Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[Gurdur]

... you and your clique....

Oh look, it's another conspiracy theorist.

Grow up.

Yet another big unintentional irony.

 

[Slimething]

You also seem to have a very wrong idea about what reductionism actually is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Read up, gurdur! It's good for you!

 

[hammegk]

I want you to know that I teach a freshman college class ....

I want you to know that's one of the scariest things I can think of.

What school? If I know someone there I'll try to get them to switch to an institution of higher learning in lieu of a pablum dispenser.

 

[athon]

Let me reiterate my position, which has been so ably seconded by articulett. The original discussion that dann so bitterly critiqued concerned the labeling of children as witches in The Congo. Nothing else. No mention was made of, and no discussion was attempted of, underlying social issues or the socioeconomic environment that would lead to said practice.

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?

Taken from his opening post. Highlighting the relevant parts in case you continue to follow this argument further.

Later, dann decides that it's unfair to criticize these people because they are poor and poverty is to blame. Well, that's his/her/its opinion and has nothing to do with the original discussion.

I can't find that he did, but if so, I personally don't follow it's a case of fairness or unfairness, blame or fault... it's about finding the threads of the influence dictating why these conditions exist and the measures that can be taken to prevent them happening again.

You've got quite upset about some supposed injustice against skeptics, yet while the argument has been presented to you, you refuse to engage in it. This thread was started in addressing the fact skeptics get rather emotional over the perceived injustice of reason being under attack, while often it's more complicated, and the real injustice is against the children.

What really slays me is how you and your clique have decided that this is your forum and other people must agree or go read stuff or be charged with creating straw men, etc. Grow up.

My clique? So, any time people agree, they have a clique? lol

I have no problem with you disagreeing. In fact I prefer it when people do. I learn something. But you've not disagreed. You've not anything, except gotten upset, ranted, accused people of taking the moral high ground, and told us to grow up. Oh, and yes, created a few nice looking scarecrows, too.

Go ahead, get as angry as you want. Post it all here. I couldn't care; in some ways it only further validates Dann's opening post. Wake me when you have something actually important to say.

Athon

 

[dann]

Monthy Python once had a skit about people stopping their normal work to worry about a water buffalo somewhere that was completely irrelevant to their lives. Seems pretty much like you, dann and chums.

you, dann and chums
Thank you for sharing, Slimething. It all makes sense to me now.

 

[dann]

Oh, here's some more evidence that you can use your confirmation bias to negate:

Some more? On top of all the other evidence you have provided us with so far? You cannot be serious!

You do realize that stepchildren are often mistreated, don't you--even in wealthy families?

Is it just me or ....? Where exactly is the evidence? Do you realize that children in general are mistreated and abused much too often? And that it doesn't help anybody to spread the myth about the evil stepparents? Do you realize that even the evil stepmothers that you read about in the brothers Grimm's fairytales are the result of a revision of the original text?
"The first expurgation was actually made by Wilhelm Grimm, who, when he realized that the fairytales were read to children, deleted the most direct sexual innuendos - as for instance incest committed by fathers - and also changed evil mothers into evil stepmothers in the name of the holy motherhood. He rewrote the fairytales so they, as Wilhelm put it, appeared as good for bringing up children.
And it was exactly because of the raised fingers that parents readily accepted the fairy tales: Keep your promises! Don't talk to strangers! Don't be lazy! Obey your parents!"
(Weekendavisen, 1. Dec. 2006)
My translation of the Danish text, but I feel certain that one of the other Danes on this board can confirm it if you'd want him to.

Your proposed solution (if you offered one) might make some families less likely to toss their kids out,

How do you know if I don't offer any?

but as soon as times got rough, they'd be doing it again-

Yes, that is true. When you starve, you starve ... can't argue with that!

-you haven't given them the tool of reason

And you have??!

and thus have not provided an actual solution to the problem at all.

It is true! I have given them absolutely nothing, nichts, nada, whereas you offer them the tool of reason, as if it were something edible. Did I say that I had given them anything? The only thing I've offered anybody is arguments!

If your goal is to assure that fewer children are accused of witches, you are free to donate to the priest in the article

Now I'm confused. Aren't you the one that wanted to put him in charge of the orphanages?

and pretend your rant makes a difference. I already consider my maturity, morality, and priorities superior to yours.

Thank you for clarifying that point. Until now I was under the impression that you looked up to me as a beacon of morality and enlightenment. How could I be so wrong?

Moreover, I imagine that everyone you have insulted is probably more charitable than you.

You bet!
"The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde

Randi certainly is.

I'm absolutely certain that he is! Did I claim otherwise? However, I don't really think that you do him justice. He would probably take offence at the guru worship you exhibit here.

I want you to know that I teach a freshman college class and they spotted the flaw in Dann's reasoning instantly (confusing correlation with causation),

Which correlation? Between poverty and superstition, or between poverty and abandoned children? Or between starvation and the 'tool of reason'?

and I thank Randi and his videos for that. Moreover, they understand that this thinking is at the root of all superstitions. So you have raised awareness, but not in the way you had hoped.

You do indeed seem to have learned a lot from the way woowoos think and argue. Your argument in this case, for instance, is exactly the same way the Danish business astrologer argues: I talked to one of my clients today, and she confirmed me in my view that you skeptics are dead wrong!'I just cannot believe that you have actually shown this thread to your students.
But I would love to see them here!

 

[dann]

PS

It's important to look at not only his actions that have a direct and obvious effect, but actions which could be a precursor to future actions. If George Bush believes that a war against the middle east is necessary to begin armeggedon etc then I want to know.

This attitude is not unlike the one that you find in children of psychopathic parents, I think, and sometimes in battered wives: 'I have to study his (or her) every move and mood in order to know what he is going to do next. Since I'm completely in his/her power, I need to know this in order to protect myself, in order to take precautions.' The reasonable thing to do would be to liberate yourself from depending on somebody who is not to be trusted, but very often this task seems to be insurmountable, so you acquiesce.

It would be relevant in this context, i.e. the world of politics, to ask adults, not helpless children, if it isn't about time to grow up, to stop being subservient, to take the control away from leaders like that - and not just in order to hand it over to one of his better-looking colleagues. Isn't it high time to take control of our lives and living conditions, instead of delegating the power, which we would otherwise have, to so-called 'representatives', the deciders?
And isn't it time skeptics in particular to grow up and move beyond smug complacency when dealing with superstition? If it is true that the superstitious not only want to, but actually need to believe, like James Randi always says, isn't it about time to move beyond this realization to the question: Why do they need to believe?
So far most skeptics seem to be quite content expressing their despair at the childishness of the masses who just won't listen to them and grow up.

The abject poverty, the best guarantee that the uneducated, superstitious masses remain superstitious, just doesn't seem to concern the Shermers of this world. And why should it? They seem to not only want to, but to actually need to despair at the woowoos that just won’t listen to the brights, which is why they don’t appear to find it very hard to tolerate poverty and hunger, but won’t tolerate dangerous nonsense. Remember, we are not merely talking about abandoned, starving children (and starving adults, for that matter), it is much, much worse than that: They are actually being denied ”the tool of reason”, and if there is one thing we can’t stand it’s when “we see truth and logic being assaulted”

Somehow it’s all very logical, isn’t it?

 

[TheChadd]

PS
This attitude is not unlike the one that you find in children of psychopathic parents, I think, and sometimes in battered wives: 'I have to study his (or her) every move and mood in order to know what he is going to do next. Since I'm completely in his/her power, I need to know this in order to protect myself, in order to take precautions.' The reasonable thing to do would be to liberate yourself from depending on somebody who is not to be trusted, but very often this task seems to be insurmountable, so you acquiesce.

Oh but I don't want to 'liberate myself' from such people. I do believe in your / our democratic systems and while I may be unhappy with the current person in charge, I don't want to go about 'liberating' myself. The reason being that 1) I wouldn't want those who disagree with my fairly elected official to 'liberate' themselves from them, 2) Such undiplomatic (in the sense that it's done as a compromise cannot be reached) rebelion leads to a situation where 'might is right' is further accentuated, and 3) I don't think we benefit in the short or long run.

Isn't it high time to take control of our lives and living conditions, instead of delegating the power, which we would otherwise have, to so-called 'representatives', the deciders?

You don't think such 'deciders' would emerge in a society ripped of the former? [Insert Animal Farm reference].

And isn't it time skeptics in particular to grow up and move beyond smug complacency when dealing with superstition? If it is true that the superstitious not only want to, but actually need to believe, like James Randi always says, isn't it about time to move beyond this realization to the question: Why do they need to believe?

I do think we should look into why some people are so reliant on superstition, do you think you've got the answer in poverty?

The abject poverty, the best guarantee that the uneducated, superstitious masses remain superstitious, just doesn't seem to concern the Shermers of this world.

So you don't think there's superstitious masses in the US/GB/Aus/ etc ? While I think poverty is a factor, do you imagine that giving these people food for 200 years they'd abandon their superstitions?

And why should it? They seem to not only want to, but to actually need to despair at the woowoos that just won’t listen to the brights, which is why they don’t appear to find it very hard to tolerate poverty and hunger, but won’t tolerate dangerous nonsense. Remember, we are not merely talking about abandoned, starving children (and starving adults, for that matter), it is much, much worse than that: They are actually being denied ”the tool of reason”, and if there is one thing we can’t stand it’s when “we see truth and logic being assaulted”

Yep they'd definately have a better chance with some education etc. Are you simply asking for skeptics to push for this more?

 

[dann]

Oh but I don't want to 'liberate myself' from such people. I do believe in your / our democratic systems and while I may be unhappy with the current person in charge, I don't want to go about 'liberating' myself. The reason being that 1) I wouldn't want those who disagree with my fairly elected official to 'liberate' themselves from them,

I would, fairly elected or not. If you mean fairly elected in the sense that all democratic procedures were followed, then, yes, our prime minister was fairly elected. And so was Bush, undisputed the second time, I think. The weird thing about democracy (or rule by the people as the translation of the Danish word folkestyre would be) is that it liberates the elected leaders to take any considerations to the wishes of the people, whether or not they elected them, and are able to declare war on another country without having to ask anybody but their own conscience, so whether you voted for the present government or not, you've left it up to them to decide. People are being ruled. I would definitely want those who disagree with that politic to put a stop to it - whether they voted for the guy in charge or not, but any opposition to aggressive politics is met with: You voted for the guy and now he's in charge of the decisions, and for the next four years you are free to express yourself as long as you remain aware that what you express is only an opinion. And if you didn't vote, well, you are to blame anyway, and for the next four years you have left it to the deciders to decide, and in the meantime you may consider voting for somebody else the next time.

2) Such undiplomatic (in the sense that it's done as a compromise cannot be reached) rebellion leads to a situation where 'might is right' is further accentuated,

When you talk about 'might is right' being further accentuated, it seems to imply your awareness of the fact that might is indeed already right, i.e. that democracy is a way of liberating the might from being influenced by the will of the people. By voting they give up any claim to the might they would have if they were willing to use it: democratic procedures: elections, legislature, government

and 3) I don't think we benefit in the short or long run.

That would be my argument against the present state of affairs! (Depending on who "you" are, of course!)

You don't think such 'deciders' would emerge in a society ripped of the former? [Insert Animal Farm reference].

Well, Orwell’s pastiche of Stalinism did not exactly describe a society ripped of deciders, on the contrary: One had been replaced by another, the farmer by the pigs, the zar by Lenin, Stalin, etc. etc.

I do think we should look into why some people are so reliant on superstition, do you think you've got the answer in poverty?

In poverty and in the lack of control of their own lives! The accents have changed, but 'mankind' still hasn't liberated itself from the ups and downs of life. In the past we were completely dependent on the changeableness of nature, a situation, which does not really agree with intelligence and therefore gives rise to superstition: When you are utterly and completely dependent on the weather, sufficient prey etc., you make up lies to yourself and others in order to at least imagine that you are in control of things. You may not control the weather, but by performing the right rituals, you may be able to appease the powers that do. If you make a sacrifice to the god(dess) of deer, you may be able to put him/her in a favourable mood and send more prey your way. This is not simply a question of education. A stone-age man wouldn't be able to do much (or anything) with all the knowledge of modern meteorology, would he?
Expose people of today to similar situations, and they will behave in similar ways. Otherwise bright high-school students suddenly come to depend on lucky charms at their exams, and even relatively settled and rich people in changeable jobs like acting, sports or the stock exchange seek advice from astrologers, but still: you don't usually see horoscopes in the magazines catering to stock-exchange magnates, but in poor people's reading material they abound. More here

So you don't think there's superstitious masses in the US/GB/Aus/ etc ?

I don't???

While I think poverty is a factor, do you imagine that giving these people food for 200 years they'd abandon their superstitions?

Making sure that they had a decent living and were in control of at least the vital necessities, yes, I think it would, actually. In our countries it takes a little more than food to live, by the way, and giving anybody anything is not exactly the rule. Well, very poor people may receive a food basket from the Salvation Army for Christmas, but I don't think that's enough to make people feel that their existence has been secured. (And I guess the Salvation Army would not be very disappointed if their charity work resulted in people giving up religion, but that's beside the point ...)

Yep they'd definitely have a better chance with some education etc.

"etc." might be more important than education. Why do you think that superstition abounds in times of distress? Because the level of education suddenly drops? This is a point that Randi already referred to in this week's newsletter: "As expected during times of stress (...) the public was turning to to the supernatural for information, ..."
I know that nobody listens to me, I'm just a nobody with a few arguments, but why don't they at least listen to Randi in this case, for the Skeptics' Heaven's sake? Why is it expected in times of stress? Because the levels of education suddenly drop by 30 percent? Or because stressful circumstances make people try to persuade themselves that they somehow have the situation well in hand, if not in reality, at least in their imagination? Apparently skeptics do indeed have this knowledge of the ways of the world, they just tend to ignore it - in particular when they are talking about the childish, uneducated primitives who won't grow up, and not about a noble people like the white Britons in dire times of distress!
(Come on, James Randi, why don't you correct yourself on this one?! Is it still so hard to understand why there aren't more poor and/or black people in the skeptics' movement? I think that was one of the unanswered questions at TAM2 a few years ago.)
Cuba is the only third-world country I've been to, but I've been there several times since 1998. It is my impression that religious superstition exploded in this former atheist state when the living conditions deteriorated considerably in the 1990s. And this is an important case because we are not talking about an uneducated people. They didn't lack education back then, and they don't now, but nowadays families sometimes have a hard time trying to persuade their sons and daughters to stay in school instead of seeking their thrills in la calle because the children there, like in the ghettos of the norte americanos, cannot see the point of school. And Santeria is growing fast ...
Do you think that the return of prostitution in Cuba coincided with the return of superstition for any other reason than the return of poverty? I don't!

Are you simply asking for skeptics to push for this more?

I think that this question has been answered above!

 

[dann]

And why should it? They seem to not only want to, but to actually need to despair at the woowoos that just won’t listen to the brights, which is why they don’t appear to find it very hard to tolerate poverty and hunger, but won’t tolerate dangerous nonsense. Remember, we are not merely talking about abandoned, starving children (and starving adults, for that matter), it is much, much worse than that: They are actually being denied ”the tool of reason”, and if there is one thing we can’t stand it’s when “we see truth and logic being assaulted”

Yep they'd definitely have a better chance with some education etc. Are you simply asking for skeptics to push for this more?

Should I have made it more obvious that I was being sarcastic???

 

[Slimething]

I know that nobody listens to me, I'm just a nobody with a few arguments, but why don't they at least listen to Randi in this case, for the Skeptics' Heaven's sake?

No one listens to you because you have a very simplistic view of the world. Poverty does not cause superstition. Ignorance does. The upper classes that administered the dicta of the Maleus Mallificarum in the Middle Ages were not poor, merely ignorant.

Apparently skeptics do indeed have this knowledge of the ways of the world, they just tend to ignore it - in particular when they are talking about the childish, uneducated primitives who won't grow up, and not about a noble people like the white Britons in dire times of distress!

Where the hell did this come from? You sure read a lot into the statements in the newsletter. Kindly quote evidence for this condemnation.

Come on, James Randi, why don't you correct yourself on this one?!

Maybe because he never said anything like what you're railing on about? Would that be an acceptable explanation to you?

Cuba is the only third-world country I've been to,...

So you get on your high horse because you've been to one poor country? You really do need a reality enema, dann! I've been to at least ten times as many as you have. As a matter of fact, I've lived in the poorest country in the Wester Hemisphere. (I betcha you can't even name it!) The people there are not superstitious because they're poor. They are uneducated (ignorant).

To my recollection, neither Randi nor the person who wrote to him about the current practice of labeling kids witches condemned these people. They condemned the practice. You, on the other hand, condemn skeptics because they don't say "Hey, wait a minute! It's not fair to condemn this practice because these people are poor!" And, this, after visiting ONE third-world country!

Simple things for simple people, I guess. Keep up your martyrdom, dann. Followed to its normal endpoint, it will rid us of your tiresome point of view.

 

[articulett]

Let's explore the claims made in the OP.

Claims:

Skeptics ignore obvious truths when looking at reality.

Poverty is the root cause of these children's homelessness, not superstition

Skeptics don't get upset with the problem until they hear of the superstition.

Skeptics need to grow up.

Dann goes on to say:

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!


The quote which Dann finds particularly egregious and indicative of his claim that skeptics need to grow up is this quote which Randi agreed with:
"Anyone 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.”


This is not an example of someone getting upset only upon hearing the superstitious part of the equation. This is an example of someone noting the endless deference given to religious beliefs and the harm it can cause others. Just like the OP, people seem to not see the suffering caused by superstitious beliefs themselves. Not speaking up against superstition, encourages the spread of these beliefs to innocent children.

Dann goes on to pontificate:

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?

Here the claim made in between the scoldings is this: " 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.”

That is a strawman. Nobody has said anything about skeptics being the victim. Neither Randi's statement nor anyone elses' ever implied that. No one said that poverty is not a factor in the problem either. Nobody claimed to be "offering a more rational way to die". Those are all Dann's hyperbolic conclusions drawn from his heartfelt but unsupported belief that poverty is the cause of kids being accused of being witches and skeptics need to "grow up" and address the poverty. These are literally lies Dann's brain told him to confirm the correctness of his belief--they are not based on what was said. It is a fantastic example of confirmation bias. The only claim that skeptics seem to be making on this topic is that people very often ignore the obvious when superstition is at the heart of a cruelty. For example, many people believe the 9-11 hijackings had nothing to do with religion--they blame it all sorts of things...but never religion. This is probably because we've been taught never to question religion--and/or we don't want people poking their nose into our beliefs...or maybe because we've been told that poverty is the true reason.

Dann keeps ranting:

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?

Again...you are making up what "many skeptics" think and you are presuming they don't notice a correlation between poverty and superstition. I assure you, many of us do notice it. However, we understand that it's not a simple cause and effect as it seems to be in your head. Your conclusions are due to the same thing superstitions are based on--confusing correlation with causation. The basis of learning is associating two events; however, this leads to errors. Skepticism helps us be aware of these errors. If you arrived at a village at the time a tornado set down and wiped out their crops and homes--you could be seen as the "cause" of the tornado. If they had never had a tornado before and you had not visited before, that belief would be reinforced. If they killed you and they never had a tornado again, the belief would be further reinforced (confirmation bias)--even though the very premise is wrong in the first place. Even animals have this sort of learning mechanism and pigeons will do this...when you give them reward pellets randomly, they do "reward dances" to recreate whatever steps they think might have brought the reward the last time--they believe that something they did caused the reward. Because this sort of learning is hardwired, the only way to mitigate it's effects is through education (as you could readily see if you were the one being killed for a tornado.)

Dann closes his missive with this:

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!

The Merry Christmas just sounds insincere; it certainly was not meant as a greeting of cheer. Clearly Dann was hoping to provoke--but the motivations seem unclear. Could he actually have thought such a post would make others see the errors of their thinking and then send money to the Catholic charity in the article? Or was he truly just asserting his own alleged superiority over the "many skeptics" he chastised?

Moreover, the link to the article wouldn't open for me, but I readily found an article on the Xhosa suicide in a Christian magazine, and the last quote in that article was this:

"He who works his land will have abundant food, but the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty." Proverbs 28:19

That quote clearly implies the opposite of the original poster--instead of poverty leading to superstition, this proverb says superstition can lead to poverty. I read other studies that reached that same conclusion. The point is, if you read articles with your mind already made up, your brain resorts to confirmation bias exactly as Dann's has done. You notice and give credence to that which supports your view and negates that which does not...and you invent motives and arguments in the statements of others.

At very best the articles can lead to the conclusion alreadysummed up by Chadd--poverty can make people look for excuses to make their lives less burdensome, and so they'll invoke the notion that their kids are witches (subconsciously) and kick them out as a way of relieving the burdon. But in that case, poverty is still not the direct cause of the accusations--only a catalyst to search for ready reasons.

But neither article Dann quotes supports the notion that poverty leads to superstition unless you have already come to that assumption and readily ignore easy to recognize facts.

Lots of people have ignored or neglected children due to superstitions (exorcisms, threatening kids with hell, not letting a child have a blood transfusion, praying instead of giving medicine, accusing the kid of being a witch or demon, Jonestown, etc.). We can readily call to mind such abuse in middle class families. Although, there may be more superstition in poorer families, a third factor would need to be involved because the correlation is not direct--that is one doesn't cause the other. Very rich people believe in hell in America and threaten other people with it. This is evidence that directly negates the notion that poverty is the cause of superstition. If poverty was the cause...then money would be the solution...or obesity (if you defined poverty by an inability to main a healthy weight due to lack of food.) Obese people can be very superstitious too (did you see "god's warrior" on trading spouses?)

We also know that all people who abuse or neglect children due to superstitious beliefs have one very salient feature in common--they believe in the supernatural.

We also know that many people abandon children--girls leave babies in trash cans, kids are kicked out because of drug use, or the step parent doesn't like them, etc. In many cases when people can't afford to raise children, they send them to orphanages (like Moochie's grandmother) or they make them work or sell them to others who will make them work. And of course, there's foster care. There may well be a correlation between poverty and the likelihood that one will abandon children. But we also know that is not a direct relationship because people in all sorts of income brackets abandon their kids. We also know that most people who give up their kids for financial reasons, don't claim that their reason for doing so is because their children are witches. This, too, negates the notion that poverty is the cause of people accusing their children of being witches.

We also have a history of witch accusations that we can look at readily where people (usually women) of all ages were accused of being witches. We know that poverty was not even a factor in these witchhunts. This is yet another compelling fact which suggests that a third factor is at play when parents accuse their kids of being witches. What is that third factor? It's the thing all witch accusers have in common--a belief in witches. What is the best way to overcome superstitious thinking? Education! Superstition is the default position (even rich sports stars wear their lucky sucks or whatever it is they can link to their best game). Education is the only known remedy. Therefore, what is the best way to inoculate future generations from calling their kids witches? Education. Nobody is saying we should not feed the kids. What we are saying is that Dann's solution is not a very good solution. The problem seems to have to do with the fact that the people giving the aid are also passing on their superstitions (including the idea that contraception is bad...and "god doesn't give more than one can handle"--The priest giving aid...whom these people trust...believes in a devil...and a bible that seems to think witches are a possibility.). Humanist charities and individuals give without strings of "belief" attached. But that is irrelevant unless you want to get in a pissing contest of which skeptics give more to whom.

All the claims have been refuted. Randi was merely saying that "the obvious" continually gets a pass if it's religion...that staying silent encourages this deference which can lead to suffering. And Dann's criticism of "many skeptics" might be more usefully applied to him. His ad hominen attacks and attack of dissenters and refusal to engage in dialgoue and political diversions were clearly protective of the belief he wants to preserve. Clearly he thought he knew something that we did not and that we were supposed to thank him for enlightening us. And so I do thank him. Because he has given me many great examples for the two most common errors in thinking. Too bad my students are on holiday break.

Note how Dann went on to assume many things about others when they disagreed, showed him where he was mistaken, or just pointed out that he was making claims not supported by the facts and extrapolating meaning not evident in the words themselves. The nice thing about the facts is that they are the same for everyone. You don't need to bully or shame people into believing something and if someone does so, chances are they are lying to you and/or themselves.

And I suspect that self congratulatory cliques rarely lead to any actually learning or understanding; they encourage eachother's biases--in fact, given what has gone on in the US executive branch, It seems like it just makes people feel "better" than others while being clueless about their own ignorance or the offputting nature of their communications.

P.S.--thanks and welcome Chadd and slimething. There really are some great people on this forum. And then there are those who just seem to think they are great and that we should be eager for their "wisdom"-- In my experience these types are few and far between...if nothing else, their irony will amuse.

 

[articulett]

It's a digression, but Dann will digress...anything to avoid the fact that he confused correlation with causation.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_n8_v106/ai_20147994

Above, you'll find some quick data on step parenting. It takes all your concerns into account, but I'm sure you'll conclude that there is no data that step parents are many times more likely to harm step children, because that would account for the "step parent" accusations in the article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_n8_v106/ai_20147994

But try to stay on topic and quit with the ad homs. You are transparent. I put your main claims on the post above--right at the beginning. You can support those or deny them or whatever--but enough with your political views, self importance, digressions, flogging of skeptics telling them they need to grow up, confirmation bias, lame interpretation of statements, judgment of others, etc. You started the ugliness in your thread title thread and nurtured it; now be a big man and stop it. You have not proven that poverty causes superstition much less that "many skeptics" "need to grow up". You need to grow up; you are clearly not a spokesman for skeptics in general. You insulted a group of people with a baseless claim and continued to insult when people attempted to show you where your thinking was off. You clearly refuse to consider any view except the self important claims you started with. If you think "many skeptics need to grow up" then perhaps you should join or start a forum with the skeptics who are as grown up as you think you are...skeptics who firmly believe that poverty is THE CAUSE of superstition.

We recognize your little tantrum for the ego protecting distraction that it is.
No need to manipulate people and rant--facts convey the truth just fine. Facts...like in the article above...not prejudged confirmation biased info. as you seem to use in support of your claims.

 

[joelblanchette]

How about this one, then?
"A witch! A witch! Burn her, burn her!"
"How do you know she's a witch?"
"She looks like one!"
"Burn her, burn her!"

Ok, that makes a bit more sense now. I guess the problem was that Randi quoted the entire commentary from one reader about the article and his only comment was that he agreed whole-heartedly. I believe he endorsed only the last sentence.

 

[athon]

Skeptics ignore obvious truths when looking at reality.

Skeptics tend to generally limit the problem to a case of ignorance on behalf of the believer, depicting the solution as a simple case of proper education.

Poverty is the root cause of these children's homelessness, not superstition

I personally don't think it's the sole cause, and superstition is intrinsically linked with the impoverished situation. But in this case, superstition may not have been acted upon were the community not impoverished.

Skeptics don't get upset with the problem until they hear of the superstition.

Well, this I can't agree with. Of course they do, if they're half human. However, limiting the focus of a discussion to simplify it to a single cause-and-effect situation is pointless.

Skeptics need to grow up.

They do if they think superstition is purely born of ignorance and it can be fought by simply educating a population.

P.S.--thanks and welcome Chadd and slimething. There really are some great people on this forum. And then there are those who just seem to think they are great and that we should be eager for their "wisdom"-- In my experience these types are few and far between...if nothing else, their irony will amuse.

How do you get through life without taking offence so easily? Slimething has also done little but get his knickers all bunched up, without really addressing the key points one bit.

Here, dry your tears and try answering these, like I asked (I've further detailed them to explain what I mean). I know they're probably a bit more complicated than what you'd like, but at least then we can have a proper discussion, rather than one full of angst and misery.

Do you think poverty and superstition are intrinsically linked, where superstition can result or be acted upon due to the social conditions that arise when a community is impoverished?

Do you think removing superstition from an impoverished, collectivist community is a simple matter of educating them to the contrary, without first readdressing the values the community holds in esteem of superstition? Do you think poverty must be addressed in order to accomplish this?

Do you think that the children would have been accused of witchcraft and subsequently sent away if the community had have developed in an individualist, post-industrial nation?

Athon

 

[articulett]

Ok, that makes a bit more sense now. I guess the problem was that Randi quoted the entire commentary from one reader about the article and his only comment was that he agreed whole-heartedly. I believe he endorsed only the last sentence.

No, he endorsed the whole thing. Like Sam Harris, he doesn't really think religious superstitions should be given any more respect than other superstitions. It's not that people refuse to recognize the role that poverty plays; that is a role that anyone can see. What is ironic is that so many people don't even seem to notice the more direct role that superstition plays in the article quoted. Even the priest did not seem to be aware that religious teachings play a factor in these kinds of beliefs--they always have. And if you give quiet respect for seemingly harmless beliefs, then you haven't got a leg to stand on when people do more abhorrent things for their beliefs like genital mutilation or suicide bombing.

Everybody knows that poverty plays a role, but the utter inability for people to recognize the role superstition plays is odd. It seems religious based superstitions get a free ride, and if we wanted to stop people from neglecting or abusing children based on religious memes--then education must be part of the solution. Because many charities are based on religious organizations, they don't provide a remedy for superstitious thinking, and may in fact promote it.

That is all that can be implied from the article. It says nothing about superstition being the sole cause of poverty nor does it proffer education as the only solution. It merely points out that peoples' deference to religion can seemingly blind them to the negative effects of such beliefs.
It's similar to how all praise god for all that is good and blame humans when things go wrong.

There are some very good examples of common mistakes in reasoning people make on this thread.

For instance, Dann writes: "So we should expect a wave of people in the USA right now accusing their children and other people of being witches, right?"

This takes the statement "All people who accuse their kids of being witches, have a belief in witches" and presumes the opposite is true: "All people who believe in witches, accuse their kids of being witches." Both statements have the same words, but the latter is a false conclusion from the former. In the same way "most violent people are men" does not mean "most men are violent people." This is a common error in logic. Dann seems to make these errors and other misleading conclusions from peoples' statements.

The original poster saw a correlation between poverty and witch accusations and then presumed that poverty CAUSED people to accuse their children of witchcraft. Other studies and the quote from the bible make the claim that superstitious beliefs are a cause of poverty. (The reverse of the OP's claim). Dann was angry because he thought skeptics were minimizing the poverty aspect because they mentioned the superstitious aspect and noted that others seem to easily ignore the role that superstition plays in the problem--even the original poster didn't find it relevant even though it was the most direct cause of "child abandonment via witchcraft accusation" (which is the only story the original post was about...and it was the only story used to reach the conclusion that "many skeptics need to grow up".)

Although feeding people might make them less likely to grab at reasons for child abandonment, it doesn't stop people from accusing children of being witches. It's more of a band aid solution. Step parents are known to be more abusive to step children (link above) across all income levels--and they would still have that ready excuse available to them. As long as people believe in witches, witch hunts will be a way of weeding out burdensome individuals.

Nobody is arguing as to whether the poverty is a factor in what is happening in the story. The only argument is just "what is the most direct cause" and "what would be the best solution"...and of course, whether or not "many skeptics need to grow up".

I'm actually giddily delighted that Randi has been a factor in my understanding of logical fallacies. I would love the African children to have a chance to learn that as well. I have no doubts that he supports the entire quotation in the newsletter, but I think it's a confusion about what was said and what was meant that made the original poster think the quote was "immature", or "missing the obvious", etc. I don't think anything was missing; I think Dann's posts show very clearly how readily people ignore or give deference to certain types of superstitions (usually religious based) almost as if they've deliberately taught themselves to refuse to notice them. It's similar to Dennetts concept of "belief in belief".

Many people are coming to the conclusion that it's harmful to continue giving deference to belief...people ignore the fallacies in thinking it generates and make ready excuses when anyone attempts to point the blame at belief. That is not to say there aren't other causes; nor does it say that such people only give to charities or causes that focus on education. Nor is it an indication that "many skeptics need to grow up". It's only a statement that being silent on the obvious harms of belief results in a world that is hard to penetrate with reason. Being silent on the subject allows harms caused by beliefs to continue.

 

[dann]

Poverty does not cause superstition. Ignorance does. The upper classes that administered the dicta of the Maleus Mallificarum in the Middle Ages were not poor, merely ignorant.

No, they weren't poor, but they certainly weren't uneducated either. The pope isn't poor either, nor is Bush, nor is Blair, nor were the Reagans. Never denied it. And in the case of the rich or even the very rich, who, unlike the poor, actually benefit from religion, you should consider the many popes who fathered children and tended to have a very extravagant lifestyle! I wouldn't say that they didn't have religion, though, only that this is a very different religion from the kind where you have given up on finding a solution to your problems in this world and therefore only look for the meaning of life beyond reality.

Apparently skeptics do indeed have this knowledge of the ways of the world, they just tend to ignore it - in particular when they are talking about the childish, uneducated primitives who won't grow up, and not about a noble people like the white Britons in dire times of distress!

Where the hell did this come from? You sure read a lot into the statements in the newsletter. Kindly quote evidence for this condemnation.

There is no reason to wonder where it "came from". The context makes it very clear: In the article Time to grow up, where two very different kinds of religious superstition (not exactly on oxymoron, I know) are bundled together, although, as far I can see, the only criterion for doing so is that they are both from Africa, the title says it all. The article about superstition in London Rehabilitation of a witch, however, points out that this is the kind of behaviour that can be expected in times of stress. Why not emphasize this point when you are dealing with starving Africans? It was even mentioned in the article in the CSM that the conditions at least to some extent were caused by war.

Come on, James Randi, why don't you correct yourself on this one?!

Maybe because he never said anything like what you're railing on about? Would that be an acceptable explanation to you?

No!

So you get on your high horse because you've been to one poor country? You really do need a reality enema, dann! I've been to at least ten times as many as you have.

Wow! That is certainly convincing! Then that means, give me time to draw the conclusion .... that everything you say must be true! Did I at least get this one right? Or is this simply another competition: I've been to more poor countries that you, niah, niah!!

As a matter of fact, I've lived in the poorest country in the Wester Hemisphere. (I betcha you can't even name it!)

OK, it is a competition, then! How many guesses do I get?

The people there are not superstitious because they're poor. They are uneducated (ignorant).

This is actually your whole argument??? OK, you have totally convinced me. If you say so, that must be the case: They are ignorant and uneducated and therefore superstitious. They just happen to live in the poorest country in the hemisphere! Well, the Cubans aren't uneducated and ignorant, but still superstitious.

To my recollection, neither Randi nor the person who wrote to him about the current practice of labeling kids witches condemned these people.

I don't think I said anything about condemnation, did I?

They condemned the practice. You, on the other hand, condemn skeptics because they don't say "Hey, wait a minute! It's not fair to condemn this practice because these people are poor!"

I also condemn skeptics?

And, this, after visiting ONE third-world country!

OK, I acknowledge defeat!!! Whenever I disagree with you from now on, it is self-evident that I am wrong and you are right. I am inferior to you, the master, who has visited at least ten times as many, including the poorest country in the hemisphere!

Simple things for simple people, I guess. Keep up your martyrdom, dann. Followed to its normal endpoint, it will rid us of your tiresome point of view.

Now I'm also simple and a martyr? Or at least posing as one? Interesting conclusion ....
What exactly is it and its endpoint? Oh, I see! People leave the board because of your tireless and not at all tiresome effort for science and reason.
Well, yes, sooner or later it becomes time to consider: Is it really worth spending more time on somebody who doesn't even realize how ridiculous he is being? And you are probably right! I sometimes spend a little extra time to give every visitor to a thread the chance to see my opponent either betray his lack of arguments or prove his point, and in the case of you and articulett I don't expect to see anything worth bothering about.
Well, in your case it was actually clear from the beginning which is why it wasn't necessary to answer your contributions with more than .

 

[dann]

Well, at least you are being somewhat coherent now!

There are some very good examples of common mistakes in reasoning people make on this thread.

For instance, Dann writes: "So we should expect a wave of people in the USA right now accusing their children and other people of being witches, right?"

This takes the statement "All people who accuse their kids of being witches, have a belief in witches" and presumes the opposite is true: "All people who believe in witches, accuse their kids of being witches." Both statements have the same words, but the latter is a false conclusion from the former. In the same way "most violent people are men" does not mean "most men are violent people." This is a common error in logic. Dann seems to make these errors and other misleading conclusions from peoples' statements.

Let us look at this in context, right?

If increasing poverty made any other group of people in history turn accuse their kids of being witches, you might have a case. What we know about witch burnings is that the bible tells you to kill witches and accusing people of being witches was fairly common until the 1600s--because of a single biblical passage. Accusing people of being witches is a religious thing. You have to believe in witches.

So we should expect a wave of people in the USA right now accusing their children and other people of being witches, right?
It is true that in general you have to believe in witches in order to persuade yourself that somebody is one. What you apparently don't get is that this accusation is not really necessary to abandon your children.

For logic's sake, why don't you at least quote the whole argument? Is it because you, like John Cleese's professional logician, aren't interested at all, but only want to present yourself as somebody who is superior to the rest of the world ... but actually just doesn't get it?
Let me try to make it clear to you:
a)
1) In Congo a huge number of people abandon their children.
2) A lot of them claim that the children are witches.
3) Others don't. They may be upset merely because a child breaks a glass, and they may even threaten to put a knife in the child's eye when it asks for something to eat.
4) People in this country are destitute and starving.
5) When people starve they become desperate to the point where they may even sell their children or abandon them.
6) People know that this isn't right, it's something that they do not like to do, so they come up with a lot of stupid excuses.
7) This does not mean that they don't believe in their own excuses.
8) It just means that there is a difference between a reason and an excuse for doing something.
9) It isn't necessary to believe in witches in order to abandon your child.
10) It most likely is necessary to believe in witches when you come up with the excuse that you abandon your children because they are witches.
Conclusion: Superstition is the cause of the excuse. Poverty is the cause of the abandonment.
b)
1) A man has sex with a minor.
2) The man impregnates her.
3) Having sex with a minor is not only wrong, it is also illegal, so the man on trial.
4) People accused of crimes invent excuses, sometimes very silly ones.
5) In this case the man puts the blame on the goblins, for goblin's sake.
Conclusion: Being accused of a crime is the cause the excuse. It is not the cause of the crime, statutory rape.

My point: Bundling these two very different stories together under the title Time to grow up is stupid. Pretending that superstition is in any way the cause of the wretched business in any of the two cases, starvation leading to abandoned children and statutory rape, is stupid. Superstition is immaterial (pun not intended!) in both of these cases.
Treating it as if it isn't, is wrong, and it really does not make it any better to say that skeptics are always preoccupied with superstition. That is just a poor excuse because they ought to know better.

I'm actually giddily delighted that Randi has been a factor in my understanding of logical fallacies. I would love the African children to have a chance to learn that as well. I have no doubts that he supports the entire quotation in the newsletter, but I think it's a confusion about what was said and what was meant that made the original poster think the quote was "immature", or "missing the obvious", etc. I don't think anything was missing; I think Dann's posts show very clearly how readily people ignore or give deference to certain types of superstitions (usually religious based) almost as if they've deliberately taught themselves to refuse to notice them. It's similar to Dennetts concept of "belief in belief".

I don't want to spoil your giddy delight, although it may have been the reason for your earlier, rather incoherent contributions to this discussion, but I don't think that anybody, at least not here, wouldn't want the starving African children to learn about logical fallacies.
And won't you please tell me exactly where I, or anybody else, for that matter, "very clearly" and "readily" "ignore or give deference" to any kind of superstition or religion and even "refuse to notice them"? We have been expecting you to deliver this piece of evidence for a very long time now, and repeating your allegation does not really help.

Being silent on the subject [of harmful superstition and religion. dann] allows harms caused by beliefs to continue.

Strawman, strawman, strawman! Who the hell is being silent about anything here? Or is that not the point of your "Many people ....." conclusion?

 

[dann]

Oh god. Now you're really going to feed the Conspiracy Theory affecting us.

Look, who's talking! You're Masklin, aren't you? Sorry, I didn't recognize you with your new ...... name! Have you been to a numerologist in the meantime?

 

[articulett]

Dann,
Your original premise is wrong. You presumed from the outset that the newsletter's mention of the role superstition plays in children being accused of witches, meant that the writer and Randi were not aware of poverty playing a role. Those who agree with you, seem to have come to the same conclusion. Those whom you continually slander, have merely tried to point out that such a conclusion is wrong. Nobody said that poverty didn't play a role. The comment was merely a reflection of the fact that people never seem to even see that superstitious thinking (faith, etc.) plays a role as well--even a more direct role. That may be a statement worth debating, but not a statement that makes "many skeptics" immature. It presumes something that is false at the outset.

The point of the article is only this--the writer of the article and many people fail to see the prominent role that irrational thought plays in tragedies. I am not saying this is a conspiracy theory, nor is Randi, nor the letter writer quoted in the newsletter. I am actually interested in why people don't seem to even "notice" the role faith based beliefs play. I want to know why you think it's not even worth commenting on--and that to do so implies that "many skeptics need to grow up".

I saw the same thing with the Andrea Yates case. Yes she was psychotic, but her actions makes sense if you believe traditional christian teachings (the purpose of life is to get to heaven and children who die before a certain age are automatically shoe in candidates for a blissful eternity). It's the belief system itself that plays a major role in those kids' death, yet the media never mentioned it.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, though I noticed the ridiculous allegations that others myself and others who tried to show you why your original conclusion about the article was a misperception were accused of this. I think it's because we humans have all been raised from childhood to think faith is good--to never question faith.

I just think you are finding disagreements on false topics to avoid the main premise on which most people agree. Yes, poverty can make children burdensome, and so family members are more likely to find reasons for getting rid of such burdens. Nobody is disagreeing with that. The article itself that lead you to believe that skeptics need to grow up is not denying that fact. It is only pointing out that beliefs themselves play a role. That's it. You can argue about what role they play or what solutions are best or rather the article means that the writers are immaturely ignoring the obvious. But your continual ad hominens on a post that started as an ad hominen and your false conclusions drawn from peoples' statements including your false conclusion drawn from the newsletter quote has spawned numerous attacks from you.

So try and stick with the topic.

Do you still believe the quote reflects an immaturity? Do you still believe that the author was unaware of the role poverty plays in accusing kids of being witches? Do you understand that belief also plays a role? Do you understand that belief was mentioned in the article because James Randi himself believes that education and critical thinking are a way of addressing the belief component of the problem? Do you agree that, generally speaking, people are reluctant to blame "beliefs" for any of the problems--even when people say such beliefs are the reason for committing whatever tragic act was committed?

You can debate whether the main cause is poverty or superstition for the kids mentioned in the article, but the answer, no matter which side you are on, is only an opinion--not a sign that someone or other needs to "grow up". You've turned a thread meant to provoke into an attack on everyone who disagrees with you--and it all rests on a mistaken premise in the first place.

You believe the James Randi quote following the letter writers quote means that "many skeptics need to grow up" because you think the letter shows ignorance to the role poverty plays in the equation. The letter does not reflect that at all. It only shows that belief plays a role and few people even seem to realize it.

Your original premise is wrong. All the attacks upon others have been made with the idea that that premise is valid. It's as invalid as the superstitious conclusions drawn by people who mistake seizures (or whatever) for signs of someone being a witch. And because your original conclusion is wrong--all the claims you've made based on that premise are also wrong. Changing the topic and insulting others doesn't make it right and doesn't add awareness on the topic because nobody was unaware of the role poverty plays--except in your head. Rather, people seem to be unaware of the role that belief plays--and that is ALL the newsletter commentary that lead you to somehow conclude "many skeptics need to grow up" is saying.

Whatever your goals were in starting this thread, I think that you are much more likely to accomplish them and/or educate others by staying on topic and sticking to your original claims which are:

1. Many skeptics need to grow up.
2. The letter quoted in the newsletters reflects that skeptics are clueless as to the role poverty plays in people accusing their child of being witches.
3. The letter quoted reflects egotistical aims rather than concern for the children.
4. poverty is the primary cause of people concluding that their kids are witches.
5. All who disagree need to grow up, are part of the religious right, are CTs, are illogical, don't consider economics, don't live in the real world, have no clue about poverty, etc. These are claims you've actually made. People are just telling you that you reached a wrong conclusion about the quote and that you are mistaking correlation between poverty and superstition with causation -- you have reached the conclusion that poverty is the direct cause of people abandoning kids for being witches.

Moreover, whatever your goal was in starting this thread, you are probably not accomplishing with your continued insults of others and self righteous posturing. However, it is a great thread for seeing how arguments get started and develop and how people lose track of what they are even arguing for. It also shows how misinterpretations lead to problems--exactly what the newletter points out. If you believe in witches--then any abnormal behavior by your child can be seen as a sign that the child is a witch.

By the way, I recognize your insults for what they are. You are protecting your ego rather than admit you drew the wrong conclusion from what was written in the newsletter and you used that conclusion to admonish all those who disagree with you while placing yourself above such people and telling yourself that you were raising peoples' consciousness to the true problem.