Civility Out?

[Francois Tremblay]

And as erroneously belief doesn't make one irrational it is very possible to be a religious believer and be rational.

It is also possible for all the particles of my body to move one foot to the right simultaneously. I'd say the probability is about the same.

In about six years of discussing with and debating Christians, I have met one intellectually honest believer. She's probably an atheist now, Providence willing.

 

[Darat]

(Quick caveat – don’t know the background about the person Dawkins was responding to so I can’t comment if in that situation I agree or disagree with his actions and comments.)

This is a subject that has been on my mind for the last week or so triggered by another thread here (see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54539 ) in that thread I attempted to argue why I don’t attend religious ceremonies of friends and family (albeit poorly). I stopped participating because after having my decision described as “atheist fundyism”, “attitudes such as you describe that give atheists a bad rep”, “more about your ego than anything else” and even perhaps a suggestion that I am an “atheist bigot” I thought I should again look at my reasons, and that I should talk to some of my friends (especially the religious ones) about this issue and it has led to some interesting comments and debates.

What I saw in that thread that was more evidence for a belief I have and that is for some reason religious beliefs are treated differently then other non-evidence based beliefs. Let me create a hypothetical scenario:

A Ku Klux Klan leader stands up and says that whilst he has nothing personally against black people and that they shouldn’t as individuals be treated any different to other people but it is wrong and there should be laws against a black person marrying a white person as that is unnatural.

Would the same level of objection be raised if Dawkins had refused to shake the Ku Klux Klan leader’s hand and called him, to his face, an irrational bigot?

A Christian leader stands up and says that whilst he has nothing personally against homosexual people and that they shouldn’t as individuals be treated any different to other people but it is wrong and there should be laws against homosexual people getting married as that is unnatural.

Why shouldn’t that Christian leader be called to his face, an irrational bigot and Dawkin refuse to shake his hand?

If someone is a bigot (in the common usage of the word) then why should they be given a “free ride” simply because their bigotry stems from their religious beliefs? To me that seems inconsistent. What would be wrong (in my opinion) is to generalise to the extent of saying “all Christians are bigots”, some are of course but some aren’t. It is not wrong however to accuse the leaders of certain Christian faiths of bigotry and to state that their religion is bigoted, if that is the case.

I think the modern concept of pluralism in society has gone slightly awry – respect for an individual’s right to hold a belief is expected to be extended to a respect for the belief they hold. Whilst I respect a person’s right to hold a bigoted belief I do not necessarily respect the person that holds a belief that is bigoted, and I will not for the sake of “politeness” disguise or hide the fact that I find what they say they stand for repugnant. That does not mean I will go out of my way to be rude to that person or actively do or say anything if I consider it inappropriate at time but that will not be based on a mistaken understanding of what politeness and civility should be about. Politeness and civility is not about ignoring strong disagreements, it is not about disguising feelings, it is a way of expressing those opinions in such a way to ensure we can communicate strong disagreements with one another. If politeness and civility is used to disguise or avoid strong disagreements it is just hypocrisy.

Religious bigotry, religious intolerance and so on are no different from racial intolerance, misogyny and all the other ways we as humans separate “us” from “them”. To treat it as somehow different is wrong.


(As a slight aside I do still hold you can have religious beliefs and accurately describe yourself as being “sceptical”.)

 

[Beady]

To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality.

To condemn without dialogue is to condemn without evidence. It is the act of a bigot.

By what morality and rationality do you prejudge an entire class of people? And by what right do you pronounce yourself to be rational and moral enough to sit in judgment?

We would show no more benevolence towards neo-nazis or flat earthers, and yet both are far more believable and moral.

Now I find this *really* scary. To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.

Neo-nazism and flat-earthers depend upon pseudoscience, which disguises itself as rationality. Religion quite honestly states that faith is preferred to reason, which openly shows itself to be superstition.

 

[sphenisc]

Irrational bigots

People shouldn't be called 'irrational bigots' because a) it's irrational and b) it's bigoted.
a) Telling an irrational person they're irrational serves no useful purpose as they are therefore incapable of drawing any rational deductions from that information, thus the acto f telling them is irrational.
b) bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot
Anyone who describes someone else as a bigot in a manner designed to offend and, for example, awards prizes to those who share their worldview satisfy the definition of bigot.

Cheers and may your (God/or otherwise) go with you.

P.S. I miss Dave Allen

 

[Hal Bidlack]

well, this thread, I'm afraid, kind of confirms my concerns. So time ago, at, I guess in hindsight, the highpoint of my relationship with JREF and this forum, I penned a guest commentary when the computer ate Mr Randi's, on this subject. My sense is that since then, the willingness to be civil (note I did not say tolerate) has dropped significantly. Indeed, it has now become fashionable to condemn roughly, to dismiss with a haughty superiority.

I guess I'm old fashioned. I believe in being civil to everyone. I believe kindness is always best. I believe the default position should be one of respect. I'm odd that way. Certainly I’ve had moments I’m not proud of when I’ve failed to live up to that creed, but I respectfully offer that I’ve put up with some quite personal and vicious attacks back in the day with reasonably good grace.

I was the MC for TAM2 (way back when I was respectable) and was running around with the microphone during a panel discussion. Penn called people who are not atheists "brain dead retards." I replied that I was one of them, and he laughed. In all my private dealings with Penn, he has been relentlessly kind, funny, and accepting. He was being, I think, theatrical in his manner when he made that comment. Perhaps some of the comments above are the same?

But I confess that I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the JREF and the more active (vocal?) members of the skeptical movement are becoming increasingly strident in their insistence that there is a single correct view, and that that MUST include atheism. I had a serious falling out with JREF about a year ago, and a recent effort at rapprochement appears to have failed. I feel the words of my commentary ring quite hollow now.

Frankly, I'm not sure what I believe. I know that when my wife was diagnosed, I prayed. I was also sure that it would do nothing, as I don't believe there is a God that changes the laws of the universe for one person's needs. But I found the act of praying comforting. I can honestly answer Claus's questions with no's, but I also have this feeling, based on no evidence at all, that there is something greater than myself out there. I also fully accept that this may be self-delusion. But regardless, I hold this apostasy, and thus I must be shunned, it would appear.

sorry, I'm rambling, but I'm just very depressed that something that has been such an important part of my life, the skeptical movement, appears to be being pulled back from my grasp with voices saying "you are not worthy." (Apologies to mike meyers). Must one, to be a proper skeptic, insist that all who differ are just stupid? Is the answer to fundamentalist intolerance to greet it with equal intolerance? Am I (metaphorically) worthless to the skeptical movement because I’m not completely sure there is nothing out there? Can I not be trusted to evaluate dowsers, cold readers, and such?

On a more pragmatic level, it seems silly to me for a movement to insist that 95% of the potential donor base is nuts. But that's another discussion. Based on the comments of Francois Tremblay, 666, and such above, I should withdraw from this conversation, I'm not one of the "good" people who know the right truth. I’m very down over this discussion. I won’t decide right now, but I think the only thing that makes sense is to withdraw from TAM4 while I still have a spot of dignity. Ironically, the draft schedule had me following Professor Dawkins. I best not go, he wouldn’t want to be seen shaking my hand, after all...

 

[Darat]

…snip…

I guess I'm old fashioned. I believe in being civil to everyone. I believe kindness is always best. I believe the default position should be one of respect. I'm odd that way. Certainly I’ve had moments I’m not proud of when I’ve failed to live up to that creed, but I respectfully offer that I’ve put up with some quite personal and vicious attacks back in the day with reasonably good grace.

I was always brought up that the default position is to give someone the benefit of the doubt, which is to say to assume nothing bad and if possible err on assuming the best but I was also brought up with the idea that respect has to be earned. Over the years I have often questioned the former but I have always held respect is something that has to be earned, not given.

Whilst it is possible to be civil to someone you don’t respect I do think that it is wrong to use that civility to avoid an issue.

…snip…

I was the MC for TAM2 (way back when I was respectable) and was running around with the microphone during a panel discussion. Penn called people who are not atheists "brain dead retards." I replied that I was one of them, and he laughed. In all my private dealings with Penn, he has been relentlessly kind, funny, and accepting. He was being, I think, theatrical in his manner when he made that comment. Perhaps some of the comments above are the same?

That was discussed at length here and I’m not sure what I posted then but I’ve always believed that having religious faith does not preclude someone from also being sceptical. I even believe it is possible to come to the conclusion using “critical thinking” based on personal evidence that God exists, it is just not evidence I can accept. (And I believe there is contrary evidence for all the common definitions of “God” or “Gods” that I know people use. Also from experience I think on examination flaws in the reasoning can often be exposed, but just using critical thinking and being sceptical does not guarantee your conclusion is right.)

So I totally disagree with Penn’s remark as a generalisation.

But I confess that I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the JREF and the more active (vocal?) members of the skeptical movement are becoming increasingly strident in their insistence that there is a single correct view, and that that MUST include atheism. I had a serious falling out with JREF about a year ago, and a recent effort at rapprochement appears to have failed. I feel the words of my commentary ring quite hollow now.

Apparently I am an “active member” of the sceptical community because I now admin this forum (or so I’ve been told by others) and I would never state there is only one right view and that it must include anything never mind atheism. Indeed not so long ago I sent this in a PM to a friend

” I do have to say I think one of the worse things for promoting the idea of critical thinking and scepticism in general is to start considering it a "movement", that’s one of the reasons I didn’t like the idea of “brights”. But of course I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do our best to promote the idea and tools of critical thinking and scepticism since I believe they can help people make their life better and prevent a lot of harm it’s just a “movement” is the antithesis of sceptical thought. As soon as we start making “declarative” statements of certainty we stop being sceptical – don’t we? “

Frankly, I'm not sure what I believe.

Now that’s a movement I could join the - “I dunno” club!

I know that when my wife was diagnosed, I prayed. I was also sure that it would do nothing, as I don't believe there is a God that changes the laws of the universe for one person's needs. But I found the act of praying comforting. I can honestly answer Claus's questions with no's, but I also have this feeling, based on no evidence at all, that there is something greater than myself out there. I also fully accept that this may be self-delusion. But regardless, I hold this apostasy, and thus I must be shunned, it would appear.

And yes I can raise arguments like “it is a false comfort”, that those are “just states of the mind” and so on however that would to me, ignore what is part of being human i.e. we are not logical creatures in the sense of consciously always electing to use logic to make our decisions, often we do not know why we believe what we do beyond a “it feels right”.

sorry, I'm rambling, but I'm just very depressed that something that has been such an important part of my life, the skeptical movement, appears to be being pulled back from my grasp with voices saying "you are not worthy." (Apologies to mike meyers). Must one, to be a proper skeptic, insist that all who differ are just stupid? Is the answer to fundamentalist intolerance to greet it with equal intolerance? Am I (metaphorically) worthless to the skeptical movement because I’m not completely sure there is nothing out there? Can I not be trusted to evaluate dowsers, cold readers, and such?

I think my view is obviously a “of course not”. The key point is (in my opinion) acknowledging that some of your beliefs (like mine) are based not on evidence but are as I’ve often described them “leaps of faith”, we all make leaps of faith including the most fundamental - believing something other then “I “exists. Where I believe the problems arise is when we don’t acknowledge those leaps of faith as being founded on no evidence and also when we refuse to re-evaluate those leaps of faith. In other words once someone starts to say they “KNOW THE TRUTH” watch out.

On a more pragmatic level, it seems silly to me for a movement to insist that 95% of the potential donor base is nuts. But that's another discussion. Based on the comments of Francois Tremblay, 666, and such above, I should withdraw from this conversation, I'm not one of the "good" people who know the right truth. I’m very down over this discussion. I won’t decide right now, but I think the only thing that makes sense is to withdraw from TAM4 while I still have a spot of dignity. Ironically, the draft schedule had me following Professor Dawkins. I best not go, he wouldn’t want to be seen shaking my hand, after all...

I suggest you carefully consider that, after all from what’s been posted here we don’t know the full details of what happened with Dawkins and the Christian Leader. Plus somehow I do not think you are going to be saying that your “leap of faith” means that you know (for instance) marriage between “races” is wrong and should be prohibited. I suspect that whilst Dawkins might consider you irrational he would not consider you an “irrational bigot”.

 

[JamesM]

Darat noted:

Would the same level of objection be raised if Dawkins had refused to shake the Ku Klux Klan leader’s hand and called him, to his face, an irrational bigot?

Good point. But while I agree that the context of the original Dawkins quote is important, the context in which it was presented in the commentary seemed pretty obvious. It looked rude to me.

It reminds me of the supposed furore over Prince Charles' handshake "gaffe" with Mugabe at the Pope's funeral. Yeah, handshakes are symbolic, but really, so what? If you don't shake someone's hand, you look like an ill-mannered oik, and your opponent is still a fundamentalist bigot/African dictator.

I am an atheist and my response to the Dawkins anecdote was "how boorish". If the point of the commentaries are to cheer the already confirmed skeptical and JREF members, then perhaps this particular item did a good job (although it did nothing for me).

If they're designed to advocate for skepticism to a disinterested outsider, I would hardly be pointing to this as a shining example. I might add, I joined this forum after doing a websearch on some skeptical item, finding the commentaries and then reading through every single one (was probably supposed to be writing my thesis at the time, I expect).

This is minor, to be sure. But the cumulative effect could have some bearing on whether somewhat cash-strapped JREF members (like me) decide to renew their membership.

 

[BillyJoe]

Hal,

I think you should go to TAM4 - for the sake of the scepticism!

I believe in being civil to everyone. I believe kindness is always best. I believe the default position should be one of respect.

Nice to hear from you once again.

You are entirely correct in your attitude, in my opinion.
I haven't been as deeply disenchanted as yourself probably because I have never regarded scepticism as a movement, but more of as a way of life. The Bright movement for me was a great big laugh. That well known sceptics could have taken this so seriously, to me, was completely amazing.

In any case, giving offense is completely counterproductive. I have a sceptical outlook and it makes me cringe when I hear prominent sceptics carry on like that. I can just imagine the response of someone who has a religious outlook! I think this has happened only out of frustration and egging each other on. Why are they on a mission to convert in any case. I thought religions worked this way. Simply explain your point of view and let it lead where it may.

Life is not about getting your favourite "ideology" up. It is people who are important. There will never be a time when scepticism is the outlook of everyone on this Earth. In fact, it will probably always be in a minority - especially if those prominent sceptics keep carrying on the way that they have. Everyone is a unique person and it much more interesting to find out how the other person ticks than to persuade them of your own views.

I have a sceptical outlook but I couldn't care less if the world contained no other sceptics than myself. Why do people feel it is so important to spread the word? To repeat, it is people that matter not "ideology". So let's get off our high horse and mingle with the populace.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[crimresearch]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how refusing to engage in an unctuous ritual equates to intolerance for whole groups of people.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

(In response to whether Christians can be skeptics....)

All men are created skeptical, just some are created more skeptical than others.

 

[Hutch]

Hal, please come. As a lukewarm Deist (whatever that is, I'll figure it out by the next TAM ), I would be most interested in hearing you speak.

I think what we see is that while all of us who are part of the Skeptical movement (to include religious folks like MLynn) tend to agree on most things in the 'paranormal', such as ESP, UFO's, remote viewing, dowsing, anti-vax, homeopathy, et. al., are items worthy of skepticism because they do not stand the light when their testable claims are put through rigorous testing. The whole schism (if that is what it is) deals with religious beliefs--and that is where the ground gets thorny, so to speak.

Some religious-based claims are testable (see the relatively civil conversation in the paranormal section we are having with a Young Earth Creationist), while others depend solely on faith (no way to prove an undetectable God didn't say "Let there be physics" circa 20B years ago) that is by purview not part of the Skeptics world. And I think there are some skeptics that ignore that and would encompass faith as something to be weighed and tested and if not meeting their requirements to be cast out. And they would be wrong--IMHO as always.

As for Randi and Dawkins comments--well, they are older men, they have been in the trenches for a long time, they have been smeared and abused by many 'religious' folks for a long time, and it might be that the veneer of civility that we all have (but in how thick a layer--how far are we really from the Huns, Mongols, Vandals, et. al.?) has been more than slightly eroded. Or maybe they are just grumpy by nature--nothing wrong with that, I could depress a hyena most days.

OK, I've probably rambled enough--but the basic though remains--come and speak. I think we'll listen. Respectfully--but skeptically.

 

[bouch]

Originally written by Francois Tremblay
To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality. Skeptics should empathically point out that religions contains mountains of extraordinary claims, that religion is immoral, and reject all believers from their ranks.

What is it about ALL religion that makes it immoral?

I guess that if someone believes there is a god, then they should give up being sceptical and believe in homeopathy, alien abductions, yellow bamboo, etc?

]Originally written by Francois Tremblay
We would show no more benevolence towards neo-nazis or flat earthers, and yet both are far more believable and moral.

Wow. I'm just staggered here. Your assertion is that neo-nazis are more moral than anyone who subscribes to any religion. That's a truly frightening statement.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

I guess that if someone believes there is a god, then they should give up being sceptical and believe in homeopathy, alien abductions, yellow bamboo, etc?

Belief in a god is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in Jesus is an extraordinary claim.
Belief in miracles is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that a man can be brought back from the dead after three days, without medical technology, and then rocket to the sky, is an extraordinary claim.
Belief that there was a worldwide flood is an extraordinary claim.
etc etc

Once you accept one nonsense, you might as well accept the whole lot. To believe in any of these is to abandon logic.

Also, to believe that all the evil in the world is the result of a good being is the ultimate amorality. If you can believe that, then you'll believe any moral nonsense.

 

[Beady]

Once you accept one nonsense, you might as well accept the whole lot. To believe in any of these is to abandon logic.

I repeat: To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

I repeat: To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.

I'm not sure if you think you're contradicting me or not, but I agree absolutely. There is a huge difference between eccentricity and the refusal to acknowledge reality and moral responsibility (which is what religion is). I'm not sure I would call other skeptics bigots just for not making the difference, though.

 

[rwguinn]

I repeat: To be unable to distinguish between the eccentric and the evil is ignorance. To be unwilling to distinguish between them is true bigotry.

Francois Tremblay is to athiesm as 1inchrist is to Christianity...

Stupid id forever. Ignorance is curable.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Francois Tremblay is to athiesm as 1inchrist is to Christianity...

Stupid id forever. Ignorance is curable.

Ad hominems are curable too. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Rolfe]

Also, to believe that all the evil in the world is the result of a good being is the ultimate amorality. If you can believe that, then you'll believe any moral nonsense.

Can I clarify something? Are you saying that as well as containing matter and energy, the universe also contains abstract moral absolutes?

If you're not saying that, could you clarify what you mean by "evil", "good", "moral" and "amoral"?

Rolfe.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Can I clarify something? Are you saying that as well as containing matter and energy, the universe also contains abstract moral absolutes?

No.

If you're not saying that, could you clarify what you mean by "evil", "good", "moral" and "amoral"?

AFAIK, this is not specifically a thread about morality. So I'll just say that I mean by it what most people mean - good as actions which are compatible with our objective values, and evil as the opposite. For more on moral objectivity and its basis, see The Case for Objective Morality.

 

[Rolfe]

So I'll just say that I mean by it what most people mean - good as actions which are compatible with our objective values, and evil as the opposite.

I will read your link, thank you. However, in the mean time, can you explain why what you said in that sentence does not essentially equate to "good = selfishness"?

Rolfe.