Isn't it awfully ...

[N=1]

There's some good points which have just been raised which approach the subject of how to present skepticism.

I think that we can discuss things from a skeptics' point of view without becoming boring. It's really a matter of how we're looking at things. I agree that the psychology of belief is an interesting area and is a one to which I have been drawn myself.

As for "believer bashing" - well debates are a two-way process. It is far more satifying to actually debate someone even when you don't agree as it's still possible to learn and increase our understanding. Calling someone an idiot can be fun but we learn nothing. We shouldn't forget though, try joining a believers' forum and giving a skeptical point of view and see what happens to you. :wink: (that's no reason to behave in the same way however).

Of course there's always the danger of giving perceived credibility to people with some crazy ideas if we debate them without challenging them strongly enough.

There's no one correct approach.

[Nettles]

In my experience, skeptics often avoid religious skepticism because religion is openly faith-based. Skeptics therefore usually prefer to focus on pseudo-scientific claims.

There was no traumatic event.

When I became involved with CSICOP in the late '80s, it was possible to have a religious studies person like Gordon Melton present at a conference, talking about the similarities between the rise of newage (rhymes with sewage) and previous religious revival movements. The only religious targets were faith healers (who were getting rich by perpetrating health fraud -- fair game) and the Shroud of Turin (essentially archaeological fraud).

By the early '90s, CSICOP seemed to have become a militant secular humanist group. Advertising in the Skeptical Inquirer and books from Prometheus Press started to be oriented towards attacking religion. One was made to feel like being religious was akin to being a devotee of the Maharishi. My best skeptical friends at the time were liberal Christians who found the skeptical community a chilly place to be. These weren't people who were into belief or a personal relationship with God, yet they felt that religious people were unwelcome in the community. And I, as a liberal Jew, fond of matza balls and wearing trainers on Yom Kippur, felt rather the same.

This is not purely a CSICOP or purely a North American issue. In recently participating in skeptical forums on the Internet I've found that there is an insensitivity to personal religious commitment, and a jumbling-together of all religion, evangelical, liberal and otherwise, into a grand stereotype.

One thing which I find especially interesting (and which I think would be worth an article or a paper) is the fact that skeptics demand a high standard of science from scientists (or those who claim scientific credentials), but are willing to talk through their hats on humanities issues. The pub discussion on the Noahide flood was a case in point: many of the participants were obviously working with very little knowledge of the Bible and Biblical scholarship, but talking as though their brief excursions into the Bible and pro-flood web sites made them experts. To me, as an historian with a strong background in biblical studies at the university level, this is about as laughable as the web sites which support a "literal interpretation" of the Bible while supporting their arguments with bad science and an obvious reliance on translations of the Bible rather than original texts.

I don't think that religion ought to be a cloak which blocks all skeptical scrutiny. It can be difficult to say why someone claiming to heal disease through God's power is fair game, while someone claiming to save souls ought to be left alone; or why the Shroud of Turin is fair game for scientific analysis while the Exodus from Egypt requires a different approach; yet these distinctions are useful to skeptics who need to work in an environment in which many religious people are themselves skeptics and useful allies.

[Max]

Hi Nettles

For me your post highlights just how arbitrary the subjects of skepticism can be. I am also unsure why claims of saving souls are in a different class to claims of saving someone's liver through psychic healing. Perhaps others have ideas?

By the way, like many young Jewish kids of the 80s, I was a keen fan of Maharishi in my youth - I even did the yogic flying thing. It feels quite good to have lived on both sides of the fence as I feel it allows me to empathise more with believers.

I think that many in our serious TM group knew in the back of our minds that it was rubbish, but we were driven by a need to join Maharishi in his (ostensible) quest to make the world a better place. We also loved the sense of community the movement offered. Would we have bought it if it was just about improving the world and community, but not with the Eastern meditation aspects? I doubt it.

Perhaps some people believe that the power they need to survive, thrive, and change the world cannot come from within, nor can it come from the society in which they live because for some reason it has let them down. Religions therefore offer a great alternative because they transcend the individual and society. I'm sure that was the attraction of TM for me. When I became more empowered, I became less dependent on external agents and more dependent on myself for change.

Today, I'm happy to work with people who are members of these movements, but I am loathe to persuade anyone to leave because I believe that religious movements fulfill a role in their lives which cannot simply be removed without finding a suitable replacement e.g. an internal locus of control for the individual.

As you may have gathered from my posts here and on BS, I am a keen fan of inclusion and dislike exclusion. I believe that people are different and do not have to agree, and that this is healthy. I am therefore concerned about the increasing polarisation I am seeing between the scientific community and others. For example, the ID versus evolution debate. What is more, scientists (and even young scientists) seem to be exhibiting the same kind of dogmatism often associated with religious zealots. It reminds me of the growing polarisation in world religions such as Islam versus the West and so on. Scientists are not supposed to be that way are they? Science is supposed to be a unifying method for building knowledge and objective evidence evaluation. It is not meant to increase polarisation - it is supposed to decrease it surely?

I would like to see more tolerance between groups of believers, non believers, scientists, skeptics and the pseudo-scientific. I am not condoning fraudulent practices here. Nor am I consistently sure about how one can tell the difference between genuine and fraudulent non-evidence-based claimants. But I do believe that everyone who is genuine deserves a chance.

I've also been thinking about why skeptics appear to agree with one another so frequently. First, I think they are bound by a strong set of common values and principles (scientific method). Second, most of them face the same common "enemies": faith-healing, pseudo-scientists, psychics, mediums etc. There is nothing like common enemies for generating internal agreement. I suggest that if there were less to be skeptical about, we would see more division within the skeptical ranks.

Oh well, that's me! :)

Cheers

Max

[Tessa K]

Today, I'm happy to work with people who are members of these movements, but I am loathe to persuade anyone to leave because I believe that religious movements fulfill a role in their lives which cannot simply be removed without finding a suitable replacement e.g. an internal locus of control for the individual

I agree that trying to destroy someone's religion for the sake of it can be a cruel and ego-centric act. People believe what they need to believe. Plenty of older people are strongly religious and it is a great comfort to them. Taking away their comfort is like kicking the stick away from a cripple unless you give them something to replace it with.

With younger people, a constant exposure to science and rational thinking may do the trick as they are often less entrenched in their beliefs. And there are a lot of people who have no firm belief who can be edged towards the rational. But a blanket distain for all believers can become a smug, self-endorsing position.

People are very different and believe different things for different reasons. Taking the time to find and what and why they believe is harder than being generally dismissive but it can teach you more about human nature.

Of course, people who use their beliefs as an excuse to act against others deserve less consideration. Anyone who tries to prevent a woman having an abortion or stem cell research or euthanasia purely because they think their god disapproves is in a different category, as are those who use religion to justify war, prejudice and oppression.

[Janet W]

If you are looking for Christians to argue with, why not advertise here:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/

[Nettles]

Some people have religion for reasons that are nothing to do with belief. The bizarre British fondness for Christmas comes to mind. I cannot tell you how horrified many British people are that my daughters don't celebrate Christmas. I can see the little wheels whirring ... "can we take them into care and get them away from these dangerous lunatics?"

Bizarre, and (as all the British people who read this will soon shout) nothing to do with belief in Gawd or Santy Claws or whatever.

Yet it's a religious practice firmly bound up in culture if not belief.

Very few of the practising Jews I know spend their time "believing" in anything in particular.

I never seem to chat about belief with most of the (largely secular) Muslims I know. Much about practice, but not much about belief.

Many of the scientists I know are religious.

What a very staccato set of apparently unrelated sentences. My point is that religion (and by this I mean real religion with old folks homes and toddler groups and supportive rather than abusive practices, not mind-control cults or fronts for profiteers) when practiced in a decent fashion (by which I mean not letting the priests abuse the little boys or letting the religion become a basis for spousal abuse) can, even without belief, be a good thing.

(And Janet, you're very naughty for looking for arguments!)

[Tessa K]

One thing that religion has strongly in its favour, especially in rural areas (in my experience), is the social element. There is often a real sense of community with people looking after each other. The down side of this is that people who don't attend church are outside the social network, which is perhaps part of its attraction. There is no secular equivalent.

[Max]

It is far more satifying to actually debate someone even when you don't agree as it's still possible to learn and increase our understanding

I've been thinking about this point. I enjoy debating, but not for it's own sake. Building and testing theories and models is more entertaining. Debate is useful for the generation of hypotheses. Once this creative phase is over, I reckon the testing is quite mechanical.

[Max]

One thing that religion has strongly in its favour, especially in rural areas (in my experience), is the social element. There is often a real sense of community with people looking after each other. The down side of this is that people who don't attend church are outside the social network, which is perhaps part of its attraction. There is no secular equivalent.

Is religion secondary or even unimportant to some people in religious movements compared to the community value? Do these people join the movements because there are no community alternatives open to them except those with religion attached? Or do religious movements realise that what people really want is community so they emphasise the community aspects for recruitment? How does it all work?

[Nettles]

Is religion secondary or even unimportant to some people in religious movements compared to the community value? Do these people join the movements because there are no community alternatives open to them except those with religion attached? Or do religious movements realise that what people really want is community so they emphasise the community aspects for recruitment? How does it all work?

Yes.
No.
Yes.
Max, this is a field: people study this for a living. They get grants and everything.

J. Gordon Melton does very interesting work on American religions, especially on "small religions". (Cults especially).

[Max]

Thanks Nettles. I was so interested in religion that I did a post grad module on it. Before the course, I thought I knew a lot about the ways of religion. After doing it, I now realise I know much less than I thought I did. (This seems to be a general principle of serious study: the more one studies a subject, the less one seems to know!) I will seek out Melton forthwith, thank you. Another fantastic approach is Streng:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0822101688/qid=1141462333/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_0_2/026-7080635-1754015

I can safely say this book shaped my view on the role and practice of religion, and its relationship to science, more than any other. Streng suggests inter alia that:

a) Most religion is a form of transcendence. One way of ranking transcendence is by the tangibility of the sacred. In most modern Christianity, the sacred is "up there and run by an old bloke with a beard". It gets quite a low transcendence ranking and is called a positive religion because the sacred can be defined in terms of the profane. (Positive does not mean a good thing here). Buddhism and the Kabalah, for example, on the other extreme are "negative" religions because the sacred cannot be described in terms of the profane and can only be experienced through transcendent meditation. (And of course the ultimate discovery in these religions is that the sacred and the profane lie in the same place, but one has to journey to discover this).

b) Cosmology, science, mathematics and arts are also forms of transcendence and can be taxonomised into the same system.

[Tessa K]

It is far more satifying to actually debate someone even when you don't agree as it's still possible to learn and increase our understanding

I've been thinking about this point. I enjoy debating, but not for it's own sake. Building and testing theories and models is more entertaining. Debate is useful for the generation of hypotheses. Once this creative phase is over, I reckon the testing is quite mechanical.

Don't you think debating can sometimes be an enjoyable mental exercise, like playing chess or doing a crossword? It's sharpens the brain cells.

[Tessa K]

Is religion secondary or even unimportant to some people in religious movements compared to the community value? Do these people join the movements because there are no community alternatives open to them except those with religion attached? Or do religious movements realise that what people really want is community so they emphasise the community aspects for recruitment? How does it all work?

I don't think it's unimportant as it is part of the social fabric. The C of E, for example, is seen by some people in the older generation as part of being 'English', a traditional thing like watching cricket, voting Tory and being suspicious of foreigners. They don't join these movements, they are brought up in them. Churches do realise the community aspect is important, they see it as part of their job, pastoral care is part of the remit. The faith of such people is unquestioning in that it is just something they do.

Why have these pages gone wider so they don't fit on the screen?

[Max]

Absolutely. Building stuff also sharpens brain cells and in addition has the benefit of leaving behind a legacy that might benefit others (well, if it's not an atomic bomb one is building). I suppose debate can also create a legacy?

[Phil McKerracher]

Why have these pages gone wider so they don't fit on the screen?

There's been no (deliberate) change and they look OK to me. What browser are you using?