Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[dann]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

 

[TheChadd]

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

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

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

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

 

[Slimething]

Look who wants the Moral High Ground!!!

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dann]

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

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

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

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

 

[dann]

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

 

[TheChadd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dann]

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

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

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

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

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

I think that they probably did wish ...

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

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

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

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

 

[TheChadd]

I think that they probably did wish ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[athon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Athon

 

[Slimething]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dann]

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

Strawman, Slimething!

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

And another one!

 

[Kopji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zep]

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

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

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Education is also a huge factor.

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

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

 

[dann]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zep]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Moochie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

Excellent post.

Happy Holidays

M.

 

[Moochie]

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

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

M.

 

[dann]

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

Definitely!

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

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

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

Yes! Sarcasm!

 

[Merko]

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

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

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


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

 

[dann]

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

Since you don’t like the simple explanation that even the writer of the article in The Christian Science Monitor presents only to ignore it again and come up with a misleading title, you present us with a very convoluted way of getting around poverty as the explanation:

It is quite possible imo that they truly do believe the superstition, i.e. that it's not something they consciously made up as an excuse to get rid of the children but rather something that their mind made up for them, out of 'necessity'. So, while they did not wish to support these children, they would have, if it was not for the emergence of this supernatural excuse which they would not have had, if they were rational.
i.e. I'm claiming that real superstition on the part of these people was the key that led to their abandoning of these children, even though even without it they had no desire to look after them / merely felt obliged.

I.e. 1) These people had no desire to look after their children, so 2) their mind (the Freudian subconscious?) made up a lame excuse for them, which 3) would never have emerged if only they had been rational. Within the confines of that reality 4) they may have wished (!) that their situation would be different, but 5) in their actual situation they did not wish (!) to look after their children!

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

To make this piece of mind acrobatics work, you have to distinguish between two very different meanings of the word wish: when you wish within the confines of a certain reality (4), and when you wish within the confines of a certain situation (5). Within the confines of reality you can wish that your situation were different so you could take care of your children, but within the confines of the situation you don’t even wish to look after them! Brilliant!

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

So supernatural excuses can emerge, brought on by certain situations, but not conveniently? I don’t think that I ever use convenience as an argument, contrasting convenience with genuine belief! Apparently your argument rests on this distinction between convenient conscious excuses and genuinely supernatural excuses, which you truly do believe emerge only in ye weak in skeptical faith! Argument, please.

lol no, I never advocated ignoring the poverty.

But that’s what you do.

The poverty created the situation, however the superstition was a key necessary ingredient to make them abandon these kids.

So without superstition they would not have been able to make up a simple (!) excuse? Or at least not a supernatural one? And the ‘necessity’ would then no longer be a necessity:

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

No, they would probably have had a (psedo) rational excuse!

 

[dann]

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

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

Good for her and you! (No sarcasm!)

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

I don't know. Maybe a skeptic one?

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

Stigmatizing children is never a good idea. Pretending that they are the incarnation of evil (be that in religious or more secular terms, by poor or wealthy parents who may or may not threaten to or actually abandon them) is not a very nice thing to do, and it may damage them for life, in particular if they don't have anybody else to go to. OK?!
This is why I talked about "the added insult of being called witches".
However, there doesn't appear to be much chance of finding a foster home for the children Kinshasa where "an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home as practitioners of black magic".
However, you cannot really prevent this kind of abandonment or abuse by insisting on rational reasons for abandoning the children. It would not help a child to be turned out of its home accused of being extraordinarily clumsy or stupid!
In other words: Superstition or not is completely beside the point in this case.

 

[dann]

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

Since you don’t like the simple explanation that even the writer of the article in The Christian Science Monitor appears to present only to ignore it again and come up with a misleading title, you present us with a very convoluted way of getting around the problem of poverty as the explanation:

It is quite possible imo that they truly do believe the superstition, i.e. that it's not something they consciously made up as an excuse to get rid of the children but rather something that their mind made up for them, out of 'necessity'. So, while they did not wish to support these children, they would have, if it was not for the emergence of this supernatural excuse which they would not have had, if they were rational.
i.e. I'm claiming that real superstition on the part of these people was the key that led to their abandoning of these children, even though even without it they had no desire to look after them / merely felt obliged.

I.e. 1) These people had no desire to look after their children, so 2) their mind (the Freudian subconscious?) made up a lame excuse for them, which 3) would never have emerged if only they had been rational. Within the confines of that reality 4) they may have wished (!) that their situation would be different, but 5) in their actual situation they did not wish (!) to look after their children!

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

To make this piece of mind acrobatics work, you have to distinguish between two very different meanings of the word wish: when you wish within the confines of a certain reality (4), and when you wish within the confines of a certain situation (5). Within the confines of reality you can wish that your situation were different so you could look after your children, but within the confines of the situation you don’t even wish to look after them! Brilliant!

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

So supernatural excuses can emerge, brought on by certain situations, but not conveniently? I don’t think that I ever use convenience as an argument, contrasting convenientt superstitious excuses with genuine superstitious beliefs! Apparently your argument rests on this distinction between convenient superstitious excuses and genuine faith-based supernatural excuses, which you truly do believe emerge only in ye weak in skeptical faith!

lol no, I never advocated ignoring the poverty.

But that’s what you do.

The poverty created the situation, however the superstition was a key necessary ingredient to make them abandon these kids.

So without superstition they would not have been able to make up a simple excuse? Or could not have come up with the supernatural ones? And the ‘necessity’ would then no longer be a necessity:

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

 

[dann]

Since the article did not include a link, I was surprised to find out that the Christian Science Monitor is an online newspaper: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1130/p12s01-woaf.html
I find this excerpt very interesting:

How children get stigmatized
Many of the children at the center are like Frida Tshama. Orphaned at the age of 1, taken in by her grandmother and later, an aunt, Frida is a typical 13-year-old: bubbly, rambunctious, talkative. But when asked why she was thrown out of her house, two months ago, she gets teary and quiet.
"I was staying with my aunt, and one day I was cleaning the house, and a glass that was on the table fell and broke," she says. "My aunt asked me to get out of the house. If I stay, she will poison me."
For months, Frida survived by selling oranges in the Matete market, but came to the center a few weeks ago. An attempted reunification with Frida's family failed. Frida's grandmother said that Frida had stolen from her aunt. Her son-in-law said that if she took Frida back, the entire family would reject both Frida and the grandmother.

I don’t see any signs of superstition here. Interesting that Christians and skeptics alike focus only on the children accused of being witches when poverty, the question of survival, is the problem!

Peace has brought its own challenges, as refugee families flow into the capital, Kinshasa, and find they cannot feed themselves. Out of survival, many are using witchcraft as an excuse to expel their most vulnerable members: children.

And others simply use a broken glass ...

 

[dann]

Sorry about the double post above.

 

[athon]

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

Well I read it very differently. We'll just have to disagree there, but I can't help but feel a sense of paranoia in your argument.

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

Indeed it can. But while you readily accuse Dann of taking the high moral ground, you take it yourself quite readily. Superstitious thought is the result of accepting the beliefs of others without criticism. To criticise other's beliefs in a social group where the bonds between community members is necessary to survive is detrimental. Sure, it's easy for us to exist as individuals in a society which is affluent, so it's easy for us to define supertition as the result of laziness. But again, you're demonstrating a very narrow-minded point of view.

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

I don't disagree that supertition can be dangerous, especially in circumstances such as these. And I never said skeptics weren't congenial. However, is it better to see the problem in its complexity with an aim to solve it, or is it preferable to simplify it into an issue where people can simply choose to not accept supertitious beliefs? Because accepting the latter will get your nowhere.

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

Whoa there. First, point out where I said 'they should be allowed to fester'. Misrepresenting my argument won't get you anywhere, mate.

I said suggesting off the bat that they should simply abandon their beliefs is futile. It is. The groundwork for it must be established, which allows for education to take place. Here's an example; walking into a community and saying 'your witchdoctor is wrong' when the community is established on accepting as gospel the words of their elders will get you booted quick. Australian Indigenous communities are prime example of that. Sure, you can feel smugly satisfied that you offered them an education and they refused it, but you didn't solve the problem.

Rather, providing an infrastructure which is supportive of critical reasoning (which means addressing the issue of poverty) is paramount to placing value in such an education program.

Athon

 

[athon]

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

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

I disagree that superstition comes from fear. In part, it comes from socially significant beliefs. If others believe in it, then it must be true, otherwise you don't belong to the social group. In other part, it is the result of our pattern-making thinking skills. In both cases it is incorrect, but only because when it is addressed critically it fails to stand up to scrutiny. Hence it survives when people either lack the skill to use critical thinking and/or, importantly in this case, they can't afford to.

As to the second part of the question, you're ignoring the relationship between education and poverty.

Collectivist groups such as those in Africa rely on strong social ties. This is useful in situations of extreme poverty, where it is important that the community has a shared distribution of resources in order for it to remain strong. Critical thinking is a skill that is not only seen as unnecessary, but is detrimental to the individual, as it means that they will be ostracised from the group for not sharing beliefs.

If they have those skills and can use them, then they would be less likely to be collectivist, and would be an individualist social group which then subsequently faces poverty. In such situations, people will often band together into socially strong groups, again neglecting critical thinking.

Would 'educated' (i.e., critical thinking) people abandon their children if they found themselves in poverty? I doubt it, as they hopefully already possess those skills which critically address the belief. However, the poverty is linked with the lack of skill in the first place. The question is, how do you empower collectivist, impoverished communities with critical thinking when the very nature of the social group rejects such education?

Athon

 

[TheChadd]

you present us with a very convoluted way of getting around the problem of poverty as the explanation:

I'm not ignoring the poverty at all, I can see how poverty has fostered this situation where there are poor children etc

1) These people had no desire to look after their children,

Due to the circumstances of their reality... since you like to point out "Oh I'm sure they would desire to look after these children, if they could".

so 2) their mind (the Freudian subconscious?) made up a lame excuse for them

My simple distinction with the mind was to note that they probably have genuine belief that these kids are witches.

which 3) would never have emerged if only they had been rational.

Yes, if they weren't superstitious then they'd not imagine for a second that these kids are witches.

Within the confines of that reality 4) they may have wished (!) that their situation would be different, but 5) in their actual situation they did not wish (!) to look after their children!

That extra bit there, is really just point 1. All you've done is replaced my word 'wished' with 'desired' - In essence I can make the same claim as you did before, it's a problem with the language that I personally couldn't figure an easy way around.

To make this piece of mind acrobatics work, you have to distinguish between two very different meanings of the word wish:

And you've made the same mistake with your first point instead using the word desire. I could argue that they did desire to look after these kids etc etc

I'm sorry it comes off odd but if you can give me a sentence saying "They had no will/desire/wish to look after those kids" that simply eliminates one of the two posibilities I'll use that from now on

So supernatural excuses can emerge, brought on by certain situations, but not conveniently?.... Apparently your argument rests on this distinction between convenient superstitious excuses and genuine faith-based supernatural excuses, which you truly do believe emerge only in ye weak in skeptical faith!

My argument does rest on the assertion that these people aren't simply (at least most of them) lying i.e. They know these kids aren't witches.

So without superstition they would not have been able to make up a simple excuse?

They could, but the thing is I don't think they would have. I don't think the 'witch' claim is an 'excuse' to get rid of the kids, but a genuine belief that has led to their abandonning of these children.

Would 'educated' (i.e., critical thinking) people abandon their children if they found themselves in poverty? I doubt it, as they hopefully already possess those skills which critically address the belief. However, the poverty is linked with the lack of skill in the first place. The question is, how do you empower collectivist, impoverished communities with critical thinking when the very nature of the social group rejects such education?

I agree with you and as such I feel the people do have little blame for what they've done. It doesn't change the interest for skeptics, to see such things happening in absence of critical thinking, however it does mean no condemnations should be placed upon this community.

 

[athon]

I agree with you and as such I feel the people do have little blame for what they've done. It doesn't change the interest for skeptics, to see such things happening in absence of critical thinking, however it does mean no condemnations should be placed upon this community.

Personally, whenever the terms 'blame' and 'condemnation', and other such value judgements, come up in addressing a problem, I tend to walk out. Judging the values do nothing to understand how a problem came about.

I agree we - as skeptics - have an interest in how critical thinking can help these people. I spent time in the Indigenous communities in North Queensland this year, and asked myself how I could better teach the kids up there to be more critical. The thing is, one of the last remaining values they possess is the respect they have in the word of their elders. To encourage them to argue against it in favour of rationality might seem like the right thing to do, but without a supportive atmosphere any kid who was to do that would find themselves rejected from their social group.

Poverty is only one piece of this puzzle, but it is a significant one.

Athon

 

[Kopji]

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

The positive effect of laughter could probably be measured chemically if we knew how. If we could, would the ecstatic happiness of a Christian be measurably different than the yoga practitioners? I don't know, it seems like bias though.

I would say the difference is that some happiness is founded on a more nurturing or lasting foundation than other happiness. This does not make some happiness an illusion.

Superstition has an infectious quality about it that makes building a quality foundation for happiness difficult. It is a weakness rather than strength of character.

 

[Slimething]

Well I read it very differently. We'll just have to disagree there, but I can't help but feel a sense of paranoia in your argument.

I've dealt with many, many people like dann, in more public arenas than this one. Perhaps you haven't and that's very good for you. People without facts will often try to claim a superior moral stance to their opponent, especially if the forum is public. I prefer not to concede this, ever, as it's only a ruse. (Or, if I'm wrong, kindly point me to where dann has offered a solution to the problem.) My opinion on this topic is not a condemnation of the poor and suffering but a condemnation of an ignorant practice that will ultimately lead to additional tragedy.

So, you accuse me of paranoia? Whom do I fear? You? dann? Get a life!

But while you readily accuse Dann of taking the high moral ground, you take it yourself quite readily.

No, I don't. I just want my comments discussed on a factual, unemotional arena. I could not care less about the morality attached as that stuff is so arbitrary. Dann (and maybe you) don't want to argue the merits of discussing the foible of labeling kids witches but that's what I came here for, "mate".

But again, you're demonstrating a very narrow-minded point of view.

So, enlighten me. But keep your moral outrage out of it. I have no use for half-baked philosophy.

And I never said skeptics weren't congenial.

Ummm, yes you did.

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

Whoa there. First, point out where I said 'they should be allowed to fester'. Misrepresenting my argument won't get you anywhere, mate.

The tools provided in this forum make plain what is a direct quote and what is not. I wasn't quoting you directly, "mate". I was applying my own description of what you wrote in my own stylish manner. You said that the community would benefit from education but not to the point of challenging their superstitions. That, to me, is allowing those folk to fester in ignorance. Don't like the way I put it? Awww!

Here's an example; walking into a community and saying 'your witchdoctor is wrong' when the community is established on accepting as gospel the words of their elders will get you booted quick. Australian Indigenous communities are prime example of that. Sure, you can feel smugly satisfied that you offered them an education and they refused it, but you didn't solve the problem.

You're not a teacher, are you? 'S OK as neither am I but what you just described isn't what I would classify as "offering an education". You'd be just beggin' for an ass-whoopin'. So, get real.

Athon, this exchange is an example of the real danger in allowing an opponent in any debate, woo or not, try to pull this holier-than-thou bull and getting away with it. You, like a very nice person which I'm fairly sure you are, feel that you have to defend his/her/its position or be tarnished like the unfeeling, amoral ogre I am.

I've seen this crap before and I don't fall for it anymore. You can learn the hard way. Ta!

 

[athon]

I've dealt with many, many people like dann, in more public arenas than this one. Perhaps you haven't and that's very good for you. People without facts will often try to claim a superior moral stance to their opponent, especially if the forum is public. I prefer not to concede this, ever, as it's only a ruse. (Or, if I'm wrong, kindly point me to where dann has offered a solution to the problem.) My opinion on this topic is not a condemnation of the poor and suffering but a condemnation of an ignorant practice that will ultimately lead to additional tragedy.

Fine. I never suggested otherwise. But I do think you've oversimplified the matter by suggesting that dann remove poverty from the discussion as a key factor.

So, you accuse me of paranoia? Whom do I fear? You? dann? Get a life!

Your indication that dann is taking moral high ground feels paranoid. I don't see that he does.

No, I don't. I just want my comments discussed on a factual, unemotional arena. I could not care less about the morality attached as that stuff is so arbitrary. Dann (and maybe you) don't want to argue the merits of discussing the foible of labeling kids witches but that's what I came here for, "mate".

You seem to be doing a fine job of introducing emotions into this. I apologise for the use of my colloquial 'mate', as it seems to have upset you.

Discussing the fact that labelling kids as witches is detrimental is fine, however to dismiss the influence of poverty is narrow minded. The issue is more complex than being just about superstition; it's also about the reasons superstitious belief exists in such communities in the first place.

So, enlighten me. But keep your moral outrage out of it. I have no use for half-baked philosophy.

I'm at a loss to see where 'moral outrage' comes into it. The fact that skepticism often over simplifies the issue is not a moral judgement, but a practical one.

Ummm, yes you did.

Skeptics have a reputation for being smug and elitist, and I stand by this public perception. If you care to discuss that, start another thread to avoid derailing this one. Whether they truly are or not is another matter, and I never commented on that.

The tools provided in this forum make plain what is a direct quote and what is not. I wasn't quoting you directly, "mate". I was applying my own description of what you wrote in my own stylish manner. You said that the community would benefit from education but not to the point of challenging their superstitions. That, to me, is allowing those folk to fester in ignorance. Don't like the way I put it? Awww!

Well, your juvenile approach is noted. What was that you were saying about discussing this without emotion? Hmm...

Whether you were directly quoting or not, your summary of my position was misrepresentative. I'm not worried, as my argument stands for anybody who wishes to compare our views. But I do think it's poor argument on your behalf.

Again, my apologies for provoking you with the term 'mate'. It seems to be more offensive in your parts than in mine.

You're not a teacher, are you? 'S OK as neither am I but what you just described isn't what I would classify as "offering an education". You'd be just beggin' for an ass-whoopin'. So, get real.

Actually, I am. I've got quite a bit of experience in education in different parts of the world, including in impoverished, collectivist communities of remote Australia. So I am speaking from a position of experience and expertise, and not just of speculative opinion. And what I described as education is what often happened in the past; government and private (often missionary) imposed education programs often failed to make an impact as a direct result of a rejection by the community.

Athon, this exchange is an example of the real danger in allowing an opponent in any debate, woo or not, try to pull this holier-than-thou bull and getting away with it. You, like a very nice person which I'm fairly sure you are, feel that you have to defend his/her/its position or be tarnished like the unfeeling, amoral ogre I am.

I've seen this crap before and I don't fall for it anymore. You can learn the hard way. Ta!

Again, you seem more inclined to get heated over some 'holier than thou' argument than to address the facts. While there are some points of Dann's I disagree with, I feel he brought up an interesting point worth discussing; skeptics often attack superstitious beliefs in isolation from the circumstances in which they develop.

You've done little to argue against this, but have a whole lot of angst about some moral attack against skepticism, which I just don't see.

If you have something to say on your view addressing the influence of external social factors such as poverty in a discussion on superstition, then I'd love to hear it. My stance in this argument is that you cannot remove such issues from the discussion.

If you're happier ranting about moral high grounds, then please proceed, but I have nothing to contribute to such emotional ranting.

Athon

 

[dann]

Let us take a look at the argument in the second half of the article about Africans who refuse to grow up:

Another example from Africa:
In Zimbabwe, John Munkombwe, 29, has been charged with having sex three times with an under-age girl, and impregnating her. He offered the court the explanation that the girl had in fact slept with goblins. Munkombwe has denied the charge of statutory rape. He told the court:
I have been tried before in the chief's court but I have maintained my innocence, and I still deny the charges. I have heard it said that she was impregnated by goblins. I certainly don't know her.
What makes this of interest to us, is that Zimbabwe is a country steeped in supernatural beliefs. As evidence, consider that the country just recently changed their old colonial law to now recognize the existence of witchcraft. Folks, this is no way to join the community of international nations. This is not only standing still, it’s moving backward – rapidly.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-12/120806landmark.html#i11

What is the point here?
A man is charged with statutory rape. Not unlike most perpetrators in the enlightened world of industrialized countries with a market economy he denies the charges held against him. In case of actual rape the accused often use the she-made-me-do-it excuse, but since this guy is accused of having sex with and impregnating a minor, that is not an option and he resorts to the I-never-met-her-and-she-made-up-the-charges excuse instead. What made her do it and who is the lucky father? The goblins!!

What makes this case relevant to the skeptics? The same goblins!
If only John had said in court that he had sex with a minor because it was the rational thing to do, he would never have been quoted on a website for skeptics! Or if he had behaved like any other decent civilized rapist and accused the victim of being the one that seduced him (her provocative way of carrying a school bag) he would never have offered them this opportunity to point out that his country is not fit to join the community of civilized international nations whose rapists are able to distinguish between rational and superstitious excuses! (And, no, I don’t advocate rape, be it statutory or not.)

In a very disgusting case in Denmark right now a man in the town of Tønder is accused of abusing his two very young daughters (3 and 5 years old when it started) sexually and hiring one of them out to a number of men. Several have already been convicted. Today the headlines of one newspaper tells us that he is also a member of a cult of Satanists.
A few years ago Ole Wolf, the leader of this cult, lied about me and Claus Larsen in his Forum and prevented us from refuting the lies. His wife, Amina, also a leading member, complained about me in a letter to my employer because I had asked a student at my school, a satanist whom I knew as a very sensible young man in most respects, what (the hell) was wrong with these people.
Now, of course, they are very busy trying to distance themselves from the rapist in Tønder.

However, even though I have no reason to like any of these guys, I would not recommend that the Danish skeptics write an article linking Satanism with the incestuous rapist pimp in Tønder. Satanism is stupid enough as it is, and their particular brand of it is not any better than the rest, but it does not include raping children. Neither does superstition in Zimbabwe, I think, so why write an article linking the two just because a man accused of statutory rape uses a reference to witchcraft to get off the hook? And why use the patronizing headline Time to grow up? in an article about two incidents in Africa? To me it sounds too much like The White Man’s Burden ….

Unless, of course, James Randi makes up for it by writing an article in his newsletter on Friday, blaming Denmark that its laws and constitution recognize the existence of God and that the country thus does not really belong in a community of civilized nations.

By the way, this might even be one of the many points where he and I would tend to agree!

 

[dann]

My simple distinction with the mind was to note that they probably have genuine belief that these kids are witches.

And I agree. They probably do. But if you read the article, it becomes obvious that these people seem to lack food and a decent living, not excuses. When a broken glass suffices as an excuse to throw your children out of their home, superstition does not seem to be a very necessary ingredient!

Yes, if they weren't superstitious then they'd not imagine for a second that these kids are witches.

No, but abandoning children is possible without superstition. (And at least the poor child knows that it's not a witch. However, it does know that it broke the glass!)

That extra bit there, is really just point 1. All you've done is replaced my word 'wished' with 'desired' - In essence I can make the same claim as you did before, it's a problem with the language that I personally couldn't figure an easy way around.

No problem! They seem to be synonymous.

And you've made the same mistake with your first point instead using the word desire. I could argue that they did desire to look after these kids etc etc.

I'm sorry it comes off odd but if you can give me a sentence saying "They had no will/desire/wish to look after those kids" that simply eliminates one of the two posibilities I'll use that from now on

I do not think that this is a problem of language. It becomes apparent when you put it like this:

My argument does rest on the assertion that these people aren't simply (at least most of them) lying i.e. They know these kids aren't witches.

Yes, they do know that these kids aren't witches, but because witchcraft is accepted as an argument in this society, that is the excuse they decide to use in a situation of extreme poverty. The same way that they know that breaking a glass, in other circumstances, would never be reason enogh to abandon them.
Parents in our countries might have claimed that their children were either possessed by the devil or suffered from at genetic disorder: DAMP etc.
You seem to contradict yourself when you say this immediately after:

They could, but the thing is I don't think they would have. I don't think the 'witch' claim is an 'excuse' to get rid of the kids, but a genuine belief that has led to their abandonning of these children.

I agree with you and as such I feel the people do have little blame for what they've done. It doesn't change the interest for skeptics, to see such things happening in absence of critical thinking, however it does mean no condemnations should be placed upon this community.

I think that you probably should criticize these people: They are in a desperate situation, but it is still stupid to accuse their children of being witches. They may not see a way out of their problems, but superstition offers nothing but psychological relief. They should concentrate on what is wrong with the (market?) economy of their society, try to find some real answers: Why is it impossible for them to feed their children?
And this process might actually lead them to condemn their community in a rational fashion ...
Why are many people in developing countries poor?

 

[dann]

I've dealt with many, many people like dann, in more public arenas than this one. Perhaps you haven't and that's very good for you. (...) I've seen this crap before and I don't fall for it anymore. You can learn the hard way. Ta!

 

[dann]

The positive effect of laughter could probably be measured chemically if we knew how. If we could, would the ecstatic happiness of a Christian be measurably different than the yoga practitioners? I don't know, it seems like bias though.

To me both groups seem to be trying too hard to look happy. I don't think that people who are actually having fun look this way. But you're right that I don't have hard scientific evidence!

I would say the difference is that some happiness is founded on a more nurturing or lasting foundation than other happiness. This does not make some happiness an illusion.

The metaphor nurturing or lasting foundation of happiness doesn't do it for me. Sometimes very insignificant, superficial and fleeting things may make you happy. Why shouldn't they? The new-born Christian or the member of a yoga laughter club may even be happier than they were before they were before they were saved. I just think that it looks too much like hard work, too much like pretence, like shamming. (And it's not that hard work cannot sometimes make you happy when your enterprise is crowned with success.)

Superstition has an infectious quality about it that makes building a quality foundation for happiness difficult. It is a weakness rather than strength of character.

Well, it's probably not as infectious as a good laugh! Like James Randi says, they not only want to, they actually need to believe, but this need does not take away the effort that you have to put into maintaining a delusion! It is very hard work to convince yourself and others to believe nonsensical stuff! We have probably all tried it a couple of times: to maintain an illusion about something that we would not want to be the way that it happened to be, in the world of emotions, finance, politics or whatever.
Fooling yourself is not conducive to happiness, I think, but in a certain situation you may prefer it to the truth that scares you. I don't remember if you have the same saying in English that we have in cold Scandinavia, but it is a little like peeing yourself in order to keep warm!

 

[dann]

We have probably all tried it a couple of times

Let me rephrase that: With the exception of Slimething we have probably all tried it a couple of times!

 

[dann]

This weekend on CNN there was a programme, Happiness and Your Health: The Surprising Connection, featuring the extremely happy members of a laughter yoga club. Unfortunately I cannot find a link anywhere, but I can assure you that it made the difference between real and illusory happiness very obvious!

Now I've found it, Kopji! (My spelling did not make it easy: Heatlh - corrected in the quotation above)
This is the link to the programme on CNN Go down to: Web Extras --> The Power of Laughter.
But see for yourself/-selves: Do they seem happy to you?

 

[TheChadd]

Yes, they do know that these kids aren't witches, but because witchcraft is accepted as an argument in this society, that is the excuse they decide to use in a situation of extreme poverty. The same way that they know that breaking a glass, in other circumstances, would never be reason enogh to abandon them.
Parents in our countries might have claimed that their children were either possessed by the devil or suffered from at genetic disorder: DAMP etc.

It's possible that they do know they're not witches and they're merely using it as it's an excuse that will not be looked down upon by the social elite of their town (whether it be elders or just some popular clique) -- But there's really nothing imo to suggest that. From what we've been given I do think it's equally likely that they may truly believe they are witches.

You seem to contradict yourself when you say this immediately after:

Sorry, again not a contradiction but I guess a problem with language.

My argument does rest on the assertion that these people aren't simply (at least most of them) lying i.e. They know these kids aren't witches

The example was to explain what I mean by 'lying', not what my entire argument is. My argument is that they may think the kids are witches

I think that you probably should criticize these people: They are in a desperate situation, but it is still stupid to accuse their children of being witches.

Without access to proper education etc these are the sort of things that the human brain will naturally percieve - So I don't think it's stupid to accuse their children of being witches, just that most of them don't have the time to consider the question of whether this is true in any meaningful way.

They may not see a way out of their problems, but superstition offers nothing but psychological relief.

With this sentence you seem to be implying that they do believe in their superstition?

They should concentrate on what is wrong with the (market?) economy of their society, try to find some real answers: Why is it impossible for them to feed their children?

While I agree, I think it would be much harder to do that when you're struggling to live day by day.

 

[dann]

It's possible that they do know they're not witches and they're merely using it as it's an excuse that will not be looked down upon by the social elite of their town (whether it be elders or just some popular clique) -- But there's really nothing imo to suggest that. From what we've been given I do think it's equally likely that they may truly believe they are witches.

They are superstitious, they do believe in witches, and the excuses they come up with have to make sense to themselves as well as to others. These excuses just don't depend on their superstition, and skepticism would not help them out of their immediate predicament that makes them need excuses.

Without access to proper education etc these are the sort of things that the human brain will naturally perceive ...

Arrrgh, please do not make this distinction between them and their brains, minds etc. And please don't turn it into a question of nature. They may misinterpret things that a proper education would help them understand as coincidences, diseases caused by germs etc., but that does not make their superstition something that occurs naturally, sort of behind their backs.

- So I don't think it's stupid to accuse their children of being witches, ...

But they aren't witches, so it is stupid (and still not natural).

... just that most of them don't have the time to consider the question of whether this is true in any meaningful way.

Probably not a question of lack of time - based on the little I know about African countries. It just wouldn't make much practical difference since they cannot feed them anyway.

With this sentence you seem to be implying that they do believe in their superstition?

Never denied it, I hope!

While I agree, I think it would be much harder to do that when you're struggling to live day by day.

Definitely. Their conditions result in the need to believe, and they also do not have access to the luxury of scientific contemplation, which requires at least an analytical distancing yourself from the immediate problem facing you. This is something that is very hard to do in a situation that resembles an emergency.
This is the reason why we shouldn't simply demand that they "give up the illusion", but help them get rid of the "condition which needs illusions" - to quote my sig. Simply telling them to grow up is cynical, arrogant and thus stupid.