The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Thomas]

The JREF* is not such a large organization that it can afford to make itself smaller by systematically excluding classes of people.

• There are people who think critically about all things.
• There are people who think critically about most things.
• There are people who think critically about some things.
• There are people who we aren't sure if they think or not.

Each of the latter three classes of people can be taught to "move up" to the next class. The teaching isn't always easy. Some people aren't willing to listen. But it's hard to say that climbing the 'ladder' isn't progress, and if the people at the top of the ladder are vigorously kicking the ladder away and telling people below "You're not thinking critically enough to hang out with us"... what motivation is that to even WANT to join the people at the top of the ladder? After all, they seem like a bunch of dicks.

What if Robert Lancaster were a Christian?** Would you de facto exclude him? Or would you make a special pleading by saying "the work he does is important enough that we can overlook this"? Think carefully.



* Replace with 'skepticism', 'humanist movement', or whatever, as appropriate.

** As far as I know he's an atheist. If I'm wrong and he's not, that makes this question even more appropriate...

What would it change? We're just talking official JREF positions, so RSL and others would still be allowed on the forum as usual, no news at 11, it's just that JREF declares itself a non-believing organization - it's a much better image to hold for a selfdeclared skeptics organization, than being halfway endorsing believing in woo. The bible is so obviously wrong that it makes Sylvia B. look like an oracle of truths. That's just my opinion, of course.

Edit: In fact, I don't even care if official JREF positions are held by bleevers, what I think would be of greater importance, is that it skips the "we're not skepitcal towards religion"-policy, and gets real.

 

[six7s]

Why focus on Christianity in your post?

Why not? As far as religious woo is concerned, this site is dominated by christianity

...many militant atheists in the West who have ostensibly embraced skepticism

No True Scotsman?

...many militant atheists ... myopically focus their anger and frustration on it.

Myopically? Puhleeze, dipense with the self-righteous scorn!

We're better served by attracting religious believers who think homeopathy, UFOlogy, and yes, ghosts, phsychics, 2012, etc. are bunk than by spurning them.

If you feel spurned, that's your problem

 

[six7s]

What if Robert Lancaster were a Christian?** Would you de facto exclude him? Or would you make a special pleading by saying "the work he does is important enough that we can overlook this"? Think carefully.

If he used theistic woo to argue against Salivia Browne, then yes, I would exclude dismiss his approach

Wouldn't you? ("Think carefully.")

 

[remirol]

If he used theistic woo to argue against Salivia Browne, then yes, I would exclude dismiss his approach

Wouldn't you? ("Think carefully.")

That wasn't the question I asked.

 

[Cavemonster]

Remirol,

Here's the thing, JREF positions don't exclude any kind of involvement. The only thing that's clearly a JREF position is Skepticism, yet the forum is open to and receives many who neither are, nor consider themselves skeptical. The Challenge is open in the same way.

The only thing such a position would likely effect are JREF employees. As of now, would an employee who believed in Sylvia Browne, a 911 conspiracy and the Lockness monster be able to do their job well? How about one who believed in immaculate conception, talking snakes and mythical realms of punishment and reward?

Of course no one is excluded from the conversation or participation, but I don't see any reason to treat religious woo with any more respect than every other type of woo. It doesn't deserve a free pass.

 

[remirol]

Here's the thing, JREF positions don't exclude any kind of involvement. The only thing that's clearly a JREF position is Skepticism, yet the forum is open to and receives many who neither are, nor consider themselves skeptical. The Challenge is open in the same way.

So why should the JREF specifically exclude people who are critical thinkers about "most" things, but not all? I know you want to say that it "doesn't exclude any type of involvement", but if it doesn't matter, then why does it matter? The only way it matters is if the people advocating this intend to _make_ it matter; to somehow denigrate others, either explicitly or implicitly, for being "less skeptical".

What would it change? We're just talking official JREF positions, so RSL and others would still be allowed on the forum as usual, no news at 11, it's just that JREF declares itself a non-believing organization - it's a much better image to hold for a selfdeclared skeptics organization, than being halfway endorsing believing in woo.

See above. If it doesn't matter, why does it matter? If it won't change anything, why change something?

 

[Cavemonster]

So why should the JREF specifically exclude people who are critical thinkers about "most" things, but not all? I know you want to say that it "doesn't exclude any type of involvement", but if it doesn't matter, then why does it matter? The only way it matters is if the people advocating this intend to _make_ it matter; to somehow denigrate others, either explicitly or implicitly, for being "less skeptical".

See above. If it doesn't matter, why does it matter? If it won't change anything, why change something?

It matters because above all the JREF is a PR effort for critical thinking and skepticism.

Through the blog, the lectures and the challenge, the JREF makes it clear that they are an organization that.

Does not believe in psychics
Does not believe in homeopathy
Does not believe in dowsing
Does not believe in astrology etc etc.

Now in exactly the way that a clear stand for atheism is exclusive, these stands that are already made exclude those who are critical thinkers except for dowsing or any single claim.

Why should religion be treated differently? If having a position on religion is exclusive to people with varying levels of skepticism, how is it different from having a position on any of the above?

 

[remirol]

It matters because above all the JREF is a PR effort for critical thinking and skepticism.

This conversation is making me despise the term "skepticism" even more than I already do, by the way. This is kind of a derail, though, so -- not here.

Through the blog, the lectures and the challenge, the JREF makes it clear that they are an organization that.

Does not believe in psychics
Does not believe in homeopathy
Does not believe in dowsing
Does not believe in astrology etc etc.

Now in exactly the way that a clear stand for atheism is exclusive, these stands that are already made exclude those who are critical thinkers except for dowsing or any single claim.

Correct. And all of the above can be tested.

Why should religion be treated differently? If having a position on religion is exclusive to people with varying levels of skepticism, how is it different from having a position on any of the above?

The (non-)existence of god cannot be tested for. It isn't critical thinking to say "There's no god"; that's not a statement that can be supported with evidence. It is fine to say "There is no evidence of god's existence", and "The evidence provided for the Christian god is sufficiently vague and self-contradictory that it is a near-certainty that the Christian god does not exist", but you can't say "There's no god".

As such, you cannot say that belief in god is not critical thinking; that's why it's called "faith". If someone says "Yes, there's no evidence, but I think _something_ must have created all this", that's not an inherently wrong statement. It's simply picking the more unlikely circumstance despite a lack of evidence.

You may note that the MDC does not accept claims based on demonstrating the existence of god, demons, angels, etc. This is consistent with the position.

Also, as a side, more practical note: atheism is a lack of belief in any god, but that's not how the public sees it. They see it as an explicit denial of all gods, and that is how many media centers portray it. That's wrong, of course, but that will take some time to overcome; in the meantime, it is better for the JREF to be not explicitly atheist.

ETA: Let's just get all the ad-homs I see coming out of the way now: I'm an atheist.

 

[six7s]

As such, you cannot say that belief in god is not critical thinking; that's why it's called "faith". If someone says "Yes, there's no evidence, but I think _something_ must have created all this", that's not an inherently wrong statement. It's simply picking the more unlikely circumstance despite a lack of evidence.

Your use of the word 'think' seems incongruous...

Although thinking does not necessarily preclude faith/belief/etc, faith certainly precludes thinking

 

[remirol]

Although thinking does not necessarily preclude faith/belief/etc, faith certainly precludes thinking

This statement isn't even right enough to be wrong. A great many people have spent a great deal of time thinking about their faith, and why they have faith in a particular thing or things. So much for faith precluding thinking.

 

[Piggy]

The (non-)existence of god cannot be tested for.

Of course it can.

If you define God, then it's no problem to test for God's existence.

I'm sorry, but here you're merely repeating "accepted wisdom" that has no basis in fact.

On the other hand, if you refuse to define God, then you're just talking nonsense.

 

[Piggy]

As such, you cannot say that belief in god is not critical thinking; that's why it's called "faith". If someone says "Yes, there's no evidence, but I think _something_ must have created all this", that's not an inherently wrong statement. It's simply picking the more unlikely circumstance despite a lack of evidence.

This makes no sense.

There is no "get out of critical thinking free" card for religion.

Slapping a "faith" label on a belief does not somehow make it a skepticism-free zone.

If I follow your logic, I could call my belief in a flat earth "faith" and declare that it's exempt from examination.

 

[Piggy]

This statement isn't even right enough to be wrong. A great many people have spent a great deal of time thinking about their faith, and why they have faith in a particular thing or things. So much for faith precluding thinking.

The amount of time spent thinking about a topic doesn't matter.

Evidence and reason matter.

Go look at all the hardcore 911 Truthers, the most prolific Holocaust deniers, the rabid anti-GW crackpots who post ad nauseum. They have spent a lot of time thinking about these things. Nevertheless, they are wrong.

Not all thinking is created equal. Quality matters -- mere quantity does not.

And btw, "faith" by definition precludes thinking. If a conclusion follows from reasoned thought and evidence, faith is obviated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
No True Scotsman?
...

About this misnomer (not that you used it specifically this way in your post), god beliefs are in the category of woo. It doesn't matter who has those beliefs.

The issue is not about what a skeptic is or isn't. It is about which conclusions are based on rational evaluation of the Universe and which are not.

As for the organization, there is one argument to be made and that is which focus does the JREF have? If you add in atheism you dilute the focus. OTOH, if you focus on critical aka rational thinking, atheism follows regardless of the members who don't follow that thinking.

I, for one, think allowing the critical thinking blind spot regarding supposed faith based evidence and beliefs is a mistake of hypocrisy. But I have no issue with saying the JREF is not an atheist organization. Because atheism is not the focus of the group.

 

[athon]

I think I said this before in this very thread, but it bears repeating.

Skepticism is not about official stances, but about a philosophical approach. I think it approaches dangerous territory when a group promoting thinking skills and a philosophy emphatically represent a conclusion. It then becomes a matter of telling people that conclusion X is wrong, rather than educating people in how to evaluate their thinking, and hopefully understand on their own that X is wrong.

Athon

 

[six7s]

This statement isn't even right enough to be wrong.

Bollocks

A great many people have spent a great deal of time thinking about their faith, and why they have faith in a particular thing or things.

I'd be more inclined to agree (that 'faith does NOT preclude thinking') if you had acknowledged that 'most faithers jump to a conclusion and then reverse-engineer their worldview to fit'

However... you didn't... you have (it seems) skipped over the (uncomfortable?) parts of reality, where critical thinking involves something along the lines of 'thinking about observable reality, postulating conclusions and, for faithers, then thinking if/how their faith fits with reality') and instead, it seems, focused attention on those who do/are "thinking about their faith"

So much for faith precluding thinking.

OK... I will acknowledge that there are some very clever minds that are patently capable of advanced-level thinking whilst (but not, I think, in conjunction with) faith - e.g. the astronomers in the Vatican, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, etc...

However... I suspect that there is NO evidence to suggest that:

• they combine their faith with their thinking in way that is more beneficial than thinking alone
• they have applied their full range of critical thinking skills to the fundamentals of their faith (instead, their woo is given a 'free pass')

 

[Thomas]

Also, as a side, more practical note: atheism is a lack of belief in any god, but that's not how the public sees it. They see it as an explicit denial of all gods, and that is how many media centers portray it. That's wrong, of course, but that will take some time to overcome; in the meantime, it is better for the JREF to be not explicitly atheist.

This has been debated many times on this forum, and while I'm an agnostic, then I declare myself atheist here because I know a lot of you differ between soft and hard atheists from older discussions, where I would be a soft atheist - aka agnostic.

 

[Thomas]

Bollocks


OK... I will acknowledge that there are some very clever minds that are patently capable of advanced-level thinking whilst (but not, I think, in conjunction with) faith - e.g. the astronomers in the Vatican, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, etc...

Most of the astronomers of ancient times took a lot of heat from their discoveries tho.. Bruno was burned at the stake, Gallileo was threatened with torture, etc. etc., religion is nothing to approve of when you know a tad about the history of the same.

 

[Thomas]

See above. If it doesn't matter, why does it matter? If it won't change anything, why change something?

Several people have told you this now, but it doesn't seem to sink in, does it.. Do you know what image means in this context?

I'm a skeptic, and I believe that a pink bunny on the backside of Mars controls Earth. Do you see how this sentence doesn't make much sense? Then try to switch the bunny with a hebrew vulcano god, and you're on the right track.

 

[Cavemonster]

I think I said this before in this very thread, but it bears repeating.

Skepticism is not about official stances, but about a philosophical approach. I think it approaches dangerous territory when a group promoting thinking skills and a philosophy emphatically represent a conclusion. It then becomes a matter of telling people that conclusion X is wrong, rather than educating people in how to evaluate their thinking, and hopefully understand on their own that X is wrong.

Athon

I see your point but I disagree.
As an example, the JREF vocally and clearly holds a view on homeopathy.
There are certain conclusions, which after as much research and study as you can possibly do, you can only arrive at them through faulty logic, and they're dangerous to boot.

The whole point of skepticism is to be able to make good conclusions, and avoid bad ones. I believe and I think Randi might agree, that one of the strong reasons it's important for skepticism to spread, is to ideally rid the world of some of those dangerous conclusions.

Note that generally when Randi or another JREF member mentions Homeopathy, they're clear that although it's pretty clearly bull from the extensive, they're open to looking at the results of research or even an MDC test to change their minds. The same should hold true of God.