Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[Gurdur]

......2. Slimething believes that he has found my weak spot: I must be poor and unemployed,
.......
4. Since he already knows that I have been to Cuba (something which I don’t ‘boast’ about, but mentioned as part of an argument), he concludes that I am not only unemployed and therefore penniless, but also a parasite:

Mind you, though the derails are nonsubstantive and after returning to this thread after several days' absence I would like to simply stick with substantiveness, I still have to admit that some of the derails, Slimething's especially, were screamingly funny.

Talk about a classical ad hominem argument and one which was not only utterly bizarre but also terribly wrong.


Oh well, enough of chuckling over that, and now I will start formatting my substantive replies to the substantive questions put to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am right when I assume that you would find it too simple to tell people in a situation like this that it is time to grow up?

Which people? The skeptics?

You started with

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?

I don't think tolerating the dangerous beliefs of witchcraft is a good idea. It isn't just these kids losing their social support net. People are occasionally killed as witches in that part of the world.

And poverty is indeed contributing in this situation, along with the multiple factors I noted in my posts.

You just can't oversimplify this situation into an either or here.

 

[CFLarsen]

You started with I don't think tolerating the dangerous beliefs of witchcraft is a good idea. It isn't just these kids losing their social support net. People are occasionally killed as witches in that part of the world.

Do you want to ban witchcraft?

 

[Gurdur]

I don't think tolerating the dangerous beliefs of witchcraft is a good idea. It isn't just these kids losing their social support net. People are occasionally killed as witches in that part of the world.
And poverty is indeed contributing in this situation, along with the multiple factors I noted in my posts.
You just can't oversimplify this situation into an either or here.

One major point here is that people are accusing kids of witchcraft and throwing them out because they don't have enough to live on and also to support other kids.

Under those circumstances, just how do you plan not to "tolerate" witchcraft? Just how do you think "the dangerous beliefs of witchcraft" are being tolerated at all by dann? Or IOW you seem to be missing something big here.

 

[dann]

Which people? The skeptics?

I don't know if you deliberately misunderstand my question, but this is what preceded it:

There is social stigma, which by the way has a self inflicted component. It isn't just that your neighbors will snub you, you may have your own guilt feelings. The expectation a sibling takes in orphaned nieces and nephews may run deep.

There is often resentment, perhaps mixed with grief. I would be sad if my brothers died.

There is the overwhelming burden of poverty and common mythical beliefs are longstanding.

What my point is, the dynamic involved here is not simple. It is very complex.

It is very complex.

I am right when I assume that you would find it too simple to tell people in a situation like this that it is time to grow up?

I obviously refer to the situation in Africa, the one mentioned in James Randi's newsletter one month ago in the article with the title: Time to grow up, unless, of course, what you describe is the situation that skeptics find themselves in - and we both know that this is not the case.
But it is OK if you don't feel like answering.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Deliberately misunderstood? Care to hypothesize a reason I would do that?

It didn't make sense to me then, now it does. Maybe I was tired.

Anyway, I don't think one has to allow dangerous beliefs in order to accommodate every religious belief on the planet. Nor do I think addressing the harmful superstitions means one should neglect the poverty and lack of a social net. I made my comments because there was one claiming the superstitions in this case were totally fabricated in order to achieve the eviction of the orphaned relatives. I was commenting the beliefs need not be consciously fabricated while they can still have underlying motive and issues involved.

People are very good at fooling themselves. Pain med addicts aren't always aware when they are faking their pain. They experience what we call anticipatory pain. Some might see that as convenient and conclude they are knowingly faking pain. But not everyone is faking pain and not everyone addicted to pain meds is aware that they aren't in pain but are actually only anticipating it.

It's a very complex psychological state mixing belief with reality.

I don't see why anyone thinks one can only address one issue or the other here. Poverty and superstition are both to blame.

But from my own philosophical perspective, I'm much less into the, "we should preserve all cultures" and "respect all beliefs" than I used to be. Considering the harm in the world from clashing religion believers, and given all the harm false beliefs result in, I have no problem telling these folks their superstitions are not good.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you want to ban witchcraft?

When the believers are murdering people, yes. But if you want to compare that to a bunch of Wiccans in the US who chose different rituals and fantasies than say Catholics chose, it is completely different situation.

On the other hand, banning is not the most effective way to deal with these beliefs. You have to look at it in a much broader way than merely making it illegal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

One major point here is that people are accusing kids of witchcraft and throwing them out because they don't have enough to live on and also to support other kids.

Under those circumstances, just how do you plan not to "tolerate" witchcraft? Just how do you think "the dangerous beliefs of witchcraft" are being tolerated at all by dann? Or IOW you seem to be missing something big here.

What am I missing? I said the lack of a social net other than the expectation family members take in orphaned relatives which was adaptive in the past but maladaptive now due to poverty and the overwhelming burden of the HIV pandemic which created an enormous number of orphans, and, the existing underlying beliefs in witches all contributed to the problem of the evicted orphaned relatives. Care to tell me what else I should be considering?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What do these people need?

From us, lifting the idiotic requirement some of our HIV prevention dollars go toward abstinence only prevention programs. We need to educate the Evangelical fanatics that everyone doesn't live in Ozzie and Harriet land where women save themselves for men who are monogamous after marriage just because the Bible belt folks would like everyone to be like their fantasy.

We should fund condom promotion programs which have had documented success instead of abstinence and monogamy slogans which have documented failures.

Women need empowerment like the successful revolving micro-loan programs provide so they don't need to submit to sex out of fear of not having any means of support if they don't submit.

That's where I'd start. With maybe earmarking some of that HIV prevention money going toward AIDS orphans in whatever way works best in the specific cultures there. I think the witchcraft issue while important, has to be sidelined until the more pressing issues of war, poverty, clean water, TB, malaria, and HIV are addressed first. But you can certainly address dangerous false beliefs when the opportunities arise.

Some of the most dangerous false beliefs right now are the belief polio vaccine is meant to sterilize Muslim women, and HIV doesn't cause AIDS so pregnant women don't need AZT, followed by the Evangelical belief condom use is a sin.

 

[dann]

Deliberately misunderstood? Care to hypothesize a reason I would do that?

It didn't make sense to me then, now it does. Maybe I was tired.

I was just wondering how it could be possible to misunderstand my question which - in the context - obviously referred to the situation in Africa and not any situation that the skeptics might find themselves in. If you simply didn't check the context because you were tired that makes sense, so there is no reason to hypotesize.

Anyway, I don't think one has to allow dangerous beliefs in order to accommodate every religious belief on the planet. Nor do I think addressing the harmful superstitions means one should neglect the poverty and lack of a social net. I made my comments because there was one claiming the superstitions in this case were totally fabricated in order to achieve the eviction of the orphaned relatives. I was commenting the beliefs need not be consciously fabricated while they can still have underlying motive and issues involved.

I suppose the word "allow" should not be taken literally!? It may be possible to ban certain kinds of religious practice, but it is not a very efficient way of fighting beliefs. And I don't think that anybody in this thread has said that dangerous beliefs should not be criticized.

(...) But from my own philosophical perspective, I'm much less into the, "we should preserve all cultures" and "respect all beliefs" than I used to be.

I have never been into that idea!

Considering the harm in the world from clashing religion believers, and given all the harm false beliefs result in, I have no problem telling these folks their superstitions are not good.

Neither have I. But you still seem to avoid a direct answer to my question:

I am right when I assume that you would find it too simple to tell people in a situation like this that it is time to grow up?

But like I said, you also don't have to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Much too simplistic. Though if approached properly the concept is reasonable.

Assuming it isn't the only or the highest priority action taken, I think leaders, usually government but maybe the education system, have to have the expectation people need to change from these kind of archaic beliefs if they are to live in contact with the modern world. And the people in the news article fit that description.

But there are some tricky areas here that a lot of anthropologists would argue with that approach. Do you try to change the beliefs of the Yanomamo in Brazil? What about the tribal people in Africa who still live in isolation at least as far as roads go, and still live as they did 1,000 years ago with very little change? Do you just try to stop them burning witches or do you outlaw female genital mutilation? Do you try to stop them from ritual stretching of necks, lips, and ritual scarring?

It's time for the rural people who now live in a Johannesburg suburb to grow up. They don't have much claim to a traditional way of life one is destroying. But from there it is unclear how far to go, which beliefs to elicit change, and how to do it.

I think we can safely say converting them to Christianity is just as bad but look at the Evangelical recruitment going on in Africa and just about every other country in the world. Madrassas are springing up everywhere across SE Asia to Northern Africa. Muslim leaders, while using different tactics than Evangelicals are just as actively recruiting converts.

Depending on how you measure harm, WWIII, murder resulting from superstition, or a polio epidemic resulting from vaccine myths, the negative outcomes are clearly present in many false beliefs.

 

[dann]

But there are some tricky areas here that a lot of anthropologists would argue with that approach. Do you try to change the beliefs of the Yanomamo in Brazil?

I would say, yes, of course you do. I don't know which scruples haunt the anthropologists, but these days it is doubtful that the Yanomano will be able to survive without the knowledge of modern science. Plagued as they are by illnesses, they need proper medical understanding of diseases and the sources of infection:
"Sixty two percent of Yanomami tested positive for new strains of malaria introduced by garimpeiros (gold miners) which have brought every conceivable disease known to modern man, from the common cold (Yanomami have no immunity to combat our most common ailment) right up to and including AIDS."
It might for instance be a good idea to tell them about Kreutzfeld-Jacob before they start dying from the disease that used to kill many people in New Guinea:
"They cremate their dead, then crush and drink their bones in a final ceremony intended to keep their loved ones with them forever."

What about the tribal people in Africa who still live in isolation at least as far as roads go, and still live as they did 1,000 years ago with very little change? Do you just try to stop them burning witches or do you outlaw female genital mutilation?

Yes, if possible you should put a stop to witch burnings and genital mutilation. Why not?

Do you try to stop them from ritual stretching of necks, lips, and ritual scarring?

If everybody, and in particular the ones who are are exposed to the stretching, are happy with the consequences, I wouldn't interfere with anything but information. Why let them stay ignorant? If you have knowledge relevant to their situation, you should at least offer it to them. If they don't want it, they can decline the offer.
On the other hand, if they don't happen to live on top of a profitable natural ressource of some kind, they'll probably be left alone anyway.

 

[dann]

What do these people need?

From us, lifting the idiotic requirement some of our HIV prevention dollars go toward abstinence only prevention programs. We need to educate the Evangelical fanatics that everyone doesn't live in Ozzie and Harriet land where women save themselves for men who are monogamous after marriage just because the Bible belt folks would like everyone to be like their fantasy.

I agree. And you have a lot of work to do!

We should fund condom promotion programs which have had documented success instead of abstinence and monogamy slogans which have documented failures.

I agree.

Women need empowerment like the successful revolving micro-loan programs provide so they don't need to submit to sex out of fear of not having any means of support if they don't submit.

I agree in principle that women should not be forced to consider having sex out of fear or because they depend on it as an income, but I don't think that the micro-loan programs are what it takes.

That's where I'd start. With maybe earmarking some of that HIV prevention money going toward AIDS orphans in whatever way works best in the specific cultures there. I think the witchcraft issue while important, has to be sidelined until the more pressing issues of war, poverty, clean water, TB, malaria, and HIV are addressed first. But you can certainly address dangerous false beliefs when the opportunities arise.

I definitely agree.

Some of the most dangerous false beliefs right now are the belief polio vaccine is meant to sterilize Muslim women, and HIV doesn't cause AIDS so pregnant women don't need AZT, followed by the Evangelical belief condom use is a sin.

In certain Third-World countries, yes, I agree, but I think that the most dangerous belief right now is that capitalism is the solution to and not the cause of poverty - in the Third World or in the First.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The micro-loan example was one example. It wasn't meant as the only solution to poverty among women. It has, however, been especially beneficial for women who turn out to be more reliable paying it back as well.

You can't oversimplify world poverty as being caused by capitalism. That's absurd. The communist countries certainly aren't shining examples of wealth for all.

What decreases poverty is access to information (ie a real free press) and knowledge (ie education). Capitalism with intelligent regulation would do just fine. We're drifting away from that in the USA today, but Bush screwed up so badly it may have just helped things turn back around.

 

[CFLarsen]

When the believers are murdering people, yes. But if you want to compare that to a bunch of Wiccans in the US who chose different rituals and fantasies than say Catholics chose, it is completely different situation.

Why? Some believers will take their beliefs to the extreme, while others will take the exact same beliefs much lighter.

Is it their beliefs you want to ban, or the results of how they view their beliefs?

On the other hand, banning is not the most effective way to deal with these beliefs. You have to look at it in a much broader way than merely making it illegal.

You bet. Because unless you can prove that the basis for their beliefs is to harm other people, then you have started banning thoughts, merely because you don't agree with them.

 

[dann]

... then you have started banning thoughts, ...

... which, of course, you can't!

 

[dann]

You can't oversimplify world poverty as being caused by capitalism. That's absurd.

Well, I would tend to find it absurd that the World Bank and other international institutions of capitalism usually have one recommendation for heavily indebted Third-World countries: increase the impoverishment of the masses.

The communist countries certainly aren't shining examples of wealth for all.

No, they aren't. But the countries that do their best to put up a fight with capitalism, tend to avoid the most excessive poverty, destitution and starvation:
http://www.granma.cu/playagiron/conferencia/13duran-i.html
Alfredo Durán, former vice president of Brigade 2506 Veteran’s Association, veteran from Playa Giron, fighting against Castro’s troops:
“If I were poor in any Latin American country, I would prefer to be in Cuba than anywhere else.”

What decreases poverty is access to information (ie a real free press) and knowledge (ie education). Capitalism with intelligent regulation would do just fine. We're drifting away from that in the USA today, but Bush screwed up so badly it may have just helped things turn back around.

Well, if your digestive system is able to handle newspapers, you might be right. I find it interesting that nobody seems to cry “cause and effect!” when claims like this are made …

 

[hammegk]

... which, of course, you can't!

The US can, and does. See "Hate Crimes".

 

[hammegk]

Alfredo Durán, former vice president of Brigade 2506 Veteran’s Association, veteran from Playa Giron, fighting against Castro’s troops:
“If I were poor in any Latin American country, I would prefer to be in Cuba than anywhere else.”
…

That makes one wonder, where else has he been in Latin America?

I do agree that propaganda coupled with terror has worked throughout another maniac dictator's lifetime.

 

[dann]

... then you have started banning thoughts, ...

... which, of course, you can't!

The US can, and does. See "Hate Crimes".

Yes, but you cannot really prevent people from thinking what they do, can you? You can kill a person and thus put a stop to his or her thinking, but the thoughts themselves? The Romans did not have much success with this strategy, nor does banning racism or homophobia seem to put a stop to racist or homophobic thoughts.