What about the religious organizations?

[blutoski]

I have often argued that John Edward made a decent grief counselor but many argue that's not a reasonable position on his work. Would you put the benefit of the comfort he gives people over their lost loved ones in the same category as finding solace in religion?

Not really. The main reason is that he's obviously aware he's lying.

There's a similar debate about this regarding placebos: the end does not justify the means.

 

[blutoski]

I've just got to address that. It sounds like a typical conspiracy theory. Educators aren't debating the merits of different reading programs because they actually want to find the best method, it's because they're secretly being manipulated by a cult!

The problem is, phonics was part of the public mainstream long before Scientology. For example, it's discussed here: http://www.lindamoodbell.com/research/sensory-cognitive-factors.html Phonics fell out of favor in the 1930s and swung back into popularity in the 1950s, but I'd say the book "Why Johnny Can't Read" had far more to do with bringing back phonics than scientology--though coincidentally they both appeared in the same era.

No, that book in particular is directly connected to Scientology: its rights were purchased by the Delphian Foundation, which is the publishing company owned by the church. It was promoted with millions of dollars of advertising paid for by the church. I think it's clear that Scientology has done what it usually does: promote from behind the scenes. Prior to this marketing effort, academic interest in phonics had dropped off completely, based on evidence it did not meet expectations. It still doesn't.

They also published The Leipzig Connection, IIRC.

When I worked for a scientologist as a math tutor, pushing sales of WJCR was part of the job.

 

[blutoski]

I think we can hopefully agree to disagree and move along.

My experience is that we can't, though. As Salman Rushdie says: expectations that fundamentalists will reciprocate a truce of tolerance are misguided.

The goals and methods of CSICOP and JREF are quite specific (the mission statement of the Skeptic Society is a little vaguer), and do not include 'attacking' religion. This is the role of atheist societies, such as the AAS.

These people (Kurtz, Randi, Shermer) aren't idiots: they have a plan. Let's help them.



What might help, though, is to do some good research into comparative approaches. The debate over how skeptics should approach debates is peppered with anecdotes and opinion, but very few facts. I propose two threads, to be done in sequence:

1. to discuss what metrics should be considered: what are the desired outcomes? What do we mean by 'success' or 'positive results'? (I think this is part of the problem - some participants just want religious people to be 'hurt', for example - a personal cathartic activity, rather than external goalseeking)

2. to discuss how skeptics might go forward with comparing approaches to achieving these outcomes


I'm mindful of the fiasco that was "Brights". A focus group would've stopped that in its tracks, and salvaged a lot of wasted effort and preserved good faith among allies.

 

[blutoski]

If memory serves, it was part of the Sheldrake schmozzle. He's got a wide net for the definition of 'psychic experience.' Includes the feeling you're being watched, having a pet that knows when you're coming home, and knowing who a caller is before they call.

Skeptics know it's not a real psychic phenomenon, but that's not popular interpretation.

Here we go: from Skeptical Inquirer, 1992. Susan Blackmore's article on Psychic Experiences: Psychic Illusions. She does point out that the wording of the question influences the resposne rate. As high as 80% in some surveys.

She specifically cites a Gallup poll that shows 25% of Americans claim to be telepathic. This is dated. I'd be interested to see something more current. (I predict an increase from 25%.)

 

[blutoski]

However, that would place most religions in that category as well, with "demons" and "moving mountains" and the list goes on.

Later, you wrote:

Okay, so what about all of those with "new age" beliefs? Why is this forum attacking them, if we are to respect them?

And I think this is the key misunderstanding... pseudosciences can be tested. Quantum explanations can be tested. "Demons" can't. I'm not sure what you meant by "moving mountains."

Religious debates usually end up in philosophy and metaphysics.

Skeptics are more attuned to the scientific methodology, which unfortunately, is not the same scope as metaphysics.

 

[The Atheist]

I think we can hopefully agree to disagree and move along. This is an interesting thread and I think blutoski, RemieV, and Kopji have made some excellent points.

Yep, agree to disagree is where I am with lots of people. As I say, you go your way, I'll go mine...

I agree with your comment on the thread, mainly I guess because I am - expectedly - 100% in agreement with the OP. If you've been to EA, you'll see that while we are out to get psychics and frauds of that kind, we are cognisant of not losing track of the biggest - by an enormous margin - "para/super/ridiculous thing" of them all, religion. I'm always therefore, keen to get into topics like this.

Even you've hit a couple valid ones yourself, even if only by being an example of them. What I have taken issue with in your case is that I find intolerance so err, intolerable and your views to be based on misguided passions and that you offer nothing in place of what you seek to destroy.

I think the problem is that we got off on the wrong foot. I made a tongue-in-cheek comment to the OP - and it really was tongue in cheek, I don't defile bibles, as while I easily could from a spiritual point of view, it would be a touch childish. I figured that people wouldn't take it quite so literally. If you started out just by asking, rather than becoming abusive immediately, we wouldn't have had to have that public spat. Anyway, on with the show, enough said.

Yes, the horrors are manifold but I try to remember when I feel disdain for something concerning religion that some of the must truly wonderous things achieved by humankind has been done in the name of faith and a belief that we are more than the sum of our parts.

I have to ask, what wondrous things have been achieved in the name of faith? This is one of my tenets - if you break it right down, christianity has done very little by way of aiding human achievement. I've racked my brain inside and out and I cannot find a single example of an achievement worthy of the name which has faith as its reason for being. (And please, don't bring up Mother Theresa, there's a lengthy section of a thread I derailed onto her a week or two back.) Every scientific advance made has been done in the name of science, and the only involvement religion has had in science is in trying to suppress it.

You may try and point to morality and I'd argue that as well, on three fronts: One, the change in human morality may have happened anyway. Two, I don't accept that christianity actually teaches respect of any one or thing - aside from its god. And third, even if you can show that human morality comes from Jesus, why are the overwhelming majority of jail inmates and soldiers christian? Love thy enemies indeed. Hell, Bush and Blair are christian.

Yes, there have been some valuable christians and there are even a couple around nowadays - Rowan Williams for one. I see you mentioned Martin Luther King. He fascinates me and is one christian I would have liked to have sat and had a beer with early in his life. He had to fight very hard to find his faith, but coming from a long and distinguished line of pastors, he didn't even realise there was another alternative.

I think you don't seem to understand that at least here nobody is asking you to respect christianity but rather to be tolerant and respectful of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Now that I think about it I can't help but have a feeling of irony in that I should be more mindful of that myself. I have been rude to you and for that I apologize. If it's worth anything I can very easily empathize with your point of view.

Apology accepted and I accept that maybe I need to not go quite so stupid when someone opens up. As I said above, i'm always happy for rational debate, but when it goes silly, so do I. At least we've done a lot better than a recent sapt, where I showed why trees should get the vote. Hands shaken,

I completely understand the point about toleration of beliefs, but I am the way I am exactly because christians generally brook no criticism of their god. They will happily sit and debate theology for hours, as you allude to, but it's a waste of breath. They do, however, sit up and take notice when someone attacks them front-on as people, attacking them for their faith rather than what they believe. As you've said, each to our own!

In one way you're right; christians aren't scum because of their beliefs, when they're scum, it's because of their church. I'm not about to blame christianity for Jim Jones, but without christianity, the massacre wouldn't have happened. Almost all christians I've met find their church and their religion indivisible, hence I'm happy to attack either.

When I was a young child I was often looked after by a morbidly christian family and quickly got to learn the meaning of blasphemy when I asked why God made hindus. I think children are often the first to see the inherent flaws in such beliefs.

That's one of my problems. I was raised in very soft christian manner - no church at all, but my parents believed in a god of some kind. I had given away Santa as a bad joke by age 5 and christianity by age 8 and I've never had cause to look back on either position with regret. At age 9, I was strong enough in my distaste for the lies of christianity that I argued with my parents until they allowed to have me released from Religious Instruction (a 1-hour-a-week thing in NZ). I didn't bother even thinking about religion again until into my 20s when I made a concerted effort to find out what and why people believed. Despite studying all of the major religions, I found nothing of worth and my position has hardened over the years as I see the damage churches do.

I also find it very hard to reconcile why supposed adults can't see through something as shonky as christianity as an 8 year old child could - compare christianity to 9/11 CTists and the CTists look sane by comparison. They resort to fantasy, but no stories yet about flight 77 having been swallwed by a great fish. This is where ginarley's point is quite correct - the threat analysis approach. People think: if I'm an atheist, I'm going to die, the end. If I'm christian, I will probably die, but if there's a 1,000,000th of a % chance that I won't, then I'll play along. People like that are actually worse than the truly devout in some ways as they're kidding everyone, while the devout are only kidding themselves.

As for being young and still in an exploratory stage of life I have it on good confidence that there is no stage of life that isn't exploratory and I hope that when I get to be your age I haven't developed a similar intolerance and disrespect of others based on the beliefs they've aquired.

As I've alluded to, I bet I'm actually not anywhere as intolerant as you might think - my work means that I have to deal with a lot of christians - and for some inexplicable reason, the electrical industry has more christians per worker than any industry outside of the cloth, and I deal with electical workers and engineers every day. If I shouted at them and told them to piss off, I wouldn't make much money and I have a lot of kids to feed!

I'm with you on the learning front. When you stop learning, you're probably dead, and I think most of this actually on thread!

 

[blutoski]

Atheists (not the pseudoscience believing kind) are in a unique position to focus on psychics and paranormal promoters.

There is a lot of good skeptical thought that comes out of the religious world, but what 'psychics do' is what 'religion does'. This is a problem. When Sylvia faced off with a Rabbi last year on Larry King, she made that point extremely well and it was unanswerable. This is a weakness that atheists do not eventually confront.

Yes, and no. I'm reluctant to let Sylvia Browne's opinions direct the skeptical movement. She may have stumped an unprepared Rabbe, but I disagree with her.

"Psychic" is a catchall category, comprised of everything from old-fashioned mediums to telekenesis. When religions have testable claims, skeptics step up to the challenge.

Shoot: this month's front page story in Skeptic magazine is "Religion". Saying that skeptics pussyfoot around the topic is ridiculous.



Incidentally, I was reviewing my local group's stats, and we did a survey recently about "what's the most important concern for skeptics right now."

Religion got 0 votes. One vote for Creation Science/ID.

The big concerns here are healthfraud and psychic/medium scams.

There is a lot that religious people can do to promote skeptical & critical thinking, and the difference between a theist and an atheist can sometimes be razor thin. Some religious people are certainly an enemy of reason and skeptical thought, but many are allies, or potential allies.

I think that I do understand the position of 'The Atheist' and others like him. I am not completely against that. A strategy for breaking people out of cult-like mindsets involves shattering belief, not gradually convincing with reason or inviting them to tea. Strongly confronting people's beliefs is no doubt a useful tool in the right time and place.

I have never seen evidence that this is true. Cult deprogramming is a very dubious field of research, and I don't think we know enough. What we do know is that deprogramming has a terrible success rate. I hate to bring it up again, but consider iCAN's history.

There is a risk is to treating everyone the same way though - skepticism is not a Procrustean Bed where we stretch or hack religious people up to fit.

If we atheists advocate a 'shattering' strategy we must also measure how many turn away or are harmed because of the strategy. 'Only counting successes' is a mistake that the strategy should avoid.

Also, and going back to my suggestion that a new - focused - thread may be a good idea... what's the definition of 'success'?

 

[The Atheist]

Religious debates usually end up in philosophy and metaphysics.

Skeptics are more attuned to the scientific methodology, which unfortunately, is not the same scope as metaphysics.

Dead right, both times. A psychic will say, "I can do this......" and JREF can put in place simple means of letting them show that they're fakers, which is why only miniscule number of professed paranormalists ever try - there's a very repetitive thread about that very subject elsewhere.

Religion, operating on faith alone, doesn't allow for those Old Testament miracles any more, so no great floods, pillars of salt, pigs with demons, or devils on mountain-tops to baffle and refute science. Accordingly, it's impossible to beat with logic. You can explain until you're blue in the face why Noah's flood was impossible and there's always the christians' ultimate weapon; "Because god made it happen" and of course god doesn't need to obey silly things like the rules of physics, although nowadays he does.

Sceptics, who should probably use the term "realists", seek to attack on the basis of reality, truth and fact, which is why the most popular post on these forums seems to be the single word, "Evidence?"

That approach can't work with religion and never has and I suspect it works as a bit of a scapegoat as a reason not to attack christianity because it's awfully hard to attack on those grounds.

On your metric scale regarding religion, I suggest there are two valid outcomes - one, getting a christian to question his/her faith and two, renunciation of christianity.

 

[blutoski]

On your metric scale regarding religion, I suggest there are two valid outcomes - one, getting a christian to question his/her faith and two, renunciation of christianity.

That would be an atheist organization's goals, yes.

What would skeptics want?

 

[snooziums]

Thpht...sputter... (spits drink out on monitor...)JREF Thread: Psychics and Missing People

What about all of the religious folk that call or show up on the doorstep of the relatives (or post flyers at funerals, even if they were not invited) of a newly deceased loved one, and say "I am so sorry about your lost, but, if you died today do you know if you were going to go to heaven or hell?" That happens all the time where I live.

The goals and methods of CSICOP and JREF are quite specific (the mission statement of the Skeptic Society is a little vaguer), and do not include 'attacking' religion. This is the role of atheist societies, such as the AAS.

From Randi's commentary pages:

Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I'm a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright.
This week's page will be devoted entirely to religion. I've reached the point where I just have to unload on this subject that until now I've felt was just outside of the matters that the JREF handles. Since religion shows up as a part of so many arguments in support of other fantastic claims, I want to show you that its embrace is of the same nature as acceptance of astrology, ESP, prophecy, dowsing, and the other myriad of strange beliefs we handle here every day. Previously, I've excused myself from involved discussions of this pervasive notion, on grounds that it offers no examinable evidence, as the other supernatural beliefs actually do — though those examinations have always shown negative results. Religious people can't be argued with logically, because they claim that their beliefs are of such a nature that they cannot be examined, but just "are."

Rather than argue or try to reason by their standards, I'll settle for pointing out, briefly, how unlikely, unreasonable, bizarre, and fantastic their basic claims are, dealing for the most part with those I'm more familiar with, from personal experience.

(and it continues on, but you can read it for yourself). See http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html

And in Randi's Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes, he lists several things that are specific to religion, and not new age, like:

Adam, angels, archangel, Armageddon, Bible, crucifix, demon, Devil, faith healing, immortality, Jehovah's Witnesses, Holy Inquisition, Lucifer, prophecy, Satan, speaking in tongues.


Also, going after just "new age" ideas, and ignoring religion is a very bad idea, since religion will easily take the void left behind by the new age beliefs. So, in the end, we would end up with a stronger religious opposition to rational thinking.

 

[kitakaze]

My experience is that we can't, though. As Salman Rushdie says: expectations that fundamentalists will reciprocate a truce of tolerance are misguided.

If only it were otherwise. I would like to say, blutoski, that I admire the well thought and positive suggestions you offer for achieving results on this and other issues. While I guess this opinion will not be shared by many on this board I should be forthright in admitting that though this thread is of particular interest to me I avoid the Religion and Philosophy section like the plague for the reason that I'm not of the mind that religion need be eradicated. I most certainly support the separation of religion and state and oppose any and all religious intolerance or violence. I'd love to agree with John Lennon but when he says 'what if there was no religion' I immediately think 'well, there'd be no rock and you wouldn't be singing this song'. By that I mean in seeking to remove faith and spirituality from human culture I'm just at a loss to understand just what type of world some skeptics and atheists are striving to achieve. Seek to end faith-based intolerance, conflict, or exploitation and I'm there all the way but a world without gospel music, buddhist funerals, or whirling devishes (or any other faith-inspired cultural beauty you can think of) you can keep. When the likes of those like The Atheist (apologies) posit Martin Luther King, Jr. among others as being emotionally naive it is beyond hilariously absurd to me. Yes, one need look no further than read the day's headlines to find plenty examples of faith-inspired evils and though blutoski, The Atheist, myself, and almost everyone else here are without a personal need of religion I would never want to live in a world without it.

 

[blutoski]

What about all of the religious folk that call or show up on the doorstep of the relatives (or post flyers at funerals, even if they were not invited) of a newly deceased loved one, and say "I am so sorry about your lost, but, if you died today do you know if you were going to go to heaven or hell?" That happens all the time where I live.



From Randi's commentary pages:



And in Randi's Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes, he lists several things that are specific to religion, and not new age, like:

Adam, angels, archangel, Armageddon, Bible, crucifix, demon, Devil, faith healing, immortality, Jehovah's Witnesses, Holy Inquisition, Lucifer, prophecy, Satan, speaking in tongues.


Also, going after just "new age" ideas, and ignoring religion is a very bad idea, since religion will easily take the void left behind by the new age beliefs. So, in the end, we would end up with a stronger religious opposition to rational thinking.

I think you're cherry-picking one-offs from years ago about his personal thoughts. I'm talking about the goals of the JREF. JR has explicitly stated that the JREF does not have - as any part of its function - a pro-atheistic stance. He's made special announcements in this forum in an effort to clear up the confusion.

I will have to rely on others to locate the posts, since they were not posted by JR, but forwarded by a forum administrator, and I'm having difficulty locating them. IIRC, they were in response to the TAM4 discussion involving the AAS representative's speech.

 

[blutoski]

If only it were otherwise. I would like to say, blutoski, that I admire the well thought and positive suggestions you offer for achieving results on this and other issues. While I guess this opinion will not be shared by many on this board I should be forthright in admitting that though this thread is of particular interest to me I avoid the Religion and Philosophy section like the plague for the reason that I'm not of the mind that religion need be eradicated. I most certainly support the separation of religion and state and oppose any and all religious intolerance or violence. I'd love to agree with John Lennon but when he says 'what if there was no religion' I immediately think 'well, there'd be no rock and you wouldn't be singing this song'. By that I mean in seeking to remove faith and spirituality from human culture I'm just at a loss to understand just what type of world some skeptics and atheists are striving to achieve. Seek to end faith-based intolerance, conflict, or exploitation and I'm there all the way but a world without gospel music, buddhist funerals, or whirling devishes (or any other faith-inspired cultural beauty you can think of) you can keep. When the likes of those like The Atheist (apologies) posit Martin Luther King, Jr. among others as being emotionally naive it is beyond hilariously absurd to me. Yes, one need look no further than read the day's headlines to find plenty examples of faith-inspired evils and though blutoski, The Atheist, myself, and almost everyone else here are without a personal need of religion I would never want to live in a world without it.

I also think it's a net-neutral phenomenon. Like politics or science, it has potential for good or bad, so 'eliminating' it would probably have only the destructive costs of change for change's sake, all things being equal.

However: I don't think all things are equal: I am also of the opinion that religiousity is an intrinsic personality trait. I believe that exposure to skeptical and atheistic ideas will appeal to people with the right predisposition, but that it will not 'stick' with anybody. I further believe that the capacity to be completely atheistic is reserved to a small percentage of the population. The analogy I use is that we are like autists in the world of religion. I'd like to continue with this analogy as follows:

Autists can't understand emotions in others. The things that non-autists 'grok', an autist must learn by rote, by observation, by asking questions. There is no logical basis for the emotions we feel, so autists can't easily 'reason' them.

By the same token, some of us just don't understand the religious mindset. The difference is: unlike autists, some atheists assume the entire world is botched, and needs a-fixin'. I'm sure it would be easy for autists to work out some logical rationalization for eliminating emotions: anger causes violence, for example. Can you imagine the prospects of a 'war' against feelings?

My point is that I think that there's an opportunity to make the world a better place, but I don't see atheism as a valuable part of that project. I actually see it as a ball and chain on skepticism right now.

 

[blutoski]

What about all of the religious folk that call or show up on the doorstep of the relatives (or post flyers at funerals, even if they were not invited) of a newly deceased loved one, and say "I am so sorry about your lost, but, if you died today do you know if you were going to go to heaven or hell?" That happens all the time where I live.

And they'd be jerks. But that's not the solitary function of 'religion', and anyway, statistically, most of the people they're visiting are already religious. Fight the predators, not their victims.

 

[kitakaze]

Yep, agree to disagree is where I am with lots of people. As I say, you go your way, I'll go mine...

Just wanted to say that I missed this post while taking my sweet time writing my previous and now I wish I hadn't written the MLK, Jr. comment alluding to you. I think I can understand you much better from your last post addressing me and why you think the way you do. I should be more mindful that I live in Japan as opposed to NZ or the States where people get far to riled up and I don't get bible thumpers breathing down my neck.

 

[blutoski]

I will have to rely on others to locate the posts, since they were not posted by JR, but forwarded by a forum administrator, and I'm having difficulty locating them. IIRC, they were in response to the TAM4 discussion involving the AAS representative's speech.

Found it: OUR STANCE ON ATHEISM

 

[kitakaze]

I have to ask, what wondrous things have been achieved in the name of faith? This is one of my tenets - if you break it right down, christianity has done very little by way of aiding human achievement. I've racked my brain inside and out and I cannot find a single example of an achievement worthy of the name which has faith as its reason for being

While I do note that you seem to be thinking in terms of christianity and science I was think more of all manner of faiths and areas such as architecture, art, music, poetry and the like. I can't imagine experiencing something beautiful from one of those forms of human expression and thinking 'oh, man, are you deluded'.

 

[kitakaze]

The analogy I use is that we are like autists in the world of religion.

blu, that is a very cool and insightful analogy. I must admit that since joining this board I have often out of confusion wanted to ask some members just what type of world they are hoping to make. One without religious fundies and scammers I'm all for but one without religion seems a much less beautiful and diminished place.

 

[snooziums]

Found it: OUR STANCE ON ATHEISM

Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

This would seem to apply to BOTH "new age" claims, and religious supernatural claims as well. No where does it exclude religious claims, and most, if not all, religious make supernatural claims.

And many have been attacked as a result into investigating the claims of "religious leaders" that claim to have some "God-given" power. Several have been threatened by the Benny Hill Ministries, to same some, and he is one of the current staples of modern Christianity.

... it is an organization dedicated to offering down-to-Earth, rational, explanations and discussions of the so-called paranormal, supernatural, and occult happenings and claims with which we are constantly bombarded by the media and by groups – including religious groups – who try to convince us of such matters. ... The JREF has a stance against any claim for which no evidence is offered, and that must of course include religious claims. However, if any when anyone claims they have proof of any religious miracle or fact, we ask that it be presented, accepting such a claim in the same way that we accept any other. Religious claims are supernatural claims.

So, on the stance of going after supernatural claims and para-science claims, the stance by JREF appears to include those by religions as well.

So, if it wants to be effective in promoting the non-rationallity of following such non-scientificly-proven beliefs as truths, then it must not be bias in who's claims it exposes (meaning that it cannot limit it to just "new age" and ignore religion).

 

[RemieV]

One source: Read "The Embarrassment Of Riches." However, there were non religious groups forming in the late 1500s and 1600s dedicated to the humanist movement. I will have to go through my college textbooks to find some more sources.



However, that would place most religions in that category as well, with "demons" and "moving mountains" and the list goes on.



Psychics and para-physical followers can also be intelligent. In fact, they tend to be more intelligent than religious followers on average.



Okay, so what about all of those with "new age" beliefs? Why is this forum attacking them, if we are to respect them?

As I said... I think in my first post in this thread, now I can't remember... no one says "My life revolves around ghosts". They do, however, say "My life revolves around God". Therefore I tend not to address religious issues. I have no problem with anyone who seeks fulfillment where they can find it. And I'm referring to paranormal believers as well. Though sometimes I may entirely neglect this view, I really TRY not to say anyone is stupid for what they believe. This forum has nothing to do with respecting or disrespecting anyone. Or at least, I didn't think it did. The posts that I find interesting and worthwhile are analyses of supposed paranormal capabilities. This could just be a me thing, though, and I'm perfectly willing to admit it.

I have no problem with anyone analyzing religion and saying "I think you are wrong because...". It was the assumption that religious people are idiots that irritates me a tad. But again, this could be a me thing.