Hey Skeptic North – atheists are not witches. We are skeptics too. We are you.

In case you haven’t heard of it, Skeptic North is an exceptionally well written blog focusing on the subject of (you guessed it) skepticism. The site has a bit of a Canadian flavour, which works for me since I also happen to be Canadian.

Warm fuzzies aside, I’m having problems with Skeptic North’s final installment in their otherwise excellent Skeptic’s Guide to Magical Thinking series. Specifically, I’m taking issue with what writer Erik Davis’ has to say about “The Problem of Religion”…

Whether you believe or not, there’s no disputing that many religions provide significant value to adherents… religion provides certain comforts that cannot easily be gotten elsewhere. A belief in an ordained purpose to life, in a god who has our interest at heart, in a death that’s not final – these are ideas that help people get through an existence that can be spirit-crushingly difficult for many.

Ok, so far so good. I myself have written how difficult it was to let go of the religious security blanket he’s described. Continuing on…

And while I’ve heard the atheist argument that self-delusion is not the best way to deal with those difficulties, the pervasiveness of magical beliefs in our mind design simply belies that notion.

What? How does the mere existence of magical beliefs negate the idea that there might be a better way to handle “an existence that can be spirit-crushing”? Has Erik done extensive research into the efficacy of the various methods we might employ to help people deal with their existential angst? Does he know how effective religion really is at helping people through angst? Why do people drop in and out of religion? Why does so much church shopping go on? Why is atheism/agnosticism the fastest growing belief category in Canada and the U.S.? Is it possible that, if we opened our eyes to other options, religion might be replaced as a preferred mechanism for helping people handle the realities of existence? The phrase, “If I can do it, anybody can” comes to mind. Let’s not assume believers are too weak and or stupid to make the transition from belief to non-belief and come out the other end happy, functioning human beings!

After all, how different is this than our delusion of love, or of free will? If we can admit that those things are valuable, then we can certainly admit the comforts of religion into the same camp.

I’d say that the illusion of free will is vastly different than belief in a deity! Why? Well, first, I’m guessing most people never give the idea of free will even a glancing thought, whereas, most also think a great deal about death, suffering and a god that will make everything better once they die. Second, where is the cult of freewillians who go around proselytizing the free-will gospel, and influencing public policy based on their freewillian world view? The analogy is weak. Worse, it and the analysis that precedes it implores us to give religion a free pass due to it being a sort of default method for helping people. Personally, I think humanity can do better… but maybe that’s just me. Anyway, onward…

I think the first thing we need to do is stop being such purists. The skeptical community includes a disproportionate number of atheists… …religious belief isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and that they will continue to be confronted with the magical thinking that underlies it. We need to remember that everyone thinks magically about some things and that’s not necessarily so bad. And we need to focus on the a more important objective, which is reducing the harm religion can do when left unchecked. In short, we need to focus on ways to encourage religious moderation.

First, in a truly skeptic community, I would hope that there would be a disproportionate number of atheists compared to within the general population, just like I would hope there would be a disproportionate number of people against homeopathic medicine in that same group. I honestly don’t know what value there is in making this statement about atheists. Is it because Erik believes atheism too often hijacks skeptical discussion? Is it because he is afraid of alienating skeptics who also happen to be believers? Is it because he thinks that attacking religion may result in aligning skeptics with unsavoury “new atheists”, thereby diminishing the skeptic’s influence in other areas?

These are questions I feel I must ask in response to atheists being singled out in the article. I feel compeled to say that many atheists are skeptics too – we are skeptics who specialize in debunking *a specific kind* of magical thinking. Please don’t marginalize our favorite subject – doing so suggests that criticisms of religion are not as important as being critical of other skeptic targets.

All of this reminds me of something from my theist to atheist de-conversion experience. It was during my de-conversion that I learned how to be skeptical – a lesson and attitude that carried forward into virtually every other corner of my life. After ditching God, I was eager to apply the same hard-nosed rational thinking process to every belief I had.

In other words, ditching religion was the gateway to my becoming a skeptic. This, I think, is part of the reason many atheists are so vocal and passionate about sharing their atheism – not only because we feel belief in God is incorrect, but because we’ve learned that when such deeply held beliefs are destroyed, it can lead to the birth of a freethinking skeptic. We believe that someone who can break free from the shackles of religion can question anything. We think it’s worth the effort.

Ok, I flogged that one enough – let’s finish up…

For example, as much as I may not agree with publicly funding the Catholic school system in Ontario, I’m at pains to point out any material societal harm that’s caused by it. The fact is that Catholicism in Canada, and in the west generally, is pretty moderate. That wasn’t always the case (see: “Inquisition, Spanish”), but it certainly is today. And that moderation pushes Catholicism westward on our matrix.

The existence of the Catholic school system in Canada is a slippery slope with major implications. The United Nations rightly pointed out that funding it is discriminatory to other faiths so, the choice becomes, fund none or fund them all. In Alberta (where I live), I can tell you the latter is the case – more and more faith schools are being funded. And I can state as a matter of fact that there are faith-based schools teaching creationism and undermining science in Alberta. This can lead to nothing good – and we need only look south of the border to see the downstream effects of religion in schools. 40% of American believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old – as well a lot of other bunk that comes with that world view. Need I say more?

In one sense, I agree with Erik. We do currently have it good in Canada. However, I’m concerned – very concerned – that our society will suffer in the long-haul if we ignore the problem.

And thus what I’ll call The Problem of Religion for Skeptics – which is that the best way to moderate religion and reduce its potential for harm may simply be to let it flourish. Protect religious freedoms, debate the beliefs honestly in an open marketplace of ideas, and focus most of our efforts on curbing the worst abuses. If the Ontario Catholic school system survives, but everyone in it must get vaccinated no matter what their beliefs, I’d say the skeptics win.

That’s one way. Another way is to teach critical thinking and skepticism and show that the underlying belief system is wrong and potentially harmful. Instead of putting out fires, why don’t we focus on the root cause of those fires?

Peace to you my fellow skeptics – and thanks for getting me out of my writing slumber. Oh, and keep up the good work, Skeptic North!

Print Friendly
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

Tags:

October 30, 2010 · Filed Under Atheism, Skepticism

Comments

13 Responses to “Hey Skeptic North – atheists are not witches. We are skeptics too. We are you.”

  1. gmjackson on October 31st, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Well said! Atheism leads to skepticism in many areas, not just religion.

  2. Erik Davis on October 31st, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Hi Mark,

    Glad you enjoyed the series, and that it proved worthy of such a lengthy post. A couple of thoughts come to mind on the relationship between skeptics and atheists…

    First, and for the record, I’m about as committed an atheist as they come, and if you knew me, you’d know I’m rarely afraid of offending people if there’s something to be gained by it. My comments weren’t intended to distance myself from atheists within the skeptical movement, rather just explain why I was conflating the two in my discussion…which is not necessarily obvious if you’re not already in both camps. Also, Skeptic North’s editorial policies forbid general discussion of atheism outside of testable premises / evidentiary reviews, which is the main reason I was at pains to remind readers (via the disclaimer) that I was rooting this discussion in the cognitive science of the previous few installments.

    Second, I agree with your point that atheism is the logical end of skepticism. But I’ll qualify that by saying that the type of atheism skepticism *should* lead to is what some might call agnosticism. Meaning that if you accept the scientific method, then atheism is simply the null hypothesis – the premise that nothing unusual (significant) is going on. But by the same token, you also have to accept a scientific view of truth, i.e. probabilistic within a certain confidence interval. Which is why no honest skeptic should say “god doesn’t exist,” but rather “there’s no compelling evidence that god exists.” As I said, some would call this agnosticism, but that’s only because they think the dividing line is absolute certainty. Yet certainty is an emotional modulation, not an epistemic one.

    Third, while I agree that the natural end to skepticism is atheism, I don’t agree that the converse — atheism leads to skepticism — is necessarily true. If you haven’t come by your atheism through skepticism, it’s just as possible you’ll end up the type of “faith-based atheist” I describe above, with certainty substituting for scientific humility. (Cf. Bill Maher).

    Tracy
    November 24th, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Yes indeed there’s nothing much more unappealing than a faith based atheist… as 90% of atheists are today, since a vast majority of “new atheists” switched from believing in a god to believing Dawkins, and towing the “I’m a skeptic!” line to look good.

    Somedays in skeptic forums it feels like a religious experience, and frankly I hate. People in many skeptic forums are extremely close minded and tow the line of humanism, which is REALLy what “new atheists” are about: more humans, more babies, immortality and a complete denial of biological sciences outside of genetic engeneering. There is an obsession in skeptic circles with “moving beyond the human body’s limitations” and “finding a new planetary home for us” instead of doing what’s necessary here.

    The typical “new atheist” is an imperialistic chauvinistic macho testosterone driven megalomaniac who thinks the entire planet should adapt to us.

    I’m an old atheist, never been religious (in fact am third generation atheist), ALWAYS found it stupid. And on top of that according to space obsessed “new atheist” physicists such as Phil Plat I’m a squishy scientist because I’m also a biologist.

    It seems to me that “new atheists” are just like religious people except they remove god and allow gay marriage. Wow, what a leap forward for humanity.

    Hypper
    December 26th, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Tracy wrote:

    BLAH, BLAH, I’m so riiight and you’re sooo wrong. Cause I say so, of course :-)

    There Ain’t No Such Thing as A New Atheist. It’s a label detractors (fundies) use and you picked up to string up a serious number of fallacies.

    Or maybe just one – the argument from … bullshit?
    You as a skeptic will probably be better suited to recognize said fallacies.

    Second, I never put much stock in the notion of “religious-like atheists”, but you surely come close:
    “The typical “new atheist” is an imperialistic chauvinistic macho testosterone driven megalomaniac who thinks the entire planet should adapt to us.”
    You mean Richard Dawkins?
    Is it professional envy or something like that?
    Cause’ I totally get it than – makes a man go INSANE!

    As for your bellow the belt swipe at humanism – and I hope you didn’t eat what you swiped – I never heard one of us say that we can solve humanity’s problems by f**ing like rabbits without condoms.

    Finally, “old atheists” (of which you claim to be a representative exponent) never meant stupid.
    Sorry dude, but when I think “old atheists” I think Asimov. You are a trumpeter for the Armies of the Night.

  3. Ben Elling on November 2nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Marks back, baby! Nice post.

  4. sheldon archer on November 7th, 2010 at 5:50 am

    It was stated that believers in religion take comfort in the belief that there is a better life after death. I don’t really believe that deep down they are convinced of that. If they were, they would jump off a bridge and go straight to paradise saving a few miserable years here on earth.

  5. Marylynne on November 24th, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Yes! When I was a Christian, I also was way into new age woo – crystals, aromatherapy, homeopathy, accupressure, healing touch, etc. “Once you see that there are things that we can’t perceive, then what’s the limit on what might be there?” only I meant it as in a good way!!!

    When I started questioning and losing faith, my reading and research took a different turn and I learned about skepticism. After my faith was gone, I started looking at other areas of belief. They fell like dominoes once I started applying the standards of evidence and making sense to my beliefs. Questioning religion and god was definitely the gateway for the sceptical mindset I have now.

  6. dmabu on November 24th, 2010 at 3:37 am

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

    HOW NOSTRADAMUS WON ALL THE PARANORMAL PRIZES!

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus

    THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION

    youtube.com/user/xviolatex?feature=mhum

  7. Ashley on November 29th, 2010 at 3:30 am

    I really enjoyed this post. I hadn’t really considered that atheism can lead to other skepticism. It makes sense, of course. Homeopathy and other phenomenons worthy of skepticism are certainly not based on logic or truth after all…

  8. Hypper on December 26th, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Erik Davis wrote:

    Third, while I agree that the natural end to skepticism is atheism, I don’t agree that the converse — atheism leads to skepticism — is necessarily true. If you haven’t come by your atheism through skepticism, it’s just as possible you’ll end up the type of “faith-based atheist” I describe above, with certainty substituting for scientific humility. (Cf. Bill Maher).

    I thought skeptics used LOGIC. First, it’s NOT “necessarily true”. Next sentence morphs it into a straw-man: “faith-based atheist”.

    Yes, you can become an atheist without adhering to skepticism. The religious doctrines I’m aware of are so evidently false that it does not take skeptical training – just basic awareness of how the world works.

    And please spare me the equivocations re. skepticism.

  9. Tracy on December 26th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Hypper wrote:

    Tracy wrote:
    BLAH, BLAH, I’m so riiight and you’re sooo wrong. Cause I say so, of course

    …. So says the ‘dude’ self titled HYPper, may it be law!

    There Ain’t No Such Thing as A New Atheist. It’s a label detractors (fundies) use and you picked
    ….NEVER heard a fundy say that, simply because I waste not a minute of my life on them.

    Or maybe just one – the argument from … bullshit?
    … yes of course anyone who disagrees with you is BS…

    …Richard Dawkins? Is it professional envy or something like that? Cause’ I totally get it than – makes a man go INSANE!
    … wow, you demonstrate so little understanding of humans… I’m a woman.

    I never heard one of us say that we can solve humanity’s problems by f**ing like rabbits without condoms.
    …Nor have I which is why I didn’t say that. It’s the general attitude however of humanism that MORE humans is unequivocably better.

    Finally, “old atheists” (of which you claim to be a representative exponent) never meant stupid.
    …does this line even make any sense?

    Sorry dude, but when I think “old atheists” I think Asimov. You are a trumpeter for the Armies of the Night.
    … LOL you really demonstrate your inexperience with that one. Yes I’m definitely older than you, that is painfully obvious.

    What was truly revealing about your ‘response’ whereas all my comments were directed at ideas, most of yours were ad hominem. Interesting religious behaviour when faced with disagreement in ideology to make personal attacks, yes, very grand of you…

  10. Phoebe on December 28th, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    Great article. Dealing with reality is always better than bullshitting yourself with delusions. “Magical thinking” at best simply does not really help anyone, and at its worse can be very harmful.

    The people I know who are on anti-depressants are the devout Christians. They have not learned to face reality so they use drugs and religion as a crutch. Of course I know that there are probably plenty of atheists on anti-depressants but my point is that the magical thinking of religion isn’t helping the Christians be any happier or more productive.

    The delusion of religion is no where near the “camp” of love. You can see/hear/touch/smell your loved ones. You can tell they care by the things they do and the things they say. God is completely imaginary.

  11. Tracy on December 28th, 2010 at 10:00 pm

    Phoebe wrote:

    The people I know who are on anti-depressants are the devout Christians.

    Unfortunately, that’s anecdotal… there are plenty of atheists on anti-depressants as well. But it’s because we see the world is so full of BS that it’s quite hopeless…

  • Why I Blog

    I'm here to help doubting believers let go of their fear and guilt, to provide an example of an atheist leading a happy, moral and fulfilling life, and to connect with fellow non-believers. Welcome!

  • Subscribe/Bookmark

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button Follow 40yroldatheist on Twitter subscribe

  • Navigation


  • On Youtube

  • Great Reads

  • History & Statistics

  • Favorite Articles

  • Meaning of Life Type Stuff