Atheist church has first schism

[blutoski]

This is very interesting, and may be worth a thread split, if anyone else is so inclined. For my own part, I've noticed a very strong anti-science sentiment within Education as a field of inquiry. Lot's of credulous adherence to various models that seem made up from whole cloth, and not a lot of interest in the science being done in other fields regarding how people actually learn stuff.

I've always thought it was a good subject, and have started threads about it over the years, but ultimately the problem is that I'm in a minority among skeptics. For most skeptics, goals are vague ideals, and the methods they employ are mostly just personal preference, not really intended to achieve goals.

There's also the complication of challenging held assumptions. There was a thread on skeptical 'beliefs' that are not true (skeptics are smarter, skeptics are better critical thinkers &c) and that died a quick death because skeptics are not very interested in self analysis. We're much more interested in the other guys' mistakes.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't think the antivax motivations in this segment are specifically antiscience, though. More an antiauthoritarian streak. I get the impression that it is simply a segment of the population that overestimates their competence. They feel that their degree in computer science means they are 'a scientist' and browse Medline and can know more than their doctor by Wednesday.

They love science, think science is great, and think they are especially good at it, in contrast to Health Canada, which is just a bunch of bureaucrats who haven't read the studies.

Ah, I guess I misread you. I was thinking not of education attained, but Education as a field: those who do Education research, or have Ed.D.'s

 

[blutoski]

Ah, I guess I misread you. I was thinking not of education attained, but Education as a field: those who do Education research, or have Ed.D.'s

Gotcha. And yeah, there's some key theories taught in the Faculty of Education that I'm pretty sure have been long refuted (left brain vs right brain).

No, I was describing the surprising fact that education does not appear to be protective against woo beliefs, all things being equal. The lone exception is advanced science degrees. BSc is not protective, and may have a positive correlation with paranormal and healthfraud topics, but not with religion (it's weakly positively correlated with atheism). MSc and PhD in science have a negative correlation with belief in religion, paranormal, and healthfraud, which is what we'd expect.

 

[Humes fork]

And that's a good point... my analyses were either global or local to US/Canada. I didn't break it out to any European states.

It's worth observing that Europe has both high levels of atheism and correspondingly high levels of antivax, anti-GMO &c. I think this is consistent with my interpretation that antivax is not really anti-science. These regions are generally pro science. They just think vaccination and GMO crops are poor science.

I think it has much more to do with a fetish for "natural" than with atheism, to be honest.

And if you go to southern Europe it is not particularly atheistic.

I've been thinking about a way to categorize that attitude, and at the end of the day I think it qualifies as cargo cult science - using elements of science, but not actually doing science. People with science degrees seem to be surprisingly vulnerable to this.

Maybe it is respecting science as a sort of priesthood, but not actually understanding it?

 

[Humes fork]

There's also the complication of challenging held assumptions. There was a thread on skeptical 'beliefs' that are not true (skeptics are smarter, skeptics are better critical thinkers &c) and that died a quick death because skeptics are not very interested in self analysis. We're much more interested in the other guys' mistakes.

What "skeptical beliefs"? Skepticism is about how to think, not what to think. Method is more important than conclusion.

 

[blutoski]

I think it has much more to do with a fetish for "natural" than with atheism, to be honest.

Perhaps that's the manifestation, but the point is that the atheism is not predictive of their critical thinking capacity. I was describing a lack of overlap between atheism and critical thinking skills.

Maybe it is respecting science as a sort of priesthood, but not actually understanding it?

No, it's the opposite. They're undervaluing expertise, not over-valuing it. The attitude is: "What do doctors know anyway?"

'real' scientists defer to expertise, as is consistent with critical thinking process. They're good at saying, "Oh, that's a DNA antiretroviral immunology question. You need to ask Bob, I'm just an RNA virus immunologist, I'm not up to speed on the DNA retrovirals."

They know they're essentially laypersons the second they venture outside their scope of competence. People with entry level science appear to undervalue expertise, and think they can replace education and experience with a few googles, personal experiences, and common sense.

The cargo cult aspect is that they have more science than the general public, so think they've "got it" but end up going through a cartoon version when evaluating scientific claims. They've missed the complexity of modern science, which is highly specialized and heavily reliant on deference to expertise.

Case in point: I've never met an undergrad who was a member of a paper analysis club, for example. Analyzing scientific papers competently takes years of guided experience, even in one's own field. My own university has a club called AIMS which is the alternative medicine society. It's members are mostly science undergrads. Very few science grads. I expect the reason is that all the papers they thought were fantastic and groundbreaking when they were undergrads look shabby now that they have a few more years' experience.

 

[blutoski]

What "skeptical beliefs"? Skepticism is about how to think, not what to think. Method is more important than conclusion.

Aaaaand that is a 'skeptical belief'

Yet not a universal one!

The association of skepticism with a process alone is fairly recent. More specifically, I might even go so far to say that it's Michael Shermer's marketing approach, introduced to a pre-existing skeptical community in the early 1990s. Prior to that, I think skepticism was mostly branded as 'a community of doubters' or 'a community of common sense'

This has come up in other threads here at JREF.
Nobody can really agree on what it means to be a skeptic. My opinion is that it's a community of beliefs that have a high overlap. (This is also Daniel Loxton's opinion, BTW: fellow travellers - boats travelling in a vaguely similar direction, but with different destinations in mind)


But whether that's true or not, I do think that skeptics are a community with shared core beliefs, such as 'bigfoot is a myth'.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, and it still doesn't contradict what I wrote otherwise.

Look, I understand that you want me to either blame all to world's problems on religion or let it off the hook entirely. But it dosn't work like that.

Are you seriously saying that you don't see the contradiction between the principle behind a quote admonishing people not to lump all atheists together because athesits don't believe in the supernatural and the principle behind a quote that lumps all theists together because they havd faith?

 

[Brian-M]

Many of us "experienced" folk can't get out of one of those damned things!

Aha! It's time we sent you to meet THE ELECTRIC CHAIR!

Oops, sorry. I meant to say "the electric assist chair". Silly me, I can't imagine what came over me for a moment there. There's nothing to worry about, so just relax and have a seat, and all your problems will be over before you know it.

​

An atheist groupp AS AN ATHEIST GROUP only has one real topic of discussion: "Gods don't exist".

They can also gossip about all the shenanigans those pesky theists get up to, like trying to get intelligent design taught in classrooms.

 

[Darat]

But what is the evidence that Richard Dawkins ever existed?

 

[A'isha]

They can also gossip about all the shenanigans those pesky theists get up to, like trying to get intelligent design taught in classrooms.

This is why I feel secularism is much more important than atheism.

 

[Arcade22]

They can also gossip about all the shenanigans those pesky theists get up to, like trying to get intelligent design taught in classrooms.

You are aware that one can be an atheist and be in favor of having intelligent design taught in classrooms, even as a "science"? Atheism is not at all equivalent with secularism despite what so many atheists seem to believe.

 

[Brian-M]

You are aware that one can be an atheist and be in favor of having intelligent design taught in classrooms, even as a "science"? Atheism is not at all equivalent with secularism despite what so many atheists seem to believe.

Yes, but there's also the question of whether of not the numbers of people who fall in to this category are large enough to potentially achieve their goal.

Theist proponents of intelligent design have adequate numbers to plausibly achieve this. Atheist proponents of intelligent design (such as Raelians) do not.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I would say that none of the "schisms" we have seen are actually schisms "within atheism" but schisms "among atheists".

 

[Craig B]

You are aware that one can be an atheist and be in favor of having intelligent design taught in classrooms, even as a "science"? Atheism is not at all equivalent with secularism despite what so many atheists seem to believe.

According to these atheists who want ID taught as science, who or what is the intelligent designer?

 

[Brian-M]

According to these atheists who want ID taught as science, who or what is the intelligent designer?

Space aliens. (Seriously!)

The Raëlian Movement teaches that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call the Elohim. Members of this species appeared human and when having personal contacts with the descendants of the humans they made, they previously misinformed (on purpose) early humanity that they were angels, cherubim or gods.

 

[Humes fork]

Aaaaand that is a 'skeptical belief'

Yet not a universal one!

The association of skepticism with a process alone is fairly recent. More specifically, I might even go so far to say that it's Michael Shermer's marketing approach, introduced to a pre-existing skeptical community in the early 1990s. Prior to that, I think skepticism was mostly branded as 'a community of doubters' or 'a community of common sense'

The view that skepticism is a method and not a set of beliefs is pretty much universal among skeptics. It is clearly the premise of say, the one million dollar challenge.

The "beliefs" that skepticism has are axiomatic ones, such that science is the best way for finding out about the world.

This has come up in other threads here at JREF.
Nobody can really agree on what it means to be a skeptic. My opinion is that it's a community of beliefs that have a high overlap. (This is also Daniel Loxton's opinion, BTW: fellow travellers - boats travelling in a vaguely similar direction, but with different destinations in mind)

You might be interested in Loxton's long essay Why Is There a Skeptical Movement? He writes:

What is now called “scientific skepticism” —the practice or project of studying paranormal and pseudoscientific claims through the lens of science and critical scholarship, and then sharing the results with the public—was old when the first skeptical podcasts appeared in 2005. It was old in 1996 when the James Randi Educational Foundation was formed; old in 1992 when Michael Shermer and Pat Linse organized the Skeptics Society and launched Skeptic magazine (one of the first skeptical periodicals to appear on newsstands); and it was already old in 1976 when CSICOP was formed—the first successful, broad-mandate North American skeptical organization of the contemporary period.

The boldened parts, that's pretty much what skeptical organizations, podcasts, outlets and so on, do. I don't think that's particularly controversial.

I assume you are aware that when people on this forum say "skepticism", it is shorthand for scientific skepticism.

But whether that's true or not, I do think that skeptics are a community with shared core beliefs, such as 'bigfoot is a myth'.

But those same skeptics would change their minds if evidence for the existence of Bigfoot was forthcoming.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I would point out though that the Raelians aren't really atheists.

I'm usually reluctant to call something a religion, unless it actually functions as one. I.e., it actually involves faith in some unsupported beings or phenomena, faith that they somehow watch over you, possibly have a plan for you, and it makes them or the universe essentially your secret santa who judges and dishes out rewards and/or punishments, especially if it includes some form of immortality, etc.

So I won't say that, say, Communism is a religion because it doesn't have most of that. But the Raelians fit it to a letter. And I mean, fer FSM sake, they even call their "aliens" the Elohim, i.e., "gods".

If it fits the role of religion to a letter, I don't care if they call their gods "aliens" or "blablabla", that's not atheism. It's just a religion that's been modernized, so to speak.

 

[Craig B]

Space aliens. (Seriously!)

Well, who "designed" them? Or is it space aliens all the way down?

 

[Arcade22]

Yes, but there's also the question of whether of not the numbers of people who fall in to this category are large enough to potentially achieve their goal.

Theist proponents of intelligent design have adequate numbers to plausibly achieve this. Atheist proponents of intelligent design (such as Raelians) do not.

I don't really see how that's relevant. The thing i wanted to point out was that you apparently treated "atheism" as if it entailed secularism and opposition towards intelligent design which it does not.

According to these atheists who want ID taught as science, who or what is the intelligent designer?

I never said that those individuals would actually believe that "intelligent design" is accurate or true in any sense of the word. The only relevant thing is that they are atheists yet wish, for whatever reason, to have intelligent design taught in school.