Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

[The Atheist]

It's been clearly established that JREF is not an atheist organisation.

The only thing I wonder is why not?

It seems quite futile to me to worry about what some penny-ante psychic is doing for $3-99 a minute when religions scam billions a year.

Given that religions teach belief in nonsense and superstition, should it not be seen as the prime target for a skeptical organisation?

I've seen Randi attack such harmless practices as dowsing while staying quiet on something which causes more trouble than probably every other form of pseudoscience and paranormalia added together.

Why is religion given a free pass by an organisation which claims to promote critical thinking?

 

[KingMerv00]

It seems quite futile to me to worry about what some penny-ante psychic is doing for $3-99 a minute when religions scam billions a year.

Given that religions teach belief in nonsense and superstition, should it not be seen as the prime target for a skeptical organisation?

I've seen Randi attack such harmless practices as dowsing while staying quiet on something which causes more trouble than probably every other form of pseudoscience and paranormalia added together.

Why is religion given a free pass by an organisation which claims to promote critical thinking?

It doesn't get a free pass. Randi attacks religious scams too. Peter Popoff for example. The JREF attacks religion when it makes testable claims or demands special benefits.

Dowsing is harmless?

 

[Nonpareil]

Because many of the posters here are not atheists? I get the feeling that many of the active Foundation members aren't either.

Wasn't the JREF founded to debunk paranormal claims? Unless religions makes specific, testable claims, there's nothing the JREF can do.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It's been clearly established that JREF is not an atheist organisation.

The only thing I wonder is why not?
Why is religion given a free pass by an organisation which claims to promote critical thinking?

First because it's not Randi's beef.
His beef has always been with stage magicians who claim "real" paranormal ability.

Second because it's American and America isn't ready for that yet.

Third, because it's American and JREF isn't ready for that yet. If JREF continues beyond the passing of Randi and the foundation generation, then I expect it will become more obviously atheist, or the majority of the members, associates and hangers-on will drift into humanist or more obviously non / anti religious groups.

Religion has two functions; one is the propagation of nonsense, the other a sort of social substrate. To dump one is to lose the other. We should keep what's worth keeping. It is not inconceivable that the sort of social networks now growing around organizations like JREF via the 'Net may be the future core of a replacement for that substrate.
In the JREF house are many mansions. If that changes, someone will let you know.

 

[Dunstan]

I think it's more a practical decision than anything else.

Religion is the 700-pound gorilla in the room. If the JREF made religious claims a top priority, then the prevalence of religious claims would mean the JREF spent most of its time dealing with them instead of other issues.

Which might be fine, but there's umpteen other atheist/humanist/secularist organizations out there filling that role. I'm not sure how much value the JREF would add to those efforts. It's not like the organization has any special expertise in dealing with (most) religious claims, whereas Randi's background at least gives it a leg up in dealing with many other claimants.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Because everyone believes in God when they are about to die.

There should be a 'tongue in cheek' smiley

 

[I Ratant]

Because everyone believes in God when they are about to die.

There should be a 'tongue in cheek' smiley

.
When sliding down the road having been spit off my motorcycle at 65 mph, my thought was "..... F......., I'm in for it now!"
That word is frequently the last one on cockpit voice recorders, just before impact, also.
ISTR that some of the deliberate crashes have references to some god or other, by the perpetrators.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

.
When sliding down the road having been spit off my motorcycle at 65 mph, my thought was "..... F......., I'm in for it now!"
That word is frequently the last one on cockpit voice recorders, just before impact, also.
ISTR that some of the deliberate crashes have references to some god or other, by the perpetrators.

I wish I could read what you wrote. I assume it's a reference to God.

 

[Fiona]

For certain kinds of conception, only

 

[Hallo Alfie]

For certain kinds of conception, only

Immaculate?

 

[Beanbag]

It's very simple: this is an inclusive group. People who espouse a particular religion are welcome here. The understanding is that you might get asked some pointed questions about your faith. Just as nonbelievers should understand that they themselves might (read that "will") get asked questions about their nonbelief. It's an equal-opportunity brawl, so to speak.

For one, I'm pretty proud of the way the forum and JREF operates, and feel honored to be allowed to take part. I've certainly learned a great deal here in the years I've been on board, and have changed a few long-held opinions based on my interactions here.

Warts and all, this place works pretty well AS LONG as you realize that your individual sacred cows might be considered a potential meal by other members. Fortunately, they're (usually) polite enough to ask permission first before firing up the grill.

Beanbag

 

[The Atheist]

It doesn't get a free pass. Randi attacks religious scams too. Peter Popoff for example. The JREF attacks religion when it makes testable claims or demands special benefits.

The vast majority of religion doesn't make testable claims in any form. It's kind of the whole point of religion.

Dowsing is harmless?

Yep.

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Just so you know, What's the Harm does list some harm done by dowsing, but the actual harms seem to be due to homeopathy, while a couple are irrelevant and one or two may have cost someone a small amount of money. I'd happily call that harmless.

Lot less harmful than drinking water.

Because many of the posters here are not atheists? I get the feeling that many of the active Foundation members aren't either.

I have no idea what foundation members are, but theists are few and far between on the forum, although there are a fair number of deists.

Wasn't the JREF founded to debunk paranormal claims? Unless religions makes specific, testable claims, there's nothing the JREF can do.

Why it was founded isn't all that relevant in light of the current position, which is: (taken direct from JREF)

Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.

Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

The bolded bits seem to include religion from where I read them. (bolding mine)

First because it's not Randi's beef.
His beef has always been with stage magicians who claim "real" paranormal ability.

I don't see that mentioned in the statement above.

Second because it's American and America isn't ready for that yet.

There are no atheist organisations in USA?

Third, because it's American and JREF isn't ready for that yet. If JREF continues beyond the passing of Randi and the foundation generation, then I expect it will become more obviously atheist, or the majority of the members, associates and hangers-on will drift into humanist or more obviously non / anti religious groups.

Is this a prediction? If so, maybe you should put it in the MDC forum.

Religion has two functions; one is the propagation of nonsense, the other a sort of social substrate. To dump one is to lose the other. We should keep what's worth keeping. It is not inconceivable that the sort of social networks now growing around organizations like JREF via the 'Net may be the future core of a replacement for that substrate.

This makes no sense to me, sorry.

JREF attacks dowsing, cryptozoology and lots of things which promote social groupings. Are you saying that religion should get a free pass because some parts of it are good? or that those other forms of stupid shouldn't be attacked because of their social value?

I think it's more a practical decision than anything else.

Religion is the 700-pound gorilla in the room. If the JREF made religious claims a top priority, then the prevalence of religious claims would mean the JREF spent most of its time dealing with them instead of other issues.

I don't see this is being right in any way.

First off, I don't imagine many [if any] religious claims would really be made, because failure might constitute a reason for people not to believe any more.

Secondly, have a look at what percentage of JREF's time and expenses are taken up by MDC claimants - very, very little, under the new rules. Religious claims would still need to meet those criteria, which would stop almost all attempted claims.

Which might be fine, but there's umpteen other atheist/humanist/secularist organizations out there filling that role. I'm not sure how much value the JREF would add to those efforts. It's not like the organization has any special expertise in dealing with (most) religious claims, whereas Randi's background at least gives it a leg up in dealing with many other claimants.

This seems to be saying it's too hard.

That may be fair comment, but then the mission statement above could be changed to reflect that.

 

[The Atheist]

It's very simple: this is an inclusive group. People who espouse a particular religion are welcome here. The understanding is that you might get asked some pointed questions about your faith. Just as nonbelievers should understand that they themselves might (read that "will") get asked questions about their nonbelief. It's an equal-opportunity brawl, so to speak.

You're referring to the forum, I'm discussing JREF.

 

[Dunstan]

I don't see this is being right in any way.

First off, I don't imagine many [if any] religious claims would really be made, because failure might constitute a reason for people not to believe any more.

Secondly, have a look at what percentage of JREF's time and expenses are taken up by MDC claimants - very, very little, under the new rules. Religious claims would still need to meet those criteria, which would stop almost all attempted claims.

When I used the word "claim" in my post, it was in the generic sense; I wasn't limiting it to the MDC. Substitute "issues" if you like.

Unfortunately, I can't really get into a detailed discussion of how the JREF's time and resources are spent because I don't really have good information on the subject -- which is and has been the topic of other threads.

But I do think that once you start getting significantly into religious issues, it will dominate the agenda. Woos already try to do this: I remember the CNN feature on Sylvia Browne in which her spokeswoman couldn't stop pointing out that Randi and RSL were ATHEISTS! ATHEISTS, I TELL YOU!!!!!

This seems to be saying it's too hard.

No, I meant just what I said -- that it's not a good use of JREF resources because there is little it can do that the many larger atheist organizations can't. Might as well focus one's efforts on where you can do the most good.

That may be fair comment, but then the mission statement above could be changed to reflect that.

I suppose so, but that seems awfully nitpicky to me. If a restaurant has a mission statement of "providing good food to our customers," I'm not going to complain that they don't serve sushi, and damn it, sushi is good food, so they better amend their mission statement to "providing good food not including sushi" or "providing some types of good food," etc. (And really, who reads mission statements? Other than you, obviously!)

Besides, I do think it would be problematic to specifically exempt religious claims from the JREF's mission.

I think that within that broad mission statement it's fine to focus on particular areas where the JREF has something useful to contribute, where people are more open to persuasion, that are topical and relevant, etc. (On that last point: one of the reasons I stopped reading Randi's commentaries a while ago was that I was incredibly bored with his never-ending feud with Uri Geller. I get why it matters to Randi, but I doubt that many people under the age of 60 even know who Uri is any more, let alone pay attention to him.)

 

[LibraryLady]

The vast majority of religion doesn't make testable claims in any form. It's kind of the whole point of religion.



Yep.

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary [that dowsing is harmful]*.

*snip*.

Here you go.


*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

 

[Nonpareil]

I have no idea what foundation members are, but theists are few and far between on the forum, although there are a fair number of deists.

I'm pretty sure that Darth Rotor is some Christian denomination, as is Maia. I know for a fact that Kurse and Arkyrion are both Christians - AvalonXQ as well, even though he's not here at the moment. I'm pretty sure that there are more.

Why it was founded isn't all that relevant in light of the current position, which is: (taken direct from JREF)

The bolded bits seem to include religion from where I read them. (bolding mine)

They could apply to religion, yes, but again, most religions don't make concrete claims. We can debunk their arguments for the existence of god, yes, and show that prayer has no effect, but if they choose to believe nonetheless... not much we can do.

 

[godofpie]

First because it's not Randi's beef.
His beef has always been with stage magicians who claim "real" paranormal ability.

Second because it's American and America isn't ready for that yet.

Third, because it's American and JREF isn't ready for that yet. If JREF continues beyond the passing of Randi and the foundation generation, then I expect it will become more obviously atheist, or the majority of the members, associates and hangers-on will drift into humanist or more obviously non / anti religious groups.

Religion has two functions; one is the propagation of nonsense, the other a sort of social substrate. To dump one is to lose the other. We should keep what's worth keeping. It is not inconceivable that the sort of social networks now growing around organizations like JREF via the 'Net may be the future core of a replacement for that substrate.
In the JREF house are many mansions. If that changes, someone will let you know.

Well said. Since becoming a member of the JREF just a little over a year ago, SS's prediction is exactly the direction I see the JREF headed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

Purely practical political pandering.

 

[KingMerv00]

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Just so you know, What's the Harm does list some harm done by dowsing, but the actual harms seem to be due to homeopathy, while a couple are irrelevant and one or two may have cost someone a small amount of money. I'd happily call that harmless.

Here you go.


*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

LL stole my idea.

Also, all money spent on dowsing is wasted money. That's harm, right?

 

[plumjam]

Also, all money spent on dowsing is wasted money. That's harm, right?

No. Money spent on dowsing is helpful in the area of well-being.

 

[KingMerv00]

No. Money spent on dowsing is helpful in the area of well-being.

Just a font of puns aren't you?

 

[The Atheist]

When I used the word "claim" in my post, it was in the generic sense; I wasn't limiting it to the MDC. Substitute "issues" if you like.

Ok, I was thinking of claims in a JREF/challenge sense.

What kind of issues do you mean then?

I wouldn't suggest it immediately turns into a Dawkin-esque entity whose sole purpose is to destroy religion - I probably could have been clearer myself.

Skeptigirl is largely right; it's a politically-correct thing more than anything else. I was more thinking along the lines of just an attitudinal - and public - shift from claiming it isn't atheist. It's not even compulsory for atheists to attack churches, as the London Bus campaign showed.

But I do think that once you start getting significantly into religious issues, it will dominate the agenda. Woos already try to do this: I remember the CNN feature on Sylvia Browne in which her spokeswoman couldn't stop pointing out that Randi and RSL were ATHEISTS! ATHEISTS, I TELL YOU!!!!!

Aside from failing to see how that would be a bad thing - people might think, "Hell that JREF is one smart organisation, maybe I should investigate my beliefs" - it seems far too much like caving in to religious pressure for my liking.

No, I meant just what I said -- that it's not a good use of JREF resources because there is little it can do that the many larger atheist organizations can't. Might as well focus one's efforts on where you can do the most good.

Covered by my response above.

I suppose so, but that seems awfully nitpicky to me. If a restaurant has a mission statement of "providing good food to our customers," I'm not going to complain that they don't serve sushi, and damn it, sushi is good food, so they better amend their mission statement to "providing good food not including sushi" or "providing some types of good food," etc. (And really, who reads mission statements? Other than you, obviously!)

I actually only read it before I started the thread.

What made me think of it was a statement again - yes, by you, Unrepentant, you old christian hugger you - I saw recently that "The Jref is not...."

I think your analogy doesn't fit the situation at all.

I'll give what I think is a similar case: a Kiwi freezing works/abbatoir has told farmers that it will not kill its animals using halal methods, which many farmers consider inhumane.

Accordingly, their kill rate has gone up massively as farmers choose them over other works where the killing is done by halal methods.

Right or wrong, they're taking a stand.

Besides, I do think it would be problematic to specifically exempt religious claims from the JREF's mission.

Why do you think they would need to be different?

I think that within that broad mission statement it's fine to focus on particular areas where the JREF has something useful to contribute, where people are more open to persuasion, that are topical and relevant, etc.

Religion infecting 80-90% of Americans isn't topical or relevant?

Here you go.

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of "dowsing", in my opinion.

I'm no fan of dictionaries, but if you can show just one recognisable dictionary which lists "locating bombs" as a meaning for dowsing, I'll believe ya.

*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

That quite often happens.

I'm pretty sure that Darth Rotor is some Christian denomination,...

He is too!

My god, do you think he knows I'm an atheist? Surely not!


Crikey, of all the people on the forum, Darth is the one bloke who's actually invited me to sit down and have a beer (and almost-dead cow) with him. Do you think he might change his tune if he finds out I'm an atheist.

Holy crap, I gotta go change my name, toot-sweet!

...as is Maia. I know for a fact that Kurse and Arkyrion are both Christians - AvalonXQ as well, even though he's not here at the moment. I'm pretty sure that there are more.

You know, the darnedest thing is, I know members here who genuinely believe that sasquatch exists. One of 'em, now banned but still online at his bigfoot forum, and who is also devout Catholic is another bloke who has invited me into his home.

What is your point?

Did you think I was advocating making them wear a crucifix and turning down their membership?

They could apply to religion, yes, but again, most religions don't make concrete claims.

Yeah, I said that.

We can debunk their arguments for the existence of god, yes,...

Can you? Jeez, you must be a smart bloke, because I'm an atheist and I wouldn't know where to begin to debunk the existence of god/s. All I do is not believe any of it. I can debunk the OT and most of the bible, but I certainly can't disprove doctrine of major religions.

Can you give me some tips?

...and show that prayer has no effect, but if they choose to believe nonetheless... not much we can do.

Well, I don't think we can do that either at this stage. There is some evidence that the positive effect of prayer might actually work! I happen to think that's a purely physical phenomenon, but the point of delusions is that they're comforting.

Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

Purely practical political pandering.

Correct! Thanks for that.

LL stole my idea.

Also, all money spent on dowsing is wasted money. That's harm, right?

Compared to tithing 10% of ones income to a church?

Come on, mate, that's not clutching at straws, that's just not there. How much money gets spent on dowsing a year compared to religion? 0.00000000001%?

 

[Dunstan]

Ok, I was thinking of claims in a JREF/challenge sense.

What kind of issues do you mean then?

Not to be evasive, but I'd turn that question back to you: what does it mean to you for the JREF to be an "atheist organisation"?

But to be fair, here's my stab at it. I can think of the following potential meanings:

1. JREF membership is open to atheists only.

Rather implausible. Even under the current position, it's not like you have to sign an oath declaring oneself woo-free to be a member of the JREF. Basically, fill out a form and pony up the cash, and you too can declare yourself a JREF member. Sylvia Browne, John Edward, and Uri Geller could become JREF members, unless an alert staff member noticed the names and flagged them. Actually, I wonder what would happen even then. As Penn Jillette noted, "everybody's got a gris-gris," and the usual mantra around here is that critical thinking is a process rather than a set of positions. If Christians can be JREF members despite the lack of evidence for the divinity of Jesus, why can't the aforementioned be members? (Ok, Randi personally or Jeff Wagg or someone would probably step in, but on what principled basis could they be denied?)

2. The JREF does not accept the validity of any god claims.

Well, in this sense, the JREF would already be an atheist organisation. Presumably Randi hasn't accepted the validity of any god claim, or he wouldn't call himself an athiest, and as far as I know the JREF as an organisation has not done so either.

3. The JREF adheres to an atheist viewpoint.

Probably also true. Let's dispense with the tedious objections that there is no "atheist viewpoint." Define it as "the view that there is inadequate evidence for claims of the existence of any deity." In other words, the JREF is an atheist organisation in the sense that it is an a-dowsing viewpoint, etc.

4. The JREF actively promotes an atheist viewpoint.

(Again, see above re definition of "atheist viewpoint.") I concede that I long ago stopped following the "The JREF is not an atheist organisation" thread, but it's my understanding that this is where the real fight is. You don't have to sign on to the "no god" conclusion to join or support JREF any more than you have to sign on to a "no psychics" or "no ghosts" conclusion -- and the JREF itself takes no official position on the issue, any more than it declares that there are no psychics or no ghosts. There's a certain degree of coyness involved, of course. Randi will happily tell you that he keeps an "open mind" when the 10,000th person tells him she can dowse, but he'll add with a twinkle in his eye that he's not expecting to have to turn over the million any time soon. And religious claims don't get singled out for attention in the same way that other claims do, probably for the reasons you and skeptigirl call cowardly, and others call pragmatic, and I think are probably a little of both.

I wouldn't suggest it immediately turns into a Dawkin-esque entity whose sole purpose is to destroy religion - I probably could have been clearer myself.

I think Dawkins and the RDF might quibble with that account, too!

Skeptigirl is largely right; it's a politically-correct thing more than anything else. I was more thinking along the lines of just an attitudinal - and public - shift from claiming it isn't atheist. It's not even compulsory for atheists to attack churches, as the London Bus campaign showed.

With all the usual caveats about slippery slope arguments: where do you draw the line? Should the JREF take a position on global warming? On the desirability of the gold standard? On New Zealand's inferiority in cricket?

I think it's a tough question, actually. One of the reasons I don't embrace the "skeptic" label is that I think it's used in an oh-so-cute way. Saying that you go where the evidence leads puts you squarely with 95% of the population, because practically everybody thinks that. The folks who belong to "skeptical" organisations or web forums have a lot more in common than that, though they of course don't have everything in common, as even a cursory visit here would confirm.

Aside from failing to see how that would be a bad thing - people might think, "Hell that JREF is one smart organisation, maybe I should investigate my beliefs" - it seems far too much like caving in to religious pressure for my liking.

I prefer to think of it as horses for courses. Here in the U.S., the ACLU helps safeguard separation of church and state, though it is not an atheist organisation and in fact also helps protect the right to free exercise of religion. The National Committe for Science Education fights to protect the teaching of evolution in classrooms and fend off the efforts of creationists and ID'ers, and is happy to enlist theists like Kenneth Miller or several of the Dover plaintiffs in that role. I don't really have a problem with the JREF saying "we believe in critical thinking and having evidence for your claims, and while that applies to religious claims too, it's not our focus," because I think that's a role that needs to be filled, while the role of taking on religious claims can be filled by other people and organisations. All of whom I can and at various times have supported.

 

[AdinDraco]

I think it's more a practical decision than anything else.

Religion is the 700-pound gorilla in the room. If the JREF made religious claims a top priority, then the prevalence of religious claims would mean the JREF spent most of its time dealing with them instead of other issues.

Which might be fine, but there's umpteen other atheist/humanist/secularist organizations out there filling that role. I'm not sure how much value the JREF would add to those efforts. It's not like the organization has any special expertise in dealing with (most) religious claims, whereas Randi's background at least gives it a leg up in dealing with many other claimants.

I think that this sums it up best. I'm atheist and can be "militant" about it, and I kind of agree with some who wish that skeptics would be equally skeptical about religious beliefs...but...the JREF has a focus which is sorely needed in today's world and I'm ok with them not diluting their efforts. Every skeptical, atheist, humanist etc organisation has one or more focuses and that's cool. Priorities may change over time as personel and society norms change, but that's why we're here ain't it? Now I'm off to the Evidence that the new testament writers told the truth thread to perch, vulture-like, to admire the carnage.

 

[rjh01]

There is no need for JREF to declare itself an atheist organisation. When JREF sees that religion is doing some harm or making stupid claims then it has criticized them for it. Do a search in SWIFT on religion and you will find heaps of articles. Here is a recent one http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/686-the-dark-side-of-religion.html

Edit. Search on religion http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/search/religion.html?ordering=&searchphrase=all

 

[The Atheist]

-- and the JREF itself takes no official position on the issue, any more than it declares that there are no psychics or no ghosts.

Yet, the encyclopedia of hoaxes, supernatural, frauds, etc quite happily says they're hoaxes while I can't find "religion", "god", Yahweh or any other god mentioned in it.

I think your option 2 is the important one - just being seen to be atheist.

With all the usual caveats about slippery slope arguments: where do you draw the line? Should the JREF take a position on global warming?

Absolutely!

In the scheme of things, that's possibly by miles the most important issue on earth, so it most definitely should. As has been said by many far smarter people than me, the science is solid on it, and I'd expect JREF to be firmly in the camp of that science.

Think about 9/11 claims. They take an enormous amount of effort, yet they're irrelevant - little boys with littler you-know-whats not allowed to play cowboys and indians any more, so play NWO and Illuminati instead. In JREF terms, 9/11 has been featured in both Swift and TAM, so it certainly features.

How about moon hoaxers. What harm do they do? Yet, they're attacked, and no doubt will be more with Plait becoming CEO.

On the desirability of the gold standard?

Possibly not that one.....

On New Zealand's inferiority in cricket?

Now you're asking for trouble!

I prefer to think of it as horses for courses. Here in the U.S., the ACLU helps safeguard separation of church and state, though it is not an atheist organisation and in fact also helps protect the right to free exercise of religion. The National Committe for Science Education fights to protect the teaching of evolution in classrooms and fend off the efforts of creationists and ID'ers, and is happy to enlist theists like Kenneth Miller or several of the Dover plaintiffs in that role. I don't really have a problem with the JREF saying "we believe in critical thinking and having evidence for your claims, and while that applies to religious claims too, it's not our focus," because I think that's a role that needs to be filled, while the role of taking on religious claims can be filled by other people and organisations. All of whom I can and at various times have supported.

Try this on for size:

If atheism is seen as "evil" by religionistas, then maybe a moderate organisation being openly atheist but not attacking religion a la Dawkins, might actually encourage theists to accept that atheism need not be a dogma.

Wouldn't that be a good thing?

There is no need for JREF to declare itself an atheist organisation. When JREF sees that religion is doing some harm or making stupid claims then it has criticized them for it. Do a search in SWIFT on religion and you will find heaps of articles. Here is a recent one http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/686-the-dark-side-of-religion.html

Edit. Search on religion http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/search/religion.html?ordering=&searchphrase=all

Even other religions are capable of crapping all over Benny Hinn and Fred Phelps.

Those links seem to mainly focus on the loony fringe of religion.

If you want to look at the "harm" angle solely, why then do dowsing and moon hoaxers feature in JREF's sights? Where's the harm in them?

 

[rjh01]

<snip>
Those links seem to mainly focus on the loony fringe of religion.

If you want to look at the "harm" angle solely, why then do dowsing and moon hoaxers feature in JREF's sights? Where's the harm in them?

The harm in dowsing has already been answered in this post.

Here you go.


*Sorry to change your quote, but it didn't make sense otherwise.

Cannot find much in SWIFT on the moon hoax. Mentioning the moon hoax is one way of teaching about critical thinking. I am sure others will come up with better reasons.

 

[Mojo]

It's been clearly established that JREF is not an atheist organisation.

The only thing I wonder is why not?

To give concern trolls something to do.

 

[The Atheist]

The harm in dowsing has already been answered in this post.

Where was that, mate?

I saw LL's post, but I don't see that as dowsing, and the financial harm has to be something very, very small. I'd vote parking meters do more financial harm than dowsing.

Cannot find much in SWIFT on the moon hoax. Mentioning the moon hoax is one way of teaching about critical thinking.

You don't think religion might serve that purpose? It'd tie nicely into why we are conditioned to believe, social constructs, the origins of mythology and lots of things the JREF is passionate about. It seems like something ideally suited to the purpose of JREF.

But heck, I'm an official enema [sic] of JREF, so how would I know?

I am sure others will come up with better reasons.

Could do.

Certainly not this one:

To give concern trolls something to do.

Coming from a chick with 14,000 posts, that's pretty funny.

Much better than trying to answer the question.

Well played.

 

[Mojo]

Much better than trying to answer the question.

The question has already been answered. Read the thread.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I'm not sure what the OP's beef is, here.

The JREF is not an atheist organization any more than it is an "a-life-on-Mars" organization. There is a copious absence of evidence, so to specific religious claims or issues raised, if an 'official' answer is given, it is "there's not evidence" or, in the case of something like the Virgin Mary in the Potato Salad, "here's a mundane explanation that would suffice with no supernatural entities needed".

Theism, per se, has no testable claims--assuming it's the rather standard outside-the-Universe Creator-type God. Specific religions *may*, or my not, have testable claims. And in as much as the JREF has taken a position on the subject of God(s) it is that there is no evidence...

You seem to be agitated because the JREF hasn't chosen to attack belief in god(s) per se as being wrong. There are lots of wrong-headed ideas that are not attacked, and some are very common: breaking a mirror brings 7 years bad luck; putting your baseball cap on inside-out will help your team win games; congressmen know the content of bills before they vote on them, etc. The JREF is not going to tackle every irrational belief, especially those that in most cases have no significant impact on the life of those who hold them.

You made the statement that religion defrauds people of their money. Does it? I know of no church that says the money given to them goes to God or any of his angels / consorts / co-Trinitarians. The money goes to the church to do its activities, which include holding services, buying music for the choir, maintaining its building(s), and generally also a fair bit of charity/good works for members and nonmembers as well. As one with a child in a private school, I can tell you that while it's expensive, I consider it worthwhile for the benefits it provides--not just to my child, but to the community it is in. I belong to my local zoological society for the same reason, even though we rarely visit the zoo. In part because of their tax-exempt status, churches tend to be fairly efficient at providing charitable services. It is not necessarily true that people are being bilked out of money in return for nothing, even if there is no Big Guy In The Sky.

JREF is, as someone else mentioned above, not an organization focussed on specific beliefs, but rather on ways of thinking. The education you can get from being associated with JREF and using its resources is about how to examine ideas--hypotheses, suggestions, web videos, health claims, or what the guy next door tells you--to consider how likely they are to be true; how to research for evidence supporting or denying the idea in question; how to validate the source(s) of information; how to logically consider someones argument(s) for fallacies. Skepticism is not a set of beliefs, it is an approach to assessing things.

I echo the call for clarification on what you mean by an "atheist organization" because I sense what you are really saying is, Why doesn't the JREF attack religion per se or churches per se or belief in any god(s)? To which the answer is, there are more important fish to fry. If someone learns how to examine their beliefs, to weigh evidence and to look for mundane explanations, they are going to most likely reject religion for the same reason they are likely to reject ghost hunters.

The exception might be for someone who has had an emotional or 'spiritual' experience that makes them think they have had some form of contact with their god(s)...in which case, there is nothing to dispute. They have chosen to assign an explanation to that experience that you disagree with; that is their right. But you can no more prove that it was *not* the touch of the Divine on their soul than they can prove it was. All you can do is argue that there is no objective evidence; and if they say, "I think my subjective evidence is enough" then it is as honest and personal a belief as whom you choose to love.

If someone's religious belief leads them to take actions I find objectionable, I will protest the actions; if they try to use the State to enforce my obeying the tenets or ceremonies of their religion, I will fight that with all my might. But I can't say, "You don't feel God in your heart" any more than I can say, "You don't like sex in the male-dominant position." It is purely their personal assessment of what turns their crank, and as such it falls into the realm of taste, not fact.

De gustibus non est disputandum which is normally translated, "There's no accounting for taste" actually means, "Taste is not subject to logical debate". It is a concise statement of a fact of discourse. You can't argue "pork is a better tasting meat than turkey" as a matter of fact. Preferences fall into the area of subjective experience, in which only the person having the experience is competent to judge. Belief in some kind of god--out there, somewhere, not specifically or personally involved in violating the laws of Physics--is like preferring pork.

When a specific religious claim is made that is demonstrably injuring people, it can be and often is, taken up by JREF as a subject for debunking. But belief in a deity per se is not necessarily something done in defiance of thought or logic. Hal Bidlack wrote a beautiful piece where he gave an eloquent example of the sort of 'just there somewhere, more than just physics' that is entirely reasonable for someone whose life experience makes that appropriate.

So, to summarize: specific religious claims,as "Prayer helps people heal faster" are open to dispute, refutation, and argument. JREF may and often does focus on such specific real-world claims. Specific religious practices, such as wearing particular clothing on certain days, are generally not. Not because religion is somehow 'off limits' socially, but simply because it falls outside the purview of skepicism.

Forgive my long-windedness, it's very late as I'm writing. But I thought your attack was misguided, and wanted to explain my views as clearly as possible.

Thoughtfully, Miss_Kitt

ETA -- Dowsing is a method of detecting things, such as water, ore, lost objects, missing persons -- and using the movement of wires to detect explosives is indeed a form of dowsing. And since Iraq's government has spent millions of dollars, much of it US aid money, on this instead of actual functioning methods of finding bombs, it does indeed have a high cost in both money and lives.

 

[Mojo]

It's been clearly established that JREF is not an atheist organisation.

The only thing I wonder is why not?

OK, let's look at this again.

First, it has not been demonstrated that JREF believes in god(s).

Oh, hang on: you're using the definition of "atheism" as a belief system that is so beloved of religious apologists, for example when they point to overtly religious charities and then say that there aren't "atheist" charities doing "good works".

What you mean by "atheist" is "explicitly anti-religious". It isn't the same thing.

The JREF is a secular organisation. It certainly doesn't give religion a free pass, when it makes claims that infringe on reality. Check out Swift for mentions of bleeding statues, "faith" healers, or creationism.

The JREF may even be secularist. However, what should a secularist organisation in the US campaign for? An amendment to the constitution to prevent the establishment of a state religion? The removal of the 16 unelected bishops in the Senate?

Basically, you're objecting because the JREF doesn't follow your personal agenda.

 

[rjh01]

LL post was to a link to a device used in Iraq to detect bombs. The device is a type of divining rod. Here is a quote from it.

The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board” — the power of suggestion — said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.

 

[laca]

Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of "dowsing", in my opinion.

Stretching? In what way? A divining rod that is used to "find stuff" fits the definition of a dowsing rod quite nicely.

 

[zooterkin]

Coming from a chick with 14,000 posts, that's pretty funny.

Mojo is a chick? Blimey, she hides it well.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

You know, I was just thinking to myself, "Self," I said to myself, "there just aren't enough atheist organizations in the USA. Sure, there's the Secular Coalition for America and its member groups American Atheists, the American Ethical Union, the American Humanist Association, Atheist Alliance International, Camp Quest, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, the Secular Student Alliance, and the Society for Humanistic Judaism, not to mention the United Coalition of Reason, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and Sam Harris' Reason Project, but if only we had one more group, maybe one that already has a clear-cut mission and very specific activities, and made that an atheist group, too, then we might have enough atheist groups."

Welp... I wasn't actually thinking that. I was thinking more along the lines that there actually are already enough atheist groups, and changing one of the only groups, if not the only group, that studies and exposes claims of the paranormal is not going to do anything meaningful or helpful for atheists or anyone else.

To the OP: If atheism is what you're after, there's an abundance of organizations to fulfill your most godless dreams. (Least godly?) I can't think of another nonprofit organization that does what JREF does. I can't see any benefit to changing JREF's mission or activities, especially since there are so many national and local groups for atheists already.

Maybe you should examine some of them more closely to see which of them hates God more or pickets churches or hosts debates or does whatever you seek in an atheist group. Hell, you could even join them, and maybe even volunteer. But trying to change the mission of an existing group sure seems like a waste of energy. It's not as if there's a shortage of atheism, or atheist organizations, these days.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Why is religion given a free pass by an organisation which claims to promote critical thinking?

Perhaps because it isn't? One of Randi's most famous exposures was of a preacher.

 

[Darat]

...snip... And religious claims don't get singled out for attention in the same way that other claims do, probably for the reasons you and skeptigirl call cowardly, and others call pragmatic, and I think are probably a little of both.

...snip...

But they do get "singled" out - look at the "John of God" stuff, Peter Popoff, weeping statues and the like and Randi has never been coy about his views of religion. Here is an extract from a 2000 commentary that I think summarises his and the JREF's take on tackling "religion":

http://www.randi.org/jr/05-07-2000.html

...snip...
Fear and Trepidation

I have received an e-mail posting that I will share here with you, along with my response, so that you may have a clearer picture of the kind of traffic I get every day. In general, we do not handle religious matters at JREF - except where direct evidence is offered for examination. We would certainly look into weeping statues, claims of faith-healing, and such things as the Shroud of Turin. Religion seldom offers any sort of evidence to examine, and is a matter of philosophy rather than science. I am appalled by the contents of this letter, and perhaps you'll see that my response reflects this dismay.......

Dear Mr. Randi, I think you misunderstand where the believer is coming from. If I unwittinglyaccept something as fact on the basis of faulty evidence, that is bad science. But if I willingly accept something as fact, despite understanding that all available evidence is to the contrary, that is faith. I understand that the creation account of Genesis cannot be reconciled with science. All scientific evidence is to the contrary. Nevertheless, I choose to believe it anyway. Why? Because I believe that willful disbelief is a grounds for damnation. I believe, even though I know I will never understand. From time to time, all believers have their doubts, just as all believers also face temptation. Yes, I occasionally have my doubts about creation. But I simply refuse to entertain or pursue those doubts. I am not responsible for my doubt; doubt is merely a form of temptation. I am held responsible, however, if I take that doubt to the next level, through reading or research. The Holy Spirit is responsible for what is in my heart; I am merely responsible for abstaining from the conduct of disbelief. This path of faith, far from making me stupid, actually enhances my character, precisely because it is such a hard path. It is my sincerest hope that a way can be found to teach the useful parts of science, such as biology and medicine, without teaching anything about evolution. Perhaps my children will want to become doctors and minister to the physical needs of their fellow-man, without compromising their life-giving faith or their own salvation. Every day, as a computer programmer, I work with Hindus from India. Despite their education and intelligence, they do not consider themselves too good to give their gods absolute devotion. (And their gods don't even exist!) Why, then, do we consider ourselves too good to give our God absolute devotion? Are we a less faithful race or nation? Let us direct our eyes to the practical applications of technology, and avert our eyes from the scandalous stuff that undermines the fabric of social faith and human dignity. Thank you, (name withheld).

Note that the writer has no doubt whatsoever theabout the non-existence of Hindu gods, and obviously accepts the existence of his personal god. My response follows:

Sir: You wrote, " . . . if I willingly accept something as fact, despite understanding that all available evidence is to the contrary, that is faith." I would define this either as obstinacy or "blind faith." Much more accurately, considering the rest of your posting, I would define it as a fear response. Again, quoting you, "I understand that the creation account of Genesis cannot be reconciled with science. All scientific evidence is to the contrary. Nevertheless, I choose to believe it anyway. Why? Because I believe that willful disbelief is a grounds for damnation. I believe, even though I know I will never understand." You have chosen to conduct your life from a condition of abject fear of damnation, which I find totally unacceptable for myself. Any god who demands that I stop thinking -- after having equipped me with the means to do so -- is a vindictive, cruel, vengeful, deity. I'll have no part of that. I know you're convinced that you're right -- and you MUST think that way, because you're afraid. Well, I'm not afraid, particularly of a savage mythology that I believe was developed by a religious hierarchy that has tried for generations to keep us under their huge collective thumb -- obviously with some success, judging from your fearful declaration. I simply cannot understand how a person with the ability to reason, can be so afraid to do so. But those who want to control you have been successful, and you'll go to your grave trembling in fear. I leave you to that.
James Randi

...snip...

 

[Nonpareil]

Can you? Jeez, you must be a smart bloke, because I'm an atheist and I wouldn't know where to begin to debunk the existence of god/s. All I do is not believe any of it. I can debunk the OT and most of the bible, but I certainly can't disprove doctrine of major religions.

What, you mean you can't disprove the flood? The garden? Whatever? The argument from first cause gives you trouble? Pascal's wager seems like sound reasoning?
Hint: look for circular logic, special pleading and bare assertion in whatever theological arguments are put forth. They're usually very obvious - first cause is a good example.

Well, I don't think we can do that either at this stage. There is some evidence that the positive effect of prayer might actually work!

No, there isn't. The only thing it does is a placebo effect.

I happen to think that's a purely physical phenomenon, but the point of delusions is that they're comforting.

Hence, placebo effect.

 

[LibraryLady]

*snip*


Streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the meaning of "dowsing", in my opinion.

I'm no fan of dictionaries, but if you can show just one recognisable dictionary which lists "locating bombs" as a meaning for dowsing, I'll believe ya.


*snip*

I'm not at work, so don't have access to a lot of dictionaries right now, but if you google dowsing and bombs, it appears that a lot of people are calling this dowsing. While I agree that a lot of people calling something a name does not make the name correct, the description of a metal rod which is supposed to sense something unseen with no scientific evidence that it does so, fits the bill:

Dowsing is a divination method used to locate water or metals with sticks or rods ("divining rods"). It has also been called "water witching" and "rhabdomancy"

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Dowsing