional people of the cloth, I can tell you from anecdotal experience that there is both a widespread belief by those who 'have been called' that organized religions are scams, as widespread and strong as their belief in the callers.
ReplyDelete"It challenges people to consider whether THEY know they’re all scams, without making the global statement itself."
ReplyDeleteDave, when you suggest to someone that they know something you assert that it is true.
"...usually homeopaths don't says that they believe in homeopathy by faith. They all think it is a natural, alternative remedy. Not so for religions, where the claim is often one of faith, not of empirical evidence."
Massimo, almost all religious people I know think the empirical evidence is sufficient to support their religion without any faith. As the Catholic doctrine states: "One Can Know God By the Natural Light of Human Reason". Mainstream Islam and Mormonism emphasize the historical record and their holy books as evidence of their truth. Judaism, Protestantism, Hinduism, and Shinto contain diverse schools of thought but some certainly do not require faith.
A few people I know believe faith is necessary to believe. There are more than enough such people to disrupt an overly inclusive statement that all people in all branches of all religious groups think evidence alone proves their faith valid. Religion is therefore qualitatively different than homeopathy.
However, religion is quite similar to homeopathy as billions of religious people believe regardless of faith.
What is implied by the word "scam"? How many people have to knowingly mislead? Is it enough if the lying is intentional but selfless, and the clergyman believes his lying is permissible evangelism?
I don't think "scam" is precise enough to use.
"How does Dave know that religions don't deliver on their promise of an afterlife?"
If Dave doesn't know that they don't deliver on their promise of an afterlife, he nonetheless knows that they don't know that they deliver on their promise of an afterlife. Their claims of knowledge are false.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAsserting that religion is a scam is not an empirical statement. "You KNOW they're all SCAMS" is therefore dishonest and bears the same sensationalist rhetoric that accompanies so many religious tag lines. As an agnostic/border-line atheist I am embarrassed for this group.
ReplyDeleteccbowers,
ReplyDeleteMaybe there are different ideas as to what the core of religion is. I simply fail to see why every religion, and only religion, should arbitrarily be allowed to move goalposts, equivocate, make extraordinary claims without any evidence whatsoever, although it very clearly makes lots of very straightforward claims about the way our world works and what we can find in it (see also: miracles, faith healing, createdness of the universe, prayers for assistance, god-given morals, karma, existence of souls, specialness of humans, existence of angels, demons, jinns, etc. etc.).
Again, I would argue that if you subtract these claims, there is nothing left that (1) would be satisfying to any significant number of believers and (2) any atheist would need to worry about - in fact, it could hardly be distinguished from atheism. Certainly no specific religion would be that specific religion any more - they would all be the same vague belief in "some indescribable higher purpose or intelligence in the universe that never demonstrably did or does anything for us".
The entire official reason it is privileged in this way, i.e. being allowed to move goalposts etc., seems to be: "because it is religion". By definition, it is allowed what homeopathy or astrology aren't. Aha. How very convenient. I would not mind a bit more explanatory detail here. And why didn't the homeopaths think to simply make it part of the definition of homeopathy that it is untestable and does not need evidence?
Well, in reality it is of course more complicated than that: There is a lot of religious people who believe (wrongly, IMO, but that is a matter that can then at least be discussed rationally) that there is evidence for their belief, and on the other side, there are legions of alt-med quacks who will tell you that their quackery is immune to that dogmatic, "Western" science and reason, just like the shrewdest theologian.
The real reason for the privilege of religion seems to be that it has lots of very easily offended supporters.
"I have the fact that our membership is up 20% since November. I have the fact that we’ve seen a surge in purchases and donations. I have a nearly sold-out regional convention – in Alabama. I have more new members in the local Alabama group than they’ve gotten in the past 9 months combined."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sold that this is empirically relevant to the wording of the billboard, specifically. Is the uptick in membership due to the chosen phrase, or is it due to the simple advertisement of AA and its upcoming convention, regardless of any word choice? I realize that perhaps only way to test this rigorously would be to advertise separately without such provocative wording and then assess resposne between the two, but I don't think an uptick in attendance or membership is necessarily evidence in support of the word choice in this particular case. Then there's the question Massimo raises of how much damage the ad has done in spite of the positives. I don't think the positives can be used as evidence in a vacuum.
"All of this raises awareness, and benefits the whole movement. We won’t get that kind of play with the ‘nicey-nicey’ billboards. We will get it by pushing the envelope of political correctness by challenging the assertion that religion deserves respect, and that religious practice is anything but an exercise in self-delusion."
I'm also not sold that attention for attention's sake is always beneficial to the movement. Grisly automobile crashes, for example, will draw an incredible amount of attention and press coverage when they happen alongside a busy highway, but the fact that they draw attention and press isn't evidence that grisly automobile crashes are a positive, is it? I understand that's perhaps not the best analogy, but putting a movement into the spotlight can be as equally negative as positive, and I don't believe we know for certain what this ad has brought. Likely both some positives and negatives.
Regardless, I think it's beneficial that (with a few exceptions) there is mutual, productive discussion going on about this billboard. As I said on the other thread, it's a much-needed positive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The real reason for the privilege of religion seems to be that it has lots of very easily offended supporters."
ReplyDeleteLet me add to this. Another reason is that it is the majority worldview, and people's worldviews are highly integrated with their identity/ sense of self. 'Attacks' on a religion are often viewed as personal attacks to the extent that a person's religion is intertwined with their sense of self. There are very few people who have alternative medicine as an ideology so tied to their sense of self (although there are a few). I am not saying that relgion should be particularly privileged, but sometimes it appears privileged because people are comparing apples to oranges.
My point was that I agree for the most part with Massimo in that true believers are different from the scammers. I have a hard time believing that relgious parents are "scamming" their children... it just doesn't fit the behavior. In fact they probably feel that they are doing their children a very important service by raising them to believe. Just because someone is wrong doesn't make it a scam.
"Religions are mythological artifacts of cultures"
ReplyDeleteThis fits with what I was trying to say above. There may be certain aspects of a culture that are worthy of criticism, but due to the way a person's culture may be intertwined with their sense of self it makes some sense to approach such matters tactfully. This may appear like we are giving an undeserved "special privilege," but it may occasuionally be justified to do so. Religion is just the major example of this.
I am not arguing that everyone needs to walk on eggshells on these topics, but to realize why a person may react strongly to criticism in certain situations. I am not against the in-your-face atheism. It has its place and function in certain situations, and does have something to contribute. I just think it would be counterproductive if it becomes the public face of atheism.
Whether religion is a scam or not, I think most of us agree with the one of the greatest philosophers of our age: "Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. "
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
"Michael De Dora said...
ReplyDeleteDavid, I ask again: why should we accept your claim that religious leaders don't actually believe what they say they believe? I have not yet seen reason or evidence presented for this claim.
"
1) Michael, you could start with a look at Dan Dennett's latest project, where he documents atheist priests, etc, self-consciously preaching material they no longer believe is true.
2) Personally, I don't care if religious leaders actually believe what they preach. They are nevertheless so spectacularly uninformed that to be making such promises as they do seems to be gross negligence at best, and downright pathological in many instances. The priest who tried to strong arm the Catholic hospital into refusing to treat the pregnant mother in acute crisis comes to mind. Getting paid to offer false promises to a congregation sure fulfills the definition of scam as far as I am concerned.
3) An atheist billboard offended some people. (This is a surprise?) This might be a very good thing. Anger is the natural response to the "unthinkable", the first step in the process of moving the Overton window. Better get used to it.
As someone who recently joined American Atheists I object to the use of the word "scam" on the billboard. There's no question that the word implies a dishonest act intended to disadvantage others, the targets of the "scam". While I would agree that they purveyors of religion are wrong, there is no reason to think that any but a few are aware that they are. Nor is the intelligence or level of knowledge relevant to the issue of their practice being a scam.
ReplyDeleteI find this disappointing. Shock tactics and imprecise use of language are not the sort of behavior I expect from organizations to which I belong. It may stir up interest but at the expense of respect.
@Gingerbaker:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Anger is the natural response to the "unthinkable", the first step in the process of moving the Overton window. Better get used to it."
Trying to move the Overton Window is fine and admirable, but one must remember that anger is not an invincible trump card. Anger and offense, when misused, can do as much damage as good. As nonbelievers, we should remain mindful of what it is we're trying to move to the center as more publicly acceptable if moving the OW is a goal. If we simply take a scorched earth approach where offending others for offense's sake (and not thinking about why they're offended or if their offense is justified) is universally deemed good, we put ourselves at risk of just taking all of nonbelief and slamming it as far to the extreme as possible, leaving nothing to move to the center. That's not the OW by a longshot.
We are one movement with the same goal
ReplyDeleteCould someone remind me of exactly what that goal is? If it is a world free of religion I'd have to remind everyone that the supposition that a world free of religion would be somehow 'better' than the one we currently inhabit is an unsupported assertion.
Not sure if anyone has said this yet, but I want to point out how unusual it is to publish two direct rebuttals to a blog post on that very blog. This is the Rationally Speaking motto in direct action.
ReplyDelete