About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Greta Christina on “mission drift” - A commentary


by Massimo Pigliucci


Greta Christina has penned a thoughtful essay on the issue of “mission drift” within the atheist and skeptic communities, which turns out to be an indirect response to the very same talk by Jamy Ian Swiss that led to PZ Myers’ rant about “quitting” the skeptic movement - see my commentary on that here.


Christina begins by asking a deceptively simple question: “If the atheist and skeptical movements focus on political and social justice issues, will that constitute mission drift?” Her initial answer is a simple “No,” but then she elaborates at length, and much of what she says makes eminent sense to me.


Christina immediately breaks down her question into two logically distinct components:

(1) that these movements expand the focus of their existing missions into new areas having to do with politics and social justice, in ways that are consistent with those existing missions and that constitute clear overlap between those missions and these issues;

(2) that the organizations in these movements pay attention to these issues in internal matters, such as hiring and event organizing.

Most of the essay (and most of my commentary) then focuses on (1), with a few brief comments on (2). Let me start with the latter, then, to get the easy stuff out of the way. Yes, of course atheist and skeptic organizations should engage in fair hiring practices, adopt equal opportunity employment policies, offer students rates, organize conferences in locations - when possible - that offer public transport access, choose venues that are wheelchair accessible and so forth. (I would cut some slack on other issues she brings up, like offering sign language interpretation and day care, simply because those things are costly, and many organizations of the type we are considering typically have very limited budgets. Even so, they should try if they can afford it.)

However, as Christina herself implies when she makes the parallel between atheist / skeptic organizations and IBM or the Audobon Society, these actions should be taken qua public organizations, not specifically as atheist / skeptic ones. It’s a matter of simple civil decency, period.

Assuming we are all square on (2), then, it’s time to tackle the significantly more thorny (1) above.

Let’s briefly consider some of Christina’s examples of issues that some people may regard as instances of “mission drift” for atheists and/or skeptics, but which she contends are not. Her list is long, and I do not actually disagree with pretty much any item within it (with the big caveat to which I’ll get below), but just a few examples will give you a good idea:

To skeptics: Why can’t all that rationality, critical thinking skills, scientific method, and prioritization of evidence be applied to testable claims having to do with social justice? … The claim that people have unconscious racial biases which affect our behavior is a testable claim. The claim that children raised in same-sex relationships grow up with deep psychological problems is a testable claim. The claim that people act significantly differently towards infants we think are male and infants we think are female is a testable claim.

To atheists: Why would it constitute mission drift for the atheist movement to focus on how religion harms people by undermining social justice? Why would it be mission drift to focus on the harm done by abstinence-only sex education; by the influence of the religious right on reproductive rights; by the influence of the religious right on public education and economic policy; by fraudulent preachers and psychics preying on impoverished communities?

Why indeed? I do not have any objection to expanding the scope of skepticism and atheism along those directions. In fact, this has been happening for a while. Every year, for instance, the organizers of both TAM (at the national level) and NECSS (at the regional, in this case New York, level) make a point of scheduling talks that aren’t confined to the classic workhorses of skepticism, like UFOs, astrology and so forth. And Christina should know that both American Atheists and CFI have long drawn attention to at least some of the religion-related issues she mentions.

But Christina seems (irritatingly, I must add) to wish to pit herself against what she repeatedly refers to as “the old guard”: Why should the agenda get to be set by the old guard? … Why should the people who are already in the skeptical and atheist movements, the people who have been in the
skeptical movements for years, be the ones to decide which internal policies are core issues for atheism and skepticism, and which ones are on the fringe?

Well, the obvious question is: why not? We all get to set the agenda for what is largely a grassroots movement, and we do so via conversations like the one that Christina has started. But why shouldn’t “the old guard” be a (major) part of it? Just like in every movement, people who have been active for a long time deserve our respect because they’ve been there long before us, have experience, and have demonstrated their ability to get things done. Of course they shouldn’t get to set the agenda in a smoke-filled room somewhere in the middle of the Nevada desert, but they do deserve more respect than the contemptuous dismissal that emerges from Christina’s comments.

Niceties to the old folks aside, there is a larger problem that we all have to tackle in the process of expanding the concerns of the atheist and skeptic movements to the areas mentioned by Christina. It’s the same problem that I repeatedly point out to my feminist philosophy and gender studies academic colleagues: be careful not to mix too liberally what is with what ought to be, because you may regret it.

Recently I chided Michael Shermer for his scientistic tendencies, commenting that what he seems to want is a scientific imprimatur on his libertarian ideology. Certain libertarian policies may or may not work, and that surely is an empirical question about which we need data before we agree or disagree. But my fundamental objection to libertarianism qua ideology is that it doesn’t take in due account issues of social justice. That objection is philosophical in nature, and precedes (though it is not entirely independent of) the empirical. Should it turn out, for instance, that cutting aid to the poor, or undermining a guarantee to health care, or severely curtailing public access to education are somehow more “efficient” from a market perspective, I’d say the market perspective be damned. Certain considerations of value trump pragmatism and efficiency (up to a point, of course, I don’t live in a la-la land where economy just doesn’t matter).

The same goes for a lot of feminist philosophy, where colleagues engage in the sort of debunking that Christina is advocating, a deconstruction of allegedly scientific claims about race, gender, and so forth. This is crucial as a corrective to false, misleading, or discriminatory notions about women and various ethnicities that get cloaked in the mantle of science. But the argument for racial and gender equality should be independent of any particular outcome of empirical research.

I think that the best science does indicate that there are no group-based cognitive and few if any innate behavioral differences between genders. But what if better research should eventually show otherwise? Would we then have to bite the bullet and say, yup, I’m sorry, turns out that group X really does have structural cognitive differences with respect to group Y, so we really shouldn’t allow X to compete for the same jobs or resources as Y?

I don’t think so. We know that there is huge variation in physical and cognitive endowments among individuals (regardless of group), but nobody in his right mind would therefore argue for special privileges for particularly strong or smart people. The fact of the differences simply doesn’t enter into the judgment value of how we ought to construct our society.

Or take the issue of gay rights, over which American society is suddenly making a stunning amount of rapid progress. We often hear “defenses” of the gay life style in terms of it not being the result of a choice. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, who cares? So what if someone chooses to be gay, as opposed to having a strong instinctual propensity for it? Why should the cause of the behavior have anything whatsoever to do with issues of rights? But if advocates of gay rights insist on the “it’s not a choice” position, they open themselves - pointlessly, I think - to the possibility that future science may show that it is indeed a choice. Then what?

So, I absolutely welcome both Christina’s broader point that skepticism and atheism benefit from an expansion of their horizons, and her specific list of things that should be open to skeptical investigation or lend themselves to atheist advocacy. But let’s be clear that skeptics and atheists should also be interested in truth and intellectual honesty, wherever it may lead. And should it lead in directions that are not in line with our ideals, we should be prepared to either bite the bullet and modify those ideals or make a persuasive philosophical argument for why they should trump the empirical specifics. Are skeptics and atheists ready to boldly go there as a movement?


41 comments:

  1. There seems to be a connection between being of a naturalist and empiricist persuasion (more narrowly, being atheist/skeptic) and humanistic sympathy with progressive social justice issues (Shermer and other libertarians the exceptions of course), so it's perhaps not a surprise to see this sort of mission creep. What the connection consists in is an interesting question, perhaps having to do with becoming less parochial as one takes a science-based view of ourselves, dropping faith-based and other unevidenced justifications for discriminating against out-groups, and seeing the fundamental contingency of life (no one fundamentally or deeply deserves their lot in life, it's all the luck of the draw). All this tends to push us out of tribalism, lessening the hold of Haidt's conservative morality on us (in-group loyalty, respect for authority, purity) and widening our circle of concern.

    So although I agree that "the argument for racial and gender equality should be independent of any particular outcome of empirical research" it seems like a commitment to empiricism/naturalism helps to drive a commitment to progressive ideals. Not that there aren't many progressive non-naturalists of course.

    http://www.naturalism.org/politics.htm#humanists

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The connection's not that strong. There's many a skeptic who's got feet in the libertarian camp besides Shermer. Shermer also has had, for years, two known racialists on the masthead of his mag.

      Per other commenters talking about related issues, and broadening the focus of skepticism, this is all part of why I prefer the term "critical thinking" to skepticism.

      Meanwhile, some Gnus aren't explicitly humanist, at least not in the degree that they want to do humanist outreach even if it's not explicitly wrapped up with Gnu Atheism.

      Delete
    2. Yes, although there’s an historical and cognitive connection between being a naturalist and being progressive, there’s no unbreakable causal or conceptual link, and personality factors (e.g., the Big Five: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) play a big role in determining one's political orientation. As you point out, one can espouse naturalism and not be particularly liberal – atheist libertarians such as Shermer and Tibor Machan and the staff at Reason (a libertarian magazine) are cases in point. Still, naturalism does rule out some traditional justifications for conservative positions on criminal and social justice. It rules out, for instance, the appeal to the self-made self as the bearer of ultimate moral desert, who deserves to be rich, poor, punished or rewarded because human choices transcend causality in some respect And the empiricism that underlies naturalism will always make naturalists more likely than supernaturalists to question traditional, faith-based, or otherwise non-empirical claims to authority and knowledge. It’s no coincidence that scientists and university professors tend to be liberals, since their career commitment to unfettered inquiry militates against traditionalism and authoritarianism.

      Delete
    3. Tom, good points. And, of course, the staff at Reason doesn't have much in the way of natural science grad degree holders on staff, I'm sure.

      That said, racialists who are also atheists (Miele, Sarich et al) will attempt to use misinterpreted science to justify, if not a self-made self, a naturalistic view of differences in selves.

      Delete
  2. On homosexuality being a "choice" or otherwise something that can be changed:

    In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter whether it's a choice or not. But in the real world, it is not a choice, and yet there is an entire industry of junk pseudoscience called the "ex-gay" movement that rests on this erroneous foundation. These people convince parents to send their gay children to brainwashing camps where, through prayer and discredited "reparative therapies", attempt to convert them into heterosexuals. This is a fraud industry that causes psychological harm to individuals and divides families; and like the psychic industry it's a topic that skeptics would do well to focus on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Ryan, for making my point. I found this post quite interesting, and agreed with much of it. When I got to the part about sexual orientation, though, I found that many of the logical and practical points about the line between science and the "real world" had been contradicted.

      We don't live in a perfect world where the FACTS and LOGIC reign supreme. Therefore, we must sometimes use strategies that WORK over those that Aristotle and Plato would prefer due to their superior reasoning. As you state, "gay conversion therapy" is predicated upon the notion that homosexuality is CHOSEN. The fact that these attempts fail is proof that it is NOT chosen. As so long as we leave open the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, we also send the message that it might be changed.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Ryan, for making my point. I found this post quite interesting, and agreed with much of it. When I got to the part about sexual orientation, though, I found that many of the logical and practical points about the line between science and the "real world" had been contradicted.

      We don't live in a perfect world where the FACTS and LOGIC reign supreme. Therefore, we must sometimes use strategies that WORK over those that Aristotle and Plato would prefer due to their superior reasoning. As you state, "gay conversion therapy" is predicated upon the notion that homosexuality is CHOSEN. The fact that these attempts fail is proof that it is NOT chosen. As so long as we leave open the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, we also send the message that it might be changed.

      Delete
  3. To be frank, what got me into reading atheist/skeptic stuff was the epistemology. I don't want to change the world I just want an interesting and educating discussion (yes that can be interpreted as being selfish).

    The social justice movements online today seem to be far beyond simply deconstructing the flawed epistemology of traditional thinking, they are about effecting change by whatever means necessary. People have honestly told me they don't care about the logic of the situation they just want to hammer things home until society improves. That thinking just isn't for me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I think that the best science does indicate that there are no group-based cognitive and few if any innate behavioral differences between genders. But what if better research should eventually show otherwise?"

    Then skeptics will freak the heck out, judging by the online reception to Richard Lippa daring to broach this very question at CSICON.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "if advocates of gay rights insist on the “it’s not a choice” position, they open themselves - pointlessly, I think - to the possibility that future science may show that it is indeed a choice."

    - While this is a great and sensible post, this sentence was extremely jarring, and reflects a peculiar brand of scientism. There is no amount of "science" that could be done that would somehow overturn the personal experience of countless gays and lesbians, the large majority of whom simply realized, one day, that they didn't fit the cultural norm. Furthermore, the only reason they had to have this experience is because they are not the cultural norm: no one "wakes up" to the fact that they're heterosexual, because they have the good fortune to be in the majority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree w/Massimo ... it's funny at least that somebody is accusing HIM of "scientism."

      Delete
  6. Which is better: A creationist progressive or an evolutionist libertarian?

    That would be an interesting topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin Luther: "I'd rather be ruled by a good Turk (i.e., Muslim) than a bad Christian." It IS an interesting question.

      Delete
    2. I've been asking this question in a slightly different form for years. The way I ask it is:

      You have in front of you a religious person whose politics are right wing and you are given a magical power to change one or the other aspect. Which do you choose.

      I've gotten a lot of interesting answers over the years, my sense is that people in the skeptics movement are more likely to say politics than people in the atheist movement. And I get a smattering of people who say it's an impossible question so they won't choose.

      Delete
    3. Early progressives were virtually all Christian and of course creationists. Once upon a time the left was largely made of the working class -imagine that-

      Delete
  7. Ryan - Surely for those who self-report being attracted to both sexes it is a choice whether to seek out romantic relationships with one or the other or both.

    Of course, the ex-gay movement goes much further than this, claiming that *everyone* can choose to be straight. That sort of sweeping claim about human sexuality can be scientifically tested, and I see no good reason why the popularization of such testing wouldn’t fall under the rubric of doing scientific skepticism in the usual sense of the phrase.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >few if any innate behavioral differences between genders

    potential no behavioral differences between genders? Very odd. I am curious whether the science that goes behind such discoveries are in any way somehow tempered by some pre existing bias to the question from the get go?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with your commentary, but you could make the same point about other skeptical topics. To skeptically investigate psi is to open ourselves up to the possibility that future science may confirm psi. Then what?

    Then we would change our story in light of new evidence, that's what.

    To take your example, it's rhetorically useful to be able to say, "It doesn't matter, ethically speaking, whether being LGBT is a choice, but also research shows it isn't a choice." On the other hand, if evidence shows that it is a choice for some people, then we should change our story so that we're not being insensitive to those people. (However, I agree with Vanitas' point above that no amount of science that could overturn the fact that it's not an experienced choice for most people.)

    On the other hand, I worry about the ability of the skeptical community to evaluate many social-justice-related claims. Will the skeptical community ever agree on evolutionary psychology? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see even "legitimate" evolutionary psychology as having methodological problems, mainly stemming from how the EEA is defined. I see Pop Ev Psych as being a bucket of warm shit. Many a professed skeptic, though, signs off not just on the ok but not great findings of the more legit ev psych, but half the Pop Ev Psych BS.

      Another reason why I don't use the word "skeptic" for myself.

      Delete
  10. "Or take the issue of gay rights, over which American society is suddenly making a stunning amount of rapid progress. We often hear “defenses” of the gay life style in terms of it not being the result of a choice. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, who cares? So what if someone chooses to be gay, as opposed to having a strong instinctual propensity for it? Why should the cause of the behavior have anything whatsoever to do with issues of rights? But if advocates of gay rights insist on the “it’s not a choice” position, they open themselves - pointlessly, I think - to the possibility that future science may show that it is indeed a choice. Then what?"

    That just showcases the importance of Hume's law (and controversies surrounding it) to contemporary debate. Otherwise, the simple fact we say X has a cause means we may prevent X to happen if we attack this cause. So a true social liberal must defend acceptance of X (as long as X doesn't pose any threat to other individuals) whatever its cause. Else, that would mean there are causes which make X impossible to defend. Now, I think homosexuality is not a choice, but for pure likelihood reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  11. > While this is a great and sensible post, this sentence was extremely jarring, and reflects a peculiar brand of scientism. There is no amount of "science" that could be done that would somehow overturn the personal experience of countless gays and lesbians, the large majority of whom simply realized, one day, that they didn't fit the cultural norm. <

    I keep finding somewhat ironic (even “jarring”) that people call me out for scientism, just type that word in the search box on this blog and you’ll see what I mean.

    At any rate, the point of the priority of personal experience over scientific inquiry is interesting. I am generally sympathetic to your position, but it is definitely the case that psychologists have demonstrated many times over that we are very capable of fooling ourselves, and that first person reporting isn’t always accurate.

    > potential no behavioral differences between genders? Very odd. I am curious whether the science that goes behind such discoveries are in any way somehow tempered by some pre existing bias to the question from the get go? <

    Well, that was, in part, my point. But I have actually looked into the science of gender differences, and find it significantly wanting. I’m not willing to bet that there aren’t any, but I am pretty sure that many geneticists and neurobiologists far overstimeate that import.

    > To take your example, it's rhetorically useful to be able to say, "It doesn't matter, ethically speaking, whether being LGBT is a choice, but also research shows it isn't a choice." On the other hand, if evidence shows that it is a choice for some people, then we should change our story so that we're not being insensitive to those people <

    Well, that would be unethical, in my opinion. I think we have a duty to stick with sound arguments informed by evidence, not to lower ourselves to mere rhetorical devices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what I meant. It's rhetorically useful, but we should not say it if evidence shows it's incorrect. Just want to clarify we weren't disagreeing on this point.

      Delete
    2. >psychologists have demonstrated many times over that we are very capable of fooling ourselves, and that first person reporting isn’t always accurate.<

      There are semantic issues in the idea of demonstrating that being gay is a choice. One might say that if one CAN choose to be gay, one is by definition inherently gay, i.e., it wasn't really a choice. I am sure this volitional option to be gay is not a common trait of humankind. When I was a kid, boys were as boring as mud, and girls were torturously luminescent angels. This wasn't something I decided; I was assailed. I imagine the situation is quite similar for gay people.

      Delete
    3. >When I was a kid, boys were as boring as mud, and girls were torturously luminescent angels. This wasn't something I decided; I was assailed.

      Paul, your poetic imagery is wasted on blog comments.

      Delete
    4. What isn't wasted on blog comments? ;)

      Delete
  12. I think it's pretty clear that when Christina asks, "Why should the agenda get to be set by the old guard?", she means, "Why should the agenda get to be set *exclusively* by the old guard?" Of course, your answer to this question might be "It's not!" (I don't know - I'm not involved in the skeptic/atheist movements), but I think the response you gave is highly uncharitable. Obviously she's not suggesting that the "old guard" shouldn't get any say in the matter - she's just questioning why their agenda should trump the agenda of new people.

    Concerning your second point (the is/ought business), I think there are two important cases where simply pointing out the facts concerning racism/sexism/etc. is important: (1) educating people about cognitive biases, and (2) educating people about the extent of institutional racism/sexism/etc.

    Why are these important? Well, suppose we all agree that we should be committed to equal rights for everyone, and we all agree that this is strictly a value judgment not predicated on empirical evidence (i.e.: I don't need psychological studies to show that women should be granted the same rights as men). Given that we share the same values, a natural question to ask is: what should we do about racism/sexism/etc.? If you think it's still a huge, systematic problem, you might be more likely to support significant and deliberate action to address the issue. If you think it's not such a problem (e.g., you think the only racists are some hopelessly ignorant folks in the deep south), then you're less likely to support significant action to address the problem.

    Similarly, if you're not aware that *you* unconsciously treat women and minorities unfairly, then you won't feel the need to change or monitor your own behavior. If, on the other hand, you realize that there are many widespread cognitive biases, then you may pay more attention to your own behavior.

    Notice that I'm not saying that empirical evidence should be used to support a basic value judgment (e.g., support for equal rights). I'm saying that, given our shared commitments to the same basic values, disagreements over what actions to take to promote those values are (in part) determined by disagreements over the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My suggestion is that the "skeptics" groups should go after the really big-ticket items, ones that have the most impact on society:

    1. intelligent design - "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ..." [ http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php ]

    2. austerity economics - See "How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled"
    [ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/06/how-case-austerity-has-crumbled/ ]

    3. global warming denial

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree and more. That's why, until Skeptics(TM) address the libertarian "cover" issue more, I prefer the term "critical thinking."

      Delete
    2. I think econ is not playing to the strengths (comparative advantage?) of skeptics, seeing as their metier is more scientific than economic. Arguably, they could learn the economics, but there's already a highly critical-thinking econ blogosphere.

      A couple more:

      4. Energy science/policy.
      5. Criticism of science & philosophy of environmental & consumer ethics movements (animal rights, vegetarians/vegans, fair trade, locavores, anti-GMO groups).

      This last would be useful, as there is a rich vein of sloppy thinking in such movements, with e.g., people obliviously presenting arguments that are straightforward naturalistic fallacies.

      Delete
  14. 'But let’s be clear that skeptics and atheists should also be interested in truth and intellectual honesty, wherever it may lead.'

    lovely, you are true to your ideals as a virtue ethicist.

    If you are not too averse to listening to a card carrying Catholic, this is my take. Critical thinking is a skill and a process. It may be applied to any number of issues, not necessarily defined by or limited to those that interest the atheist movement. It is not defined by issues, it is defined by its methodology.

    I suggest the central mission should be the development of critical thinking throughout society, regardless of the issues. Aggressively hijacking the term for the purposes of the atheist movement may benefit atheists in the short term but doesn't do much for society at large.

    Real critical thinking, if it is honest, does not have a narrow partisan or ideological foundation. There are no presumptions except honesty and intellectual rigour, motivated by a determination to follow the facts and uncover the truth.

    Given my background I also think values have a role to play and I suggest that important values are respect combined with a willingness to listen to the other party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Aggressively hijacking the term for the purposes of the atheist movement may benefit atheists in the short term but doesn't do much for society at large."
      Can you give an example of where atheists hijack the term? Obviously there are atheists who use it when it's applied to gods, but why is that use hijacking? Do atheists misapply critical thinking when it comes to gods? If so, can you illustrate how?

      Delete
  15. Massimo, swap "old guard" for "white male" because that is what she means, it is code. So that isn't simply a problem they have with "respecting elders". "Check your privilege". ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems that Christina borrowed from Myers...

      "...The modern skeptical movement is built on a very narrow foundation; a lot of the Old Guard spend an incredible amount of effort restricting the range of allowed topics..."

      http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/27/a-common-complaint-i-hear-a-lot-nowadays/

      Delete
    2. Right, including feminist issues who the old white men who are the old guard neglected. Are you saying she didn't mean this? Been a lot going on with feminists and the skepticism movement..

      Delete
    3. I'm not exactly sure what Myers means by "the Old Guard," or whether Myers and Christina mean to indicate the same group of people, or if either mean "old white men." I inferred it to mean "certain narrow-minded founders of the skeptic movement."

      Delete
    4. "Narrowed minded" but how?! They/she have specific issues in mind, no doubt, and most women seem to be in general agreement regarding some basic tenets of feminism anyway, in my opinion, esp. liberal women.
      Btw, I've seen that Myers has attended conferences, sharing the stage with feminist skeptics. I'll provide examples to illustrate where I was coming from with inferring that "old guard" has content, means something other than narrow minded, which doesn't make sense anyway since old guard skeptics' focus has been fairly large and diverse over the years. Feminists have been very outspoken about the crucial need for skepticism to include feminism and feminist issues. And some of them have argued that the skepticism and atheist scenes or movements, whatever you want to call 'em, are "hostile" to women and sexist. One incident involved Michael Shermer being accused of sexism...and atheists in general. See "Feminism Disconnected: A Response to Ophelia Benson and a Caution on Tribalism in Secularism" (scroll down)
      http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/
      See "Point of Inquiry" podcast hosted by sympathetic male host Chris Mooney, particularly Amanda Marcotte in the ep. titled "Skepticism Needs Feminism".
      Here's some u-tube vlogs addressing various dust-ups and generally counterproductive negativity (almost said "drama" but that'd be sexist) involving skeptic/atheist feminists' charges of sexism (and you'll notice on the right of your screen countless others). Richard Dawkins is a "white supremacist" (and not understanding of elevator ethics).
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUQdID3EBAg
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy45RNtHCvs

      Delete
    5. Narrow-ed, I know, but not the post.

      Delete
    6. "Women in Secularism Conference" From yesterday:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOnhLnP3q7s

      Delete
  16. It seems Jamy Ian Swiss has a huge problem with New Age pseudoscience, but not with religion per se because well, after all, there are many atheists who aren't skeptics; he gives as example anti-vaxer Bill Maher, and so Swiss concludes atheism without skepticism is worse for society than is skepticism with theism. On the one hand, I can understand Myers objection to this sort of arbitrariness as applied to the scope of the skeptical movement. If Swiss can chastise Dawkins for overlooking Maher's anti-science for the good of the atheist movement, then why can't Myers chastise Swiss for overlooking theists while applying unscientific skepticism to New Age beliefs (after all, no one can prove the "law of attraction" doesn't exist)? I guess after reading and/or listening through this possibly never ending debate, I fall in with Novella's take on the scope of the movement... "Let a thousand lights shine..." with a few qualifications.

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/bigfoot-skeptics-new-atheists-politics-and-religion/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I keep hearing this, especially from PZ, but I haven't heard any of it "from the horse's mouth." Who is telling him "not to go after religion"? I have seen him attack Genie Scott and Chris Mooney for their willingness to treat religious believers like humans, and I and others have pointed out when PZ has made false and/or hypocritical attacks against religious believers. I even pointed out when Richard Dawkins made a silly attack on "Christians" for "believing transubstantiation."

      But I believe you should be smart, sensible, and sensitive when attacking anything like this, and I've been attacking all sorts of crazy beliefs (mostly Christian religious beliefs) for decades. I can _believe_ that someone like Chris Mooney would get a little touchy-feelier than I am willing to commit to myself, but I haven't caught him at it. What I actually saw was PZ attacking Chris Stedman for making him go into a church in Morris, when it was actually UMM students who selected the locations. I didn't hear PZ apologize for the silly attack, either.

      But I'd really like to see some examples of "squishy" atheists "attacking" PZ and others for valid attacks on believers and beliefs.

      Delete
  17. At the end of the scientific tunnel of theories and uncertainty is the absolute, I hope One day they drift this Way.

    =

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.