Skeptic Solidarity

[ImaginalDisc]

TAM4 was, well, amazing. It was easily the most educational three days of my life. One thing really stuck out in my mind as a critical moment in the meeting. When Hal (I approached him later, and called him “Sir”, he insisted I call him Hal. What a guy, eh?) spoke at length about the issue of Skeptic theists, the crowd exploded with support for him. Hal noted that he feels rather alone as a skeptic theist. The panel discussion afterward revolved around the definition of a skeptic, the relevance of the god question, and other important, but esoteric points. I desperately wanted to ask the panel about the elephant in the room.

My question was simple, “Can we afford to fight over this?” Sure, we can debate it, and we will, and discuss it at length, but we cannot afford to divide ourselves, and exclude so many valuable, important skeptics simply because we feel differently about a relatively minor issue. I managed to talk to several of the panel members afterwards (everything you’ve heard about the TAM speakers being amiable and approachable is true), and each one I spoke to agreed that we have more to gain in solidarity than we could ever gain in dividing ourselves on religious matters.

Really, I only meant to ask the question rhetorically. Hal, who bravely addressed the issue at TAM4 to begin with, had the most insightful response when I asked him my question. “I’d hate to see a team of cardiac surgeons break up in the middle of a procedure, just because they can’t agree on the issue of whether Hersey’s Kisses should have almonds.” He’s right boys and girls. We’re in this for all the marbles. Let’s agree to disagree, and show some political solidarity.

 

[kittynh]

I like to think we are a big family that likes to argue.

I've had people tell me I can't be a Republican because I don't support Bush.

Too bad. Just because someone calls me something it does not define me. I define myself.

Intolerance is perhaps one the greatest sins of religions. The great atheist communist societies also practiced intolerance.

I just know that if I can win the December language award (seriously global warming is cured as h3ll froze over!) then JREF isn't kicking out the deists anytime soon.

But fussing about, perhaps the only united group that doesn't argue a bit every now and again is Mr.Moon's organization. And that's a cult!

 

[MWare]

My question was simple, “Can we afford to fight over this?” Sure, we can debate it, and we will, and discuss it at length, but we cannot afford to divide ourselves, and exclude so many valuable, important skeptics simply because we feel differently about a relatively minor issue.

I'm not sure the distinction between debate and fight here. Were people assaulting each other at TAM? While I'm more of a lurker than a poster, I've been around these threads long enough to see people's theist and atheist views expressed and discussed without too much malice. I'd say the political forums generate a lot more divisiveness than religion IMHO. Are you advocating we not discuss religion here???

I'd also dispute the assertion that this is a minor issue. Whether one believes in a God, gods, no god, or doesn't know is quite a significant facet of a person's beliefs, especially in skeptical discussions. If atheists on the forums are somehow suppressing the POV of theists or vice versa, I would suspect this would be handled like any other POV being suppressed (by not being tolerated).

Having said all that, if there is to be a final deathmatch between the atheists, theists, and agnostics, I guess I'd have to be on the side of the atheists. By definition it would seem we have the most to lose.

 

[blutoski]

TAM4 was, well, amazing. It was easily the most educational three days of my life. One thing really stuck out in my mind as a critical moment in the meeting. When Hal (I approached him later, and called him “Sir”, he insisted I call him Hal. What a guy, eh?) spoke at length about the issue of Skeptic theists, the crowd exploded with support for him. Hal noted that he feels rather alone as a skeptic theist. The panel discussion afterward revolved around the definition of a skeptic, the relevance of the god question, and other important, but esoteric points. I desperately wanted to ask the panel about the elephant in the room.

My question was simple, “Can we afford to fight over this?” Sure, we can debate it, and we will, and discuss it at length, but we cannot afford to divide ourselves, and exclude so many valuable, important skeptics simply because we feel differently about a relatively minor issue. I managed to talk to several of the panel members afterwards (everything you’ve heard about the TAM speakers being amiable and approachable is true), and each one I spoke to agreed that we have more to gain in solidarity than we could ever gain in dividing ourselves on religious matters.

Really, I only meant to ask the question rhetorically. Hal, who bravely addressed the issue at TAM4 to begin with, had the most insightful response when I asked him my question. “I’d hate to see a team of cardiac surgeons break up in the middle of a procedure, just because they can’t agree on the issue of whether Hersey’s Kisses should have almonds.” He’s right boys and girls. We’re in this for all the marbles. Let’s agree to disagree, and show some political solidarity.

I have a question about the scope of membership in this JREF forum and TAM attendees, as compared to the overall skeptical population.

My impression is that there are three major skeptical organizations: CSICOP, Skeptical Society, and JREF. CSICOP is attached at the hip to Secular Humanism through Kutz in particular. High-profile Skeptics such as P&T or even JR (on more than one occasion) go out of their way to call religion stupid.

Why *should* religous people be attracted to the organization? Why would they feel comfortable within it?

My wife, a Baptist, is very active in quackbusting. She has a PhD and an MD, but these skills are not accessible to skepticism because of the connection between the movement and its historical hostility to religion.

My question is: if this hostility is not really policy, how can we expunge it from the organization, and how do we let the public 'see' the official stance?

 

[RSLancastr]

My question is: if this hostility is not really policy, how can we expunge it from the organization, and how do we let the public 'see' the official stance?

Very good question.

This is an important topic.

Perhaps this thread should be moved somewhere where it will get more general attention?

 

[blutoski]

Very good question.

This is an important topic.

Perhaps this thread should be moved somewhere where it will get more general attention?

Or perhaps an umbrella category about Organized Skepticism with a subtopic for PR? There are two other problems with organized skepticism as practiced (as opposed to 'in theory'), aside from alienating religious people (who are, what, 95% of the public?):

• The OCPDs (cannot ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ drop the argument)
• The lecturers (saving the poor, poor, sheeple)

I know it seems ironic that a thread titled "Skeptic Solidarity" is being popluated by a list of schizmatic talking points, but I'm hoping that it will lead to enough discussion for some people to understand that there is blowback on others from their personal behavior, and I'm asking for the members to support each other at least by recognizing the consequences.

Skeptics are iconoclasts and independent thinkers. Organizing them is like herding cats. However, I think we can achieve a consensus on the value of good external behavior, and maybe some guidelines.