Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[dann]

In this week’s newsletter there is an interesting quotation from a reader, Sandra L. Hubscher, who has read an article in The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30, with the title, “In Congo, superstitions breed homeless children”.
Sandra writes:
“It appears that as poverty has been increasingly plaguing this nation, children are being turned out of home after being accused of witchcraft. Javier Aguilar, a UNICEF child protection officer, states that of the 20,000 street children in the city of Kinshasa, 70% of them have been accused of being witches. The article implies that many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them and so, voila, an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home as practitioners of black magic. Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense. We certainly don't need to force people to be sensible, but neither should we remain quiet when we see truth and logic being assaulted.”

To this James Randi adds that he not only agrees, but “I agree enthusiastically”.
The newsletter in question.

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”
If we look at cause and effect as it is described at the beginning of this quotation, however, poverty seems to be the real problem: Very poor families, extended or not, and parents, step- or not, can no longer support their children. Destitution drives them to get rid of these children, and to justify this they come up with an excuse which happens to be black magic. And this, of course (?), is when skeptics start to get upset!
“Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense.”

To me “this type of situation” seems to be the ultimate consequence of poverty, not of “tolerance of dangerous nonsense”. (Not that it isn’t nonsense and thus dangerous!) And I find it truly amazing that skeptics seem to think that the victims of this calamity are not simply the starving children, but primarily the sentiments of skeptics who cannot stand to ”see truth and logic being assaulted.” Is that really all that skeptics have to offer? A much more rational way of starving?

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

The writer Steve Kowit already pointed out the truth about the relationship between poverty and superstition in his article in Skeptic, Vol. 11, Number 1, 2004, The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa. A Study in Collective Self-Deception.
Scandinavians can read a translation of the article here:
Xhosaernes masseselvmord. Et studie I kollektivt selvbedrag

Merry Christmas!

 

[TheChadd]

To me “this type of situation” seems to be the ultimate consequence of poverty, not of “tolerance of dangerous nonsense”. (Not that it isn’t nonsense and thus dangerous!)

But it can be both due to poverty and tolerance of dangerous nonsense. The skeptics are merely (as, being a skeptic would imply) focusing their attack on the dangerous nonsense.

Destitution drives them to get rid of these children, and to justify this they come up with an excuse which happens to be black magic... Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

What makes you so sure that they just came up with an excuse to get rid of the children? What if they could have at least offered some support to the children, but due to irrational fears they now will not?

 

[Slimething]

Look who wants the Moral High Ground!!!

If we look at cause and effect as it is described at the beginning of this quotation, however, poverty seems to be the real problem: Very poor families, extended or not, and parents, step- or not, can no longer support their children. Destitution drives them to get rid of these children, and to justify this they come up with an excuse which happens to be black magic. And this, of course (?), is when skeptics start to get upset!

This is a forum for exchanges among skeptics. As such, the topic at hand is the dangerous reasoning that many families in this tragic situation are using to dump their children. Let that sink in a minute.

Skeptics are human beings and express different feelings at different times and in different ways. This discussion group is not a discussion group about world hunger or poverty. Those discussions occur elsewhere. Person for person, you will find skeptics quite as concerned about the ravages of hunger, privation, repression and all other world evils as the rest of the population. (In my opinion, given an unbiased review, you would probably find more concern among skeptics about their fellow man than any other subpopulation but that's only my opinion.)

The topic at hand is the unthinkable justifications being used to oust these children. Suppose the economic factors in the DRO improve and sooner-or-later we have the surviving elders and the group of ostracized kids that have been labeled supernaturally evil. What do you think will happen to these kids then, Dann? Will they enjoy the revival of their community? I...don't...think...so. Quite the contrary.

Get off your high horse. You are trying to claim some type of moral high ground on the basis that, "if everyone is starving, who cares what these people do to their kids?". Keep your comments in context or don't make them at all.

 

[dann]

TheChadd: "But it can be both due to poverty and tolerance of dangerous nonsense. The skeptics are merely (as, being a skeptic would imply) focusing their attack on the dangerous nonsense."

The only thing we've got is a summary written by a skeptic of an article from the Christian Science Monitor, and it doesn't seem to point in the direction that you would like it to!

TheChadd: "What makes you so sure that they just came up with an excuse to get rid of the children? What if they could have at least offered some support to the children, but due to irrational fears they now will not?"

Nothing makes me sure, but please read the quotation again! Your what-if question is interesting, but what do you base it on apart from wishful thinking? According to the summary of the article that doesn't seem to be the case!

 

[dann]

My comments are in context, Slimething. Let that sink in a minute ....

 

[TheChadd]

The only thing we've got is a summary written by a skeptic of an article from the Christian Science Monitor, and it doesn't seem to point in the direction that you would like it to!

What direction would I like it to point to? That misery brought about by poverty can be further accentuated by superstitious beliefs?

Nothing makes me sure, but please read the quotation again! Your what-if question is interesting, but what do you base it on apart from wishful thinking? According to the summary of the article that doesn't seem to be the case!

The article implies that many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them and so, voila, an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home as practitioners of black magic.

It is quite possible imo that they truly do belief the superstition, i.e. that it's not something they consciously made up as an excuse to get rid of the children but rather something that their mind made up for them, out of 'necessity'. So, while they did not wish to support these children, they would have, if it was not for the emergence of this supernatural excuse which they would not have had, if they were rational.

i.e. I'm claiming that real superstition on the part of these people was the key that led to their abandoning of these children, even though even without it they had no desire to look after them / merely felt obliged.

 

[dann]

What direction would I like it to point to? That misery brought about by poverty can be further accentuated by superstitious beliefs?

Now we're getting somewhere! I think the article should be aptly named then: not "Time to grow up", but instead Time to accentuate properly!

It is quite possible imo that they truly do belief the superstition, i.e. that it's not something they consciously made up as an excuse to get rid of the children but rather something that their mind made up for them, out of 'necessity'.

To distinguish between them and their minds is too weird for me! I don't think that that's possible, but you're right that they may have been superstitious even before the "'necessity'". (Why the ' '?)

So, while they did not wish to support these children,

I think that they probably did wish ...

they would have, if it was not for the emergence of this supernatural excuse which they would not have had, if they were rational.

I think that you are starting to become irrational! "the emergence of this supernatural excuse"???? READ THE QUOTATION AGAIN, PLEASE!

i.e. I'm claiming that real superstition on the part of these people was the key that led to their abandoning of these children, even though even without it they had no desire to look after them / merely felt obliged.

Yes, that is what you are claiming. Let's leave poverty completely out of the picture, that would be the skeptical way, wouldn't it?!

 

[TheChadd]

I think that they probably did wish ...

Within the confines of reality? No they did not. They may have wished their situation would be different so they could look after these children, but in their situation, they did not wish to look after them.

To distinguish between them and their minds is too weird for me! I don't think that that's possible

All that I was saying was that I doubt they simply are using the superstition as a convenient excuse and more that they really do believe it, even if it was brought on by their situation.

I think that you are starting to become irrational! "the emergence of this supernatural excuse"????

I have done so... can you quote it for me and explain how you feel I've made a mistake?

Yes, that is what you are claiming. Let's leave poverty completely out of the picture, that would be the skeptical way, wouldn't it?!

lol no, I never advocated ignoring the poverty. The poverty created the situation, however the superstition was a key necessary ingredient to make them abandon these kids.

 

[athon]

In my experience, it's equally common for skeptics to over-simplify a situation as it is for any other member of the public. In all honesty, I wish I could say I was exempt from doing this, but I can't. I can try to, however.

I agree with dann's central point, that a key contributor to the behaviour of the people in these African communities is poverty, with the influence of superstitious belief resulting in children being abandoned. Highlighting one over the other is to miss how they relate, how the situation evolved in the first place, and importantly, how it can be helped.

Superstitious belief is often derided by skeptics as if it is a form of stupidity, a choice where people can either follow it or abandon it. Again, this simplification is the reason why skeptics have trouble convincing others of critical thinking, and why we have a reputation for being smug and elitist.

Superstition is essentially the result of social thinking; the acceptance of a belief solely because others believe in the same thing in order to belong to the group. In a social group where people are raised with the value that the needs of the community far exceed the needs of the individual, criticising a socially held belief will ostracize you. Superstition is a way of tying together communities. We might not understand the merits of that, however I'd bet that none of us have grown up in impoverished collectivisit cultures.

Enriching a collectivist community with resources, wealth and healthcare can help lead the way to education, and to shunning the need for superstitious belief. Suggesting that they should abandon social beliefs purely because they are wrong might seem a positive step to us, but encouraging such an action in a poor, collectivist community is futile.

Dann is right; poverty plays a key role in how superstition is applied in some communities, and to try to separate the two is to be ignorant on how to address the problem.

Athon

 

[Slimething]

I agree with dann's central point, that a key contributor to the behaviour of the people in these African communities is poverty, with the influence of superstitious belief resulting in children being abandoned.

No, Dann's central point was to criticize skeptics for caring only about the witchcraft stuff while ignoring that the overriding blight affecting the community. He only referred to a writer who wrote about the link between poverty and education. Dann is trying to claim a high moral ground, a practice typical of antagonists who don't have the facts to win a point fairly.

Superstitious belief is often derided by skeptics as if it is a form of stupidity,...

No, one of ignorance. There's quite a difference. But I admit that stupidity and sheer laziness can also lead to superstition.

this simplification is the reason why skeptics have trouble convincing others of critical thinking, and why we have a reputation for being smug and elitist.

Again, disagree. This has not been my experience at all and most of my fellow skeptics are very congenial, down-to-earth people. As you later point out, acquiescing to community superstition/dogma/mythology is a way of least resistance. This is not ignorance, just a lack of mettle. That does not make these "believers" evil but it does make them dangerous under the wrong circumstances. In my mind, witch accusers are dangerous under almost any circumstances.

Enriching a collectivist community with resources, wealth and healthcare can help lead the way to education, and to shunning the need for superstitious belief. Suggesting that they should abandon social beliefs purely because they are wrong might seem a positive step to us, but encouraging such an action in a poor, collectivist community is futile.

It is strange that you include education in your first sentence then short-circuit education is by stating that idiotic social beliefs be allowed to fester. That does not mesh with my concept of education. If the society refuses to learn a lesson is one thing but not to offer knowledge is a crime.

 

[dann]

Dann is trying to claim a high moral ground, a practice typical of antagonists who don't have the facts to win a point fairly.

Strawman, Slimething!

... stating that idiotic social beliefs be allowed to fester.

And another one!

 

[Kopji]

That it all seems futile is something I can agree with.

On the one hand, there is an advocacy for a secular society that eliminates poverty, and by so doing lays a foundation for reducing superstition.

On the other hand, as this secular foundation is laid the forces whose power and influence depend on faith and superstition take credit for the progress, and so reinforce their position.

Devil's Advocate: "
So does the better strategy involve a religion that works to eliminate poverty as a primary goal? Even the religion were a lie, it would eventually lead to a state where the worst superstitions could fade away because they served no need.
"

So it seems that advocacy of a secular society must include being engaged in treating symptoms as well as core causes. Superstition should be opposed even if there is a deeper cause. Otherwise the progress made is for nothing, religion wins in the end.

All seems rather dark - Live a lie and win, or directly pursue the truth and fail.

Help us out dann, I end to agree with your analysis.

(btw, just what IS the illusion of happiness? How is it different than REAL happiness?)

 

[Zep]

Superstition comes from fear. Fear comes from ignorance. You can be poor but still not ignorant, although that may be more likely.

Question to the table: Do you think these people would have abandoned their children so if they were educated but then had hard times visited upon them forcibly?

 

[CFLarsen]

Superstition comes from fear. Fear comes from ignorance. You can be poor but still not ignorant, although that may be more likely.

Education is also a huge factor.

You can be poor but educated (somewhat, at least - it usually takes money to get a higher education), but the moment you start becoming educated, at least you have the knowledge and tools to be able to see through those who want to scare you into submission.

That's why suppressive governments are so keen on either keeping the population ignorant, or control what the population learns.

 

[dann]

(btw, just what IS the illusion of happiness? How is it different than REAL happiness?)

Do you remember the way some Christians look when they tell you how happy they are because JESUS LOVES THEM?
This weekend on CNN there was a programme, Happiness and Your Heatlh: The Surprising Connection, featuring the extremely happy members of a laughter yoga club. Unfortunately I cannot find a link anywhere, but I can assure you that it made the difference between real and illusory happiness very obvious!

Superstition comes from fear. Fear comes from ignorance. You can be poor but still not ignorant, although that may be more likely.

Yes, and you can even be rich, in good health, extremely well educated, have a beautiful wife and well-behaved, successful children .... and still believe in astrology! What is your point?

Question to the table: Do you think these people would have abandoned their children so if they were educated but then had hard times visited upon them forcibly?

We are not merely talking about hard times, but apparently people like Slimething and TheChadd seem to think that skepticism is a kind of moral fibre that will somehow prevent you from doing unpleasant things no matter what the circumstances are. No wonder I'm accused of "trying to claim some type of moral high ground".

the superstition was a key necessary ingredient to make them abandon these kids.

Somehow skeptics cannot be forced by circumstances such as extreme poverty to abandon their children! Never happened, apparently, never will ....

 

[Zep]

Yes, and you can even be rich, in good health, extremely well educated, have a beautiful wife and well-behaved, successful children .... and still believe in astrology! What is your point?

Then you are hardly likely to be abandoning your children, are you. But if you did, I would expect there would be just as much puzzlement and despair as a result.

We are not merely talking about hard times, but apparently people like Slimething and TheChadd seem to think that skepticism is a kind of moral fibre that will somehow prevent you from doing unpleasant things no matter what the circumstances are. No wonder I'm accused of "trying to claim some type of moral high ground".

Yes, you ARE talking about "hard times". Whoops! There goes that goalpost!

Somehow skeptics cannot be forced by circumstances such as extreme poverty to abandon their children! Never happened, apparently, never will ....

I see no smiley, so I can only assume this is sarcasm. True?

 

[Moochie]

In this week’s newsletter there is an interesting quotation from a reader, Sandra L. Hubscher, who has read an article in The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30, with the title, “In Congo, superstitions breed homeless children”.
Sandra writes:
“It appears that as poverty has been increasingly plaguing this nation, children are being turned out of home after being accused of witchcraft. Javier Aguilar, a UNICEF child protection officer, states that of the 20,000 street children in the city of Kinshasa, 70% of them have been accused of being witches. The article implies that many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them and so, voila, an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home as practitioners of black magic. Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense. We certainly don't need to force people to be sensible, but neither should we remain quiet when we see truth and logic being assaulted.”

To this James Randi adds that he not only agrees, but “I agree enthusiastically”.
The newsletter in question.

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”
If we look at cause and effect as it is described at the beginning of this quotation, however, poverty seems to be the real problem: Very poor families, extended or not, and parents, step- or not, can no longer support their children. Destitution drives them to get rid of these children, and to justify this they come up with an excuse which happens to be black magic. And this, of course (?), is when skeptics start to get upset!
“Any who hide behind the excuse that pseudo-science can be tolerated out of respect to the beliefs and feelings of others, should realize that this type of situation is the ultimate consequence of tolerance of dangerous nonsense.”

To me “this type of situation” seems to be the ultimate consequence of poverty, not of “tolerance of dangerous nonsense”. (Not that it isn’t nonsense and thus dangerous!) And I find it truly amazing that skeptics seem to think that the victims of this calamity are not simply the starving children, but primarily the sentiments of skeptics who cannot stand to ”see truth and logic being assaulted.” Is that really all that skeptics have to offer? A much more rational way of starving?

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

The writer Steve Kowit already pointed out the truth about the relationship between poverty and superstition in his article in Skeptic, Vol. 11, Number 1, 2004, The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa. A Study in Collective Self-Deception.
Scandinavians can read a translation of the article here:
Xhosaernes masseselvmord. Et studie I kollektivt selvbedrag

Merry Christmas!

Excellent post.

Happy Holidays

M.

 

[Moochie]

But it can be both due to poverty and tolerance of dangerous nonsense. The skeptics are merely (as, being a skeptic would imply) focusing their attack on the dangerous nonsense.

Too narrow a focus, IMO. Making the connection how economic and intellectual poverty may foster the growth of woo is pretty damned elementary.

M.

 

[dann]

Then you are hardly likely to be abandoning your children, are you. But if you did, I would expect there would be just as much puzzlement and despair as a result.

Definitely!

Yes, you ARE talking about "hard times". Whoops! There goes that goalpost!

What I mean is: There's a difference between hard times and utter despair, hunger and destitution.

I see no smiley, so I can only assume this is sarcasm. True?

Yes! Sarcasm!

 

[Merko]

My grandmother was abandoned because of her mother's poverty, much like these children. I do not believe that superstition was a factor.

She was taken care of, more or less, in various foster homes. Eventually she found a family that treated her as their own child, and she grew up a strong person, living a happy and successful life by any measurable standard.

Now, imagine that she had not only been abandoned, but also labeled a witch. Do you think she would have had much chance of finding a good foster home?


Obviously the big problem is the poverty, but the stigma caused by superstition seems to aggravate the problem, not only in the long run, but for these particular children.