Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, in support of my position that atheism is a conclusion (the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition), I have pointed out that it's possible for someone to be an atheist for reasons other than skepticism. Imagine a person who suffers from the delusion that he was abducted by super-advanced aliens, and those aliens told him that no god exists. Based on his delusional experience, this guy could be an atheist.

This shows that the position is a conclusion and is not necessarily always based on skepticism. My answer to the question, "Why isn't JREF an atheist organization?" (and by implication the question, "Do you think JREF ought be an atheist organization?") hinges on the fact that JREF seeks to promote skepticism and critical thinking and not to dispense conclusions.

 

[six7s]

My answer to the question, "Why isn't JREF an atheist organization?" (and by implication the question, "Do you think JREF ought be an atheist organization?") hinges on the fact that JREF seeks to promote skepticism and critical thinking and not to dispense conclusions.

Yeah? By that wibbly-wobbly yardstick, critical thinking is a conclusion, too... for example: others conclude that myth-based beliefs, superstitious rituals amd/or blind faith are keys to enlightenment

 

[The Atheist]

Yes there is and that is no one seems to be asking it "Is it a gay rights organisation" or "Is it a women's rights organisation". I suspect that if people were asking it those questions it would respond in the same way as it does to the question "Is it an atheist organisation".

Nah. Actually, it's because everyone else can see that the question's both irrelevant and stupid.

Atheism isn't anything like gay rights.

Not to mention the other obvious error that JREF doesn't claim to be "black" or "non-black", completely unlike its claims regarding atheism.

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

 

[Beth]

So, where is the JREF's statement that it is not a theist organization?

How often does the JREF get accused of being a theist organization?

There are (at least) two possible ways of reading, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

(1) The trivially true reading that it does not actively promote or assume atheism, which is the one the defenders of the idiotic policy statement mindlessly latch onto.

The statement is trivially true. Therefore it's idiotic to state so clearly. I'm afraid I'm not following the logic there.

(2) A reading where the JREF is selecting one group among many to take pains to make a special exclusionary disclaimer with regard to. This is how I read it. When the special dissociation statement is removed I will consider becoming an active participant again.

I take it that it's question that is regularly posed to them. It's clear that a large portion of the people who are active in JREF and support it are atheistic. There is considerable overlap of the two groups (skeptics and atheists), far more than would be expected if the two were independent. It's fine to go ahead and make a public policy statement on that aspect because many people get confused about it.

Is the JREF a gay rights organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at gays and publicly proclaim it is not a gay rights organization?
Is the JREF a black organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at blacks and publicly proclaim it is not a black organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at women and publicly proclaim it is not a womens organization?
Pick any other examples you care to.

But it points specifically at atheists and publicly proclaims it is not an atheist organization.

There's a reason.

Yes. There's a reason. What proportion of the population do you expect to be confused about whether or not the JREF is an animal rights organization, etc. etc. How does that expected level of confusion compare to the level of confusion regarding JREF and atheism? It's reasonable to expect any organizations to limit such statements to other groups that the general public is most likely to be confused about.

I would say the JREF should not claim it is an atheist organization (and I call myself an anti-theist), but by precisely the same token I would say the JREF should not take special pains to claim it is not an atheist organization. That's exclusionary, indeed discriminatory, and is a significant part of the reason I let my membership in the JREF lapse and only pop in once in a while to see if anyone has learned anything yet.

Suit yourself.

Not yet. The deists and theists are still poisoning the ear.

I'll check in again in another 6 months or so, maybe.

All that tolerance of differing opinions can be tiresome and irritating.

This shows that the position is a conclusion and is not necessarily always based on skepticism. My answer to the question, "Why isn't JREF an atheist organization?" (and by implication the question, "Do you think JREF ought be an atheist organization?") hinges on the fact that JREF seeks to promote skepticism and critical thinking and not to dispense conclusions.

I agree with Joe.

 

[Prometheus]

So, where is the JREF's statement that it is not a theist organization?

There are (at least) two possible ways of reading, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

(1) The trivially true reading that it does not actively promote or assume atheism, which is the one the defenders of the idiotic policy statement mindlessly latch onto.

(2) A reading where the JREF is selecting one group among many to take pains to make a special exclusionary disclaimer with regard to. This is how I read it. When the special dissociation statement is removed I will consider becoming an active participant again.

<snip>

So you deliberately interpret their words in the way you already know they're not intended? Do you find that to be a useful communication habit?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah? By that wibbly-wobbly yardstick, critical thinking is a conclusion, too... for example: others conclude that myth-based beliefs, superstitious rituals amd/or blind faith are keys to enlightenment

Nope doesn't work. You're just mixing the method with the conclusion.

By the way, what is a "myth-based" belief? I realized many beliefs are mythological, but I don't think anyone believes them because they're myths.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Atheism isn't anything like gay rights.

No one said it is. The question Darat was answering was why does the JREF say it's not an atheist organization but doesn't announce that it's not a gay organization (or whatever). The correct answer is because while people have said that JREF should be an atheist organization, nobody has said it should be a gay organization. Therefore, no announcement on that point was necessary.

 

[six7s]

Nope doesn't work. You're just mixing the method with the conclusion.

Great! Now you're on the way to getting it

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Great! Now you're on the way to getting it

No, I've understood for some time that your thinking is confused.

Skepticism is a method for reaching a conclusion (where "conclusion" means the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition). Other methods might also be used to reach conclusion (note: I'm not saying it's valid to use these other methods). I've been arguing that atheism is a conclusion. One of the ways I've supported my position is by pointing out that one could use another method (other than skepticism) to reach the conclusion of atheism.

Then you say one could cast skepticism as a conclusion. That just doesn't follow.

So. . you're just pulling my leg here, right?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Got any other arguments?

Your evasion was so successful, I didn't notice until now that you didn't respond to my main question to you that I asked near the end of post 272.

If you don't want what The Atheist wants (a declaration or announcement that JREF is an atheist organization or some such), what specific change or difference do you want from the status quo?

 

[six7s]

I've been arguing that atheism is a conclusion.

Repetition ad nauseum != an argument

 

[Beth]

Then you say one could cast skepticism as a conclusion. That just doesn't follow.

So. . you're just pulling my leg here, right?

Well, you could consider skepticism the conclusion of investigating the "best possible method for reaching conclusions" question.

I know what you mean though and I agree with your position.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your evasion was so successful, I didn't notice until now that you didn't respond to my main question to you that I asked near the end of post 272.

If you don't want what The Atheist wants (a declaration or announcement that JREF is an atheist organization or some such), what specific change or difference do you want from the status quo?

Goodness! I've been making the same request for years including repeating it at some length in this thread and you claim I have evaded answering that question?

Perhaps the problem is you are confusing TA's focus which I believe is specifically about the JREF's official position and my issue which is about the JREF's unofficial but still consistent position. The unofficial position is more nebulous, but I think it is nonetheless real. It's more of a reflected attitude than a mission statement.

In a nutshell, my complaint is that god beliefs are treated with a double standard compared to other woo. I would like to see real objectivity regarding god beliefs. But that ideal is far from the reality in the skeptical community including at the JREF.

Mind you I recognize the politics and don't have an argument if politics are plainly stated as the rationale for the double standard: too many people who are otherwise supporting of the rational thinking movement still have god beliefs. But I would like to see a little more clarity here.

Instead we get/give excuses:
Faith based beliefs differ from evidence based beliefs. (Of course that is true but religious faith is no different from other woo rationales.)
Religion and science answer 2 different questions. (Homeopathy and scientific evidence based medicine do as well.)

I think I'll start a new thread on the false premise we get something out of god beliefs one doesn't get from science. The problem is we don't say that same thing about other woo. Can't people who have false hope regarding a cancer cure that is a scam or the people who believe J Edwards talks to their dead loved ones make that same claim? We pay lip service to that reality, but then give the faith based beliefs a special place apart from science we don't give to other benefits of the false hope of woo beliefs.

 

[dglas]

So you deliberately interpret their words in the way you already know they're not intended? Do you find that to be a useful communication habit?

Is it possible you are this naive that you think the declaration that the JREF in not an atheist organization is a mere representation of a mere trivial claim - a trivial claim that could just as easily been expressed with a perfectly neutral declaration such as: "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?"

Instead it selects a specific group "atheists" to point at for special dissociation. Are you truly incapable of seeing the meaning behind a public declaration such as that? Well, perhaps you are...

The disingenuousness of the arguments I am seeing is a clear indication of how far you folks have lost yourselves. Why are people asking if the JREF is an atheist organization? Precisely because they want a public declaration that it is not, which serves to distance the JREF from a perfectly legitimate segment of its population. Otherwise, there would be zero motivation for the JREF to make that absurd declaration.

In short, Prometheus, I interpreted it precisely the way it was intended to be interpreted by those asking the questions Darat referenced, and the rest are excuses to justify appeasing those who want the JREF to publicly distance itself from atheists. Is that clear enough for you? Do you understand yet?

 

[Prometheus]

Is it possible you are this naive that you think the declaration that the JREF in not an atheist organization is a mere representation of a mere trivial claim - a trivial claim that could just as easily been expressed with a perfectly neutral declaration such as: "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?"

Instead it selects a specific group "atheists" to point at for special dissociation. Are you truly incapable of seeing the meaning behind a public declaration such as that? Well, perhaps you are...

The disingenuousness of the arguments I am seeing is a clear indication of how far you folks have lost yourselves. Why are people asking if the JREF is an atheist organization? Precisely because they want a public declaration that it is not, which serves to distance the JREF from a perfectly legitimate segment of its population. Otherwise, there would be zero motivation for the JREF to make that absurd declaration.

In short, Prometheus, I interpreted it precisely the way it was intended to be interpreted by those asking the questions Darat referenced, and the rest are excuses to justify appeasing those who want the JREF to publicly distance itself from atheists. Is that clear enough for you? Do you understand yet?

So the reason you're deliberately interpreting JREF's words in a way not intended by JREF is because you believe they are intended to be interpreted that way by some nebulous third party who somehow tricked the JREF into using them? Seems to me that even if you're right, all you're doing is playing into the hands of those people yourself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Goodness! I've been making the same request for years including repeating it at some length in this thread and you claim I have evaded answering that question?

You haven't said specifically what you want to see different about JREF here on this thread. I don't know about what you've been saying for years.

Perhaps the problem is you are confusing TA's focus which I believe is specifically about the JREF's official position and my issue which is about the JREF's unofficial but still consistent position. The unofficial position is more nebulous, but I think it is nonetheless real. It's more of a reflected attitude than a mission statement.

Yes, I understand that your position isn't the same as TA's, but I'm still not sure what you want. (I'm also not convinced this "unofficial position" exists. I also don't know what you mean by "reflected attitude". Could you elaborate?)

In a nutshell, my complaint is that god beliefs are treated with a double standard compared to other woo. I would like to see real objectivity regarding god beliefs. But that ideal is far from the reality in the skeptical community including at the JREF.

"Are treated" by whom and where? You already admitted that Randi doesn't treat religious beliefs with kid gloves. I've already pointed out that we don't shy away from discussions on religion and religious beliefs on these forums (especially the subform for Religion and Philosophy).

So where exactly does this double standard happen in JREF? The MDC is only about testable claims, so many religious ideas are off limits, but I think of those things as the same as the nutty theories behind non-religious paranormal beliefs, and the MDC isn't interested in hearing about those either.

Instead we get/give excuses:
Faith based beliefs differ from evidence based beliefs. (Of course that is true but religious faith is no different from other woo rationales.)
Religion and science answer 2 different questions. (Homeopathy and scientific evidence based medicine do as well.)

Again, where do you hear this? My impression is that the majority of us who participate on the forums reject NOMA. Also, I think the majority of us are atheists.

There is a small minority of theist/skeptics (mostly some form or another of Christian skeptics). I think their positions are inconsistent and indefensible. I also don't think they are treated with any kind of deference. In some cases (A Christian Skeptic, for example), their assertions are so bizarre, they're treated just about the same as some of our resident wackos (Kurios Kathy, Rodney, and so on).

ETA: I guess what I'm saying is, where's the evidence? And I'm not asking for specific quotes or anything, but just a description of where you see the double standard. Who's doing this and where?

I think I'll start a new thread on the false premise we get something out of god beliefs one doesn't get from science. The problem is we don't say that same thing about other woo. Can't people who have false hope regarding a cancer cure that is a scam or the people who believe J Edwards talks to their dead loved ones make that same claim? We pay lip service to that reality, but then give the faith based beliefs a special place apart from science we don't give to other benefits of the false hope of woo beliefs.

I agree with your criticisms of religion, especially as opposed to science as a way of knowing things, but I still don't see what you want out of JREF wrt to atheism. On the broader topic you're addressing, I'm 100% with you.

I just don't think JREF is or ought be an atheist organization, since atheism is a conclusion, even though (as I said in my first post on this thread) I think theism is inconsistent with skepticism.

And I'm not sure some unofficial position or double standard exists in JREF. If it exists, I haven't seen evidence of it. (Maybe it's something you only see in person at TAM? I can never afford to go to those.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Repetition ad nauseum != an argument

And that's another well-though out and reasoned response to the points I've made.

Oh wait--not it's not.

Again.

You're not even trying.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Instead it selects a specific group "atheists" to point at for special dissociation. Are you truly incapable of seeing the meaning behind a public declaration such as that? Well, perhaps you are...

We covered this already. The reason for the declaration that JREF is not an atheist organization is because people have made the case that it is or ought be.

Again, I'm an atheist. I'm even the organizer of our local atheist organization. I don't think JREF is dissociating from me, or anyone. It was just an a statement that JREF is not an atheist organization. I understand that, and it makes sense. Locally, we have a few other organizations, a skeptical group, a rationalist group and a couple of ethical societies. Of those groups, only one can accurately be called an atheist organization, even though there are many atheists in all of them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You haven't said specifically what you want to see different about JREF here on this thread. I don't know about what you've been saying for years.

YES I HAVE. I get it that you don't get it. But claiming I've not made it clear what I'd like to see change is LUDICROUS!

Yes, I understand that your position isn't the same as TA's, but I'm still not sure what you want. (I'm also not convinced this "unofficial position" exists. I also don't know what you mean by "reflected attitude". Could you elaborate?)

Fine. You don't believe there is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are treated by a double standard here on the JREF forum and by a fair number of people in the skeptical community. I am certain there is overwhelming evidence of a double standard when it comes to god woo. We are at an impasse.

As for the official JREF position, I addressed that. I'm talking about the practical application of the JREF principles, not the formal declarations. For example, Phil Plait, the current JREF president has a clear position of not confronting god beliefs. He has no such position about confronting other woo.

"Are treated" by whom and where? You already admitted that Randi doesn't treat religious beliefs with kid gloves. I've already pointed out that we don't shy away from discussions on religion and religious beliefs on these forums (especially the subform for Religion and Philosophy).

So where exactly does this double standard happen in JREF? The MDC is only about testable claims, so many religious ideas are off limits, but I think of those things as the same as the nutty theories behind non-religious paranormal beliefs, and the MDC isn't interested in hearing about those either.

The only untestable claim about gods are those which claim gods don't do anything other than exist. Once you say your god does something, it is testable. So here is an example coming right from your own keyboard. Why do you continually refer to god beliefs as if god believers make no claims about their gods when they all make claims about their gods?

Again, where do you hear this? My impression is that the majority of us who participate on the forums reject NOMA. Also, I think the majority of us are atheists.

There is a small minority of theist/skeptics (mostly some form or another of Christian skeptics). I think their positions are inconsistent and indefensible. I also don't think they are treated with any kind of deference. In some cases (A Christian Skeptic, for example), their assertions are so bizarre, they're treated just about the same as some of our resident wackos (Kurios Kathy, Rodney, and so on).

ETA: I guess what I'm saying is, where's the evidence? And I'm not asking for specific quotes or anything, but just a description of where you see the double standard. Who's doing this and where?

Is there a question of NOMA for bad medicine? bad astronomy? Any other woo at all??????????

I don't know the percentages of skeptics who buy the NOMA philosophy vs those that buy my position that it's a manufactured excuse to avoid challenging god beliefs as woo. I do agree more skeptics are atheist than not. But there are quite a few skeptic Christians on the forum you did not mention probably because they don't preach the way our resident proselytizers do.

I agree with your criticisms of religion, especially as opposed to science as a way of knowing things, but I still don't see what you want out of JREF wrt to atheism. On the broader topic you're addressing, I'm 100% with you.

I just don't think JREF is or ought be an atheist organization, since atheism is a conclusion, even though (as I said in my first post on this thread) I think theism is inconsistent with skepticism.

And I'm not sure some unofficial position or double standard exists in JREF. If it exists, I haven't seen evidence of it. (Maybe it's something you only see in person at TAM? I can never afford to go to those.)

I've only been to one TAM.


If you see theism as inconsistent with skepticism, you are at least close to my position. I see no reason to label the JREF anything but an educational foundation. My beef is not with the organization's label. It's with some of the organization members' reluctance in some cases to address god woo on the same level as other woo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rational Wiki notes the criticisms I have with the NOMA concept quite concisely.

The system itself has met with some resistance and harsh criticisms from figures such as Richard Dawkins (who suggests that Gould was straining to be apologetic when he proposed it), PZ Myers and numerous other so-called new atheists. These critics propose that questions such as the existence of God can be tested just like any other material hypothesis and that, in principle, even things that are "outside our universe" are still within the grasp of human understanding and the scientific method. The reasons for this are that God's alleged effects on the material world are, of course, material and can be studied much in the same way that all science really just detects the effects of things on the real world. In this sense, critics certainly reject the "non-overlapping" aspect of the two magisteria and conclude that if the two genuinely didn't overlap, supernatural entities would have no effect on the real world and thus their existence, or not, is a moot point.

The entire entry (very short) is worth reading.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Rational Wiki notes the criticisms I have with the NOMA concept quite concisely.The entire entry (very short) is worth reading.

Do you think JREF endorses NOMA? If so, what is your evidence?

My impression of the forum anyway is that the majority of us are atheists who reject NOMA and don't give any deference to religious views.

I think Kumar and Nancy Malik are treated about the same as Kurious Kathy here.

And again, you've already admitted that Randi doesn't shy away from religion. He certainly doesn't subscribe to NOMA, from what I've read. (I've just read Flim Flam, and he devotes a chapter to religious claims.) If a claim is testable, it doesn't matter what the theoretical underpinnings of that claim are.

Randi is admittedly more interested in tackling claims that purport to be evidence-based than those that are faith-based. He seems to me uninterested in making a philosophical or logical case against transubstantiation, for example. And since that claim isn't testable--that is there is no measurement you can take that would be different if the claim were true--it's not something that could be tested.

So. . . a case against NOMA doesn't support your position that JREF has some unofficial pro-theism policy or attitude of some sort.

I'm not convinced that JREF has this unofficial position or double standard you think it has, and it seems to me that the only thing you want different than the status quo is for JREF not to have this unofficial position.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

YES I HAVE. I get it that you don't get it. But claiming I've not made it clear what I'd like to see change is LUDICROUS!

If it's true that you've made your position clear on this thread, then it would be a simple matter for you to quote yourself. I don't see it.

Fine. You don't believe there is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are treated by a double standard here on the JREF forum and by a fair number of people in the skeptical community. I am certain there is overwhelming evidence of a double standard when it comes to god woo. We are at an impasse.

Well yeah--unless you'd care to say what that evidence is.

As for the official JREF position, I addressed that. I'm talking about the practical application of the JREF principles, not the formal declarations. For example, Phil Plait, the current JREF president has a clear position of not confronting god beliefs. He has no such position about confronting other woo.

I'm not aware that he has that position. (ETA: I am familiar with his essay "Is Science Faith-based?"--which makes me think he rejects faith outright as a way of arriving at conclusions. I'll see what I can find of his position on NOMA or not confronting religious claims because they're religious. Update: I have a hard time accepting that he has the position you say he has since he's got one section of his blog devoted to religion--and most of those entries seem to be confronting religious claims.) Even if so, does his position equate with JREF's?

The only untestable claim about gods are those which claim gods don't do anything other than exist. Once you say your god does something, it is testable.

I disagree. The example I just gave is a case in point. The claim that God changes a wafer into the Body of Christ but that the wafer retains all the accidents of the wafer is untestable. There is no measurement you can take that would be different if the claim were true compared to if the claim were false. (I agree it's an absurd belief--there's no reason for anyone to beleive it; it's wholly unneccessary because there is no measurement that would be different.)

So here is an example coming right from your own keyboard. Why do you continually refer to god beliefs as if god believers make no claims about their gods when they all make claims about their gods?

I don't. I've pointed out examples of testable claims, and I don't think JREF has kept quiet or avoided them. (Intercessory prayer, crying or bleeding statues, etc.)

Is there a question of NOMA for bad medicine? bad astronomy? Any other woo at all??????????

I don't follow this. Are you suggesting there aren't people who believe in bad medicine or bad astronomy? Of course there are. Kumar's back, by the way. Or do you insist that JREF endorses NOMA? If so, I'd like to see the evidence.

I don't know the percentages of skeptics who buy the NOMA philosophy vs those that buy my position that it's a manufactured excuse to avoid challenging god beliefs as woo.

It seems whenever we discuss NOMA the vast majority of us come down flat out against it.

I do agree more skeptics are atheist than not. But there are quite a few skeptic Christians on the forum you did not mention probably because they don't preach the way our resident proselytizers do.

I did mention one of them, A Christian Skeptic, I could mention also cj and probably one or two more. I think they're an extremely small minority, and I think their beliefs are inconsistent with skepticism and indefensible. I also don't think they get any special treatment.

If you see theism as inconsistent with skepticism, you are at least close to my position. I see no reason to label the JREF anything but an educational foundation. My beef is not with the organization's label. It's with some of the organization members' reluctance in some cases to address god woo on the same level as other woo.

Yes, I recognize that our disagreement is strictly over how we see JREF, and not with our own positions on atheism. I am a strong atheist, and I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis that treats theism as any other claim. That is the standard of being extremely confident in accepting or rejecting a proposition should be no different if we're considering the law of gravity, the phlogiston theory of combustion (even the existence of phlogiston), or the existence of a god or gods.

I don't think NOMA is at all a popular idea among JREF members or skeptics in general. My guess is that among skeptics, the percentage is roughly the same as the percentage of theist vs atheist research scientists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you think JREF endorses NOMA? If so, what is your evidence?

Phil Plait, the JREF president endorses it.

 

[The Atheist]

Phil Plait, the JREF president endorses it.

Do you evidence for that?

Noma is the biggest piece of apologetic [stuff that comes out bulls' behinds] I've seen in a long, long time.

For the system to have any meaning whatsoever, people involved must first take the position that something non-material exists which humans are part of. Wrapping appreciation of beauty in a coat made out of religious properties is a dishonest sop to religion and is not consistent with any kind of critical thinking.

If JREF endorses it, it would certainly explain why JREF is not an atheist organisation.

 

[a.real.girl]

Phil Plait attacks creationism and creationists constantly, I think that's an unsupported claim at best, straight-up made up at worst.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If it's true that you've made your position clear on this thread, then it would be a simple matter for you to quote yourself. I don't see it......

This is really getting tiresome:

"You don't believe there is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are treated by a double standard here on the JREF forum and by a fair number of people in the skeptical community. I am certain there is overwhelming evidence of a double standard when it comes to god woo. We are at an impasse."

"As for the official JREF position, I addressed that. I'm talking about the practical application of the JREF principles, not the formal declarations. For example, Phil Plait, the current JREF president has a clear position of not confronting god beliefs. He has no such position about confronting other woo."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Phil Plait attacks creationism and creationists constantly, I think that's an unsupported claim at best, straight-up made up at worst.

I've know Phil via his written opinions for years. It is not an unsupported claim but you are confusing addressing a single issue, evolution theory science, which is a very important issue to Phil and most of us, with NOMA which essentially says religion is faith based belief and science is evidence based belief and both are valid.


I'll find you some examples from his blog.

 

[Dunstan]

Phil Plait attacks creationism and creationists constantly, I think that's an unsupported claim at best, straight-up made up at worst.

Stephen J. Gould criticized creationists all the time, but he was still the "founder" of NOMA.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's proving to be too time consuming to find the BA comments on NOMA and his blog entries suggests Phil is shifting his position over time. He has shifted from NOMA which says you get something different from religion and science to more of a live and let live approach, you have your beliefs and I'll have mine. It's interesting when you've had discussions with people over many years involving their philosophy and point of view to see them evolve.

While maybe someone else can find the older BA blog comments, I will have to be content to just describe one in particular. The blog entry was specifically complimenting a certain science web site. On the site was a comment about their NOMA position. In the blog comments I had a long discussion on the subject. More specific than that I can't recall, but Phil's position of NOMA at the time was discussed.

Maybe I can find a link to the blog entry in a thread here. But after searching for 30 minutes through Phil's more recent blogs, it will have to wait.


Perhaps I should not consider any JREF member's position on this matter to represent the JREF, even Phil's. I wish to clarify my issue then. My issue is with the skeptics who subscribe to the double standard of NOMA for religious beliefs. I'm pleased to see people arguing here that it may be a diminishing trend.

 

[Wowbagger]

Almost all skeptics probably believe in something that they can't prove. For some, it is a diety. For someone like Richard Dawkins, it is cosmological evolution (The idea that the forces of physics act in ways that match biological natural selection).

As long as one does not rely on their unprovable beliefs, and as long as they are not prosthelytizing their beliefs, I don't see why they still can't be "good skeptics".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Almost all skeptics probably believe in something that they can't prove. For some, it is a diety. For someone like Richard Dawkins, it is cosmological evolution (The idea that the forces of physics act in ways that match biological natural selection).

As long as one does not rely on their unprovable beliefs, and as long as they are not prosthelytizing their beliefs, I don't see why they still can't be "good skeptics".

I make no claims there are any 'perfect skeptics'. That was never my point. In fact, I actually understand god believing skeptics more than the atheists or agnostic skeptics who buy the NOMA position.

If you are a theist skeptic, you just have a simple skeptic blind spot. If you are an atheist skeptic that maintains faith based beliefs are in a different category from other woo beliefs, then I fail to see why one would take that position.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's proving to be too time consuming to find the BA comments on NOMA and his blog entries suggests Phil is shifting his position over time. He has shifted from NOMA which says you get something different from religion and science to more of a live and let live approach, you have your beliefs and I'll have mine. It's interesting when you've had discussions with people over many years involving their philosophy and point of view to see them evolve.

While maybe someone else can find the older BA blog comments, I will have to be content to just describe one in particular. The blog entry was specifically complimenting a certain science web site. On the site was a comment about their NOMA position. In the blog comments I had a long discussion on the subject. More specific than that I can't recall, but Phil's position of NOMA at the time was discussed.

Maybe I can find a link to the blog entry in a thread here. But after searching for 30 minutes through Phil's more recent blogs, it will have to wait.


Perhaps I should not consider any JREF member's position on this matter to represent the JREF, even Phil's. I wish to clarify my issue then. My issue is with the skeptics who subscribe to the double standard of NOMA for religious beliefs. I'm pleased to see people arguing here that it may be a diminishing trend.

I suspect our different perspectives on the state of JREF (and Plait in particular) is simply due to that fact that mine has less history than yours.

I'm happy to take your word for it that Plait and other skeptics used to be in favor of NOMA, but I don't think that's the case nowadays, and I don't think JREF has any particular blind spot on this issue. In fact, by and large, I think members of JREF are mostly supporters of the New Atheism.

It sounds like all of us in this discussion at least resoundingly reject NOMA. (Personally, I don't think Gould even really bought into his own idea. I don't see how anyone actually could.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Almost all skeptics probably believe in something that they can't prove. For some, it is a diety [sic]. For someone like Richard Dawkins, it is cosmological evolution (The idea that the forces of physics act in ways that match biological natural selection).

I've heard Stenger goes in for acupuncture.

(I haven't read much of Dawkins on the point you mention. The stuff I've read is more like a suspicion that one day physics might find a central organization principle similar to natural selection. Has he gone beyond that to belief in an unsupported proposition?)

As long as one does not rely on their unprovable beliefs, and as long as they are not prosthelytizing their beliefs, I don't see why they still can't be "good skeptics".

Hmmm. . that's a tricky question. I think the point of being a good skeptic is to follow the evidence all the time and to be aware that we ourselves are not immune to biased thinking. I think where we fail to do this, we aren't being "good skeptics". I suspect that most of us have a blind spot or two where we fail to be good skeptics.

But this doesn't mean JREF should be an atheist organization. Again, the reason is that atheism is a conclusion, as I've said. I don't think it's a double standard, since we can certainly use skeptical thinking to argue against theism and theistic claims the same way we can use it to argue against ESP or whatever. That is, I don't think the declaration that JREF is not an atheist organization means that we can't or shouldn't apply skepticism to god-claims.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It's interesting when you've had discussions with people over many years involving their philosophy and point of view to see them evolve.

Indeed. But it's perhaps more interesting to watch one's own thinking evolve.

Perhaps I should not consider any JREF member's position on this matter to represent the JREF, even Phil's.

Indeed not. Even less so forum posters, many of whom are not JREF members.

I wish to clarify my issue then. My issue is with the skeptics who subscribe to the double standard of NOMA for religious beliefs. I'm pleased to see people arguing here that it may be a diminishing trend.

I share the Atheist's contempt for the NOMA notion. The truth is that rational thought and careful note taking can study anything, whereas blowing smoke and incense merely clouds the issue and makes people sneeze.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed not. Even less so forum posters, many of whom are not JREF members.

And of course that leads to the question I asked before: if this double standard or attitude is not about JREF forum posters, JREF members, Phil Plaitt or James Randi, and it's not about the issue TA is arguing (a formal declaration that it is an atheist organization) then what is it?

It seems that Skeptigirl's issue is more with skeptics in general than anything about JREF as an organization. And even so, she seems to recognize that things have changed or at least are changing.

I honestly don't see that. I don't think NOMA has ever had a big following among skeptics.

I would agree that there seems to be a lot of confusion about what atheism is--among a LOT of people. For some, it is only a very weak form of weak atheism (strictly a lack of theism, in which case it makes sense to call rocks and babies "atheists"). For others (the ones I was arguing against in one of the recent threads in the Religion subforum), it's the assertion of absolute certainty of the non-existence of God.

Personally, I don't think either of these definitions are in common usage. I think the ones given in Merriam-Webster (see earlier cite) are the most conventionally recognized two: belief in the non-existence of God (strong atheism) and disbelief (lack of or rejection of belief) in the existence of God (weak atheism).

I fully support Skeptigirl's position on strong atheism: that we ought apply the same standards of science to god-claims as we do for any other question. As such, I am just as certain of the non-existence of a god (at least in the most conventional definition--probably excepting only the deist god which I think is an undefined concept) as I am of the non-existence of phlogiston. Yet I recognize that even though I don't ever see there being evidence for the existence of either, I do not claim absolute knowledge of their non-existence simply because if the evidence for their existence came about, I would modify my belief, so it is not quite the same as absolute certainty. (NB: by this standard, absolute certainties are, by definition, dogmatic.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A bit of a derail on NOMA:

A now out-of-state member of my local atheist group argues with me that if I reject NOMA that I should actually be in favor of the Religious Right's position to "teach the controversy" wrt to Creationism/ID. I fully admit that these religious claims about the natural world are testable by science, so why not use elementary and secondary public school science classes to debunk Creationism?

I have 2 answers and one is sort of a cop-out (and I suspect the real thinking of Gould behind NOMA).

First, the cop-out: if we allow "teach the controversy" in schools, I doubt very much that ALL teachers would see it as a way to apply the scientific method to the claims of Creationism/ID. Instead, it would be an "in" for those who would preach their religious doctrine. Given Gould's history of opposition to allowing Creationism (in any of its various guises) into public schools, I think his motive for NOMA was trying to give some sort of justification for keeping a topic which does indeed make claims about the natural world out of science classes. (I think the route he should have taken was to argue the issue as a matter of separation of Church and State.)

Second: we don't generally teach science in this way at these levels. That is, we don't actually conduct research. (Similarly, kids don't usually have to derive the formulas they will use in math classes at this level.) It would be no more appropriate than teaching the "controversy" of Lamarckism--or even of teaching the latest not yet proven scientific hypotheses. At lower levels, we mostly teach the body of knowledge gleaned by science and the scientific method. Now if a kid wanted to test a religious claim as a project designed to teach the scientific method (or experimental design or hypothesis testing), then I would be cool with that.

 

[Wowbagger]

What I don't like about NOMA is the implication that some questions should only be answered by one magisterium than the other.

Why can't science develop answers for every question?! (Even if some people choose to develop supplementary answers with faith?)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What I don't like about NOMA is the implication that some questions should only be answered by one magisterium than the other.

Why can't science develop answers for every question?! (Even if some people choose to develop supplementary answers with faith?)

Exactly.

And looking at it historically, pretty much everything that is now in the science "magisterium" was once in the religion/witch doctor magisterium, so we know for sure NOMA is false.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A bit of a derail on NOMA:

A now out-of-state member of my local atheist group argues with me that if I reject NOMA that I should actually be in favor of the Religious Right's position to "teach the controversy" wrt to Creationism/ID. I fully admit that these religious claims about the natural world are testable by science, so why not use elementary and secondary public school science classes to debunk Creationism?....

Teach the controversy is a straw man. Science does teach controversy when it is real. In evolution theory the controversy is not based on science and is not actually real. If it were real, science would of course welcome it.

 

[dglas]

We covered this already. The reason for the declaration that JREF is not an atheist organization is because people have made the case that it is or ought be.

Again, I'm an atheist. I'm even the organizer of our local atheist organization. I don't think JREF is dissociating from me, or anyone. It was just an a statement that JREF is not an atheist organization. I understand that, and it makes sense. Locally, we have a few other organizations, a skeptical group, a rationalist group and a couple of ethical societies. Of those groups, only one can accurately be called an atheist organization, even though there are many atheists in all of them.

Clearly, raising consciousness among some is going to be more of a challenge than among others.

Can you recognize that "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?" has a different content than "The JREF is not an atheist organization?" Do you have that simple acuity? Can you comprehend any import in the difference? I note that it could have been worded, "The JREF is not an exclusively atheist organization." or "The JREF is an organization for theists and atheists alike." Hmmm.

I can see a difference, and it is not my failing if neither you nor Prometheus can (although, honestly, I think both of you are just refusing to consider the subject matter, opting instead for a knee-jerk defensive, fanboy entrenchment). I have been present in chat when a deist, familiar to us all and close to the throne, has commented on the importance of funds from religious sources and has spoken of strategies for making the JREF more palatable to these sources.

To the atheist:
Interesting that you should protest so. Let's see, two identifiable groups of people (gays and atheists) both suffering societal condemnation and struggling for legitimacy, and against exclusion. They sound very similar in very salient ways - at least for this conversation. Should we consider your user name a sign that you have "outed" yourself? I suppose you've never heard that expression with respect to atheists before, have you? Or perhaps you do not get the reference...