Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[articulett]

Athon,
As I think about it, your complaint stems not so much that you believe that the belief factor is unimportant--but more that you felt that mentioning it (in the newsletter) seemed (to you) like blaming the victims or calling them ignorant. But re-read it and see if you still see it that way. Because the words don't say that at all, and that is not the message I got when reading it. You feel like you are defending the victims--maybe like I feel I'm defending Randi, and the letter write, and the "many skeptics" who need to "grow up".
But the victims were never attacked--just the notion that beliefs the invisible factor in this tragedy.

 

[dann]

And, remember Dann, you started the ad homs--they are the tool of those who have weak arguments and big egos to protect. Your supporters seem to only support with ad homs --no substance; that makes you look like you're on the side of the actual people who "need to grow up". Now, I try not to start with ad homs, but I'm glad to join in to a rousing game of "you're mother wears army boots", and I am known to go for the jugular. (This always makes me feel a little guilty, because generally I like the members of this forum; besides I'd probably even agree with you on most things other than what the original article implied and who the skeptics are that "need to grow up" And, of course, I also noted that you confused correlation with causation. That's a common error, but you shouldn't have compounded it by acting as if you believed yourself to be more "grown up" than others--including Randi (!?). Humility can be more influential than hubris.) And though I wasn't the original letter writer, I am flattered that you thought I was. If I spoke like her, it might be because I had just gone back to read the quote that got you so worked up that you needed to start a thread about skeptics needing to grow up.

No, articulett, the ad hominems, and in particular the one that gets you so upset that you have to resort to using them yourself all the time, started here, in James Randi’s weekly newsletter. You have complained a number of times that I tell skeptics to grow up, and you have pretended that I was the one who started this condescending way of talking to and about others, and at the same time you have referred to James Randi as if he were a saint, the embodiment of immaculate truth. Well ….. he isn’t. (And he would probably be the first to deny it, I think. Like I have said before, I don’t hold your arguments against him.)
In other words: I have taken the condescending, childish title from a piece written by a person admired by most sceptics, and you in particular, and turned it against the skeptics. A rather obvious thing to do, I think: If they are so fond of the phrase, let’s see how they react when I apply it to them!
And what a reaction! If there is one thing that brights don’t seem to be, it’s bright!

When people alter their views it's rarely by someone who attacks. People are more likely to change their views when someone they likes points out commonalities they share and then defines the actual area of disagreement. Then questions can be utilized to prod people towards your position, but you also have to show a willingness to be prodded toward theirs. Attacking people just makes them think you are a jerk and no one learns a thing. (I'm not saying that flame-wars can't be fun, but that's a game where I don't play nice.) Just think of viewpoints where you changed your mind (if that has ever happened)...Have you ever had an "evolution of thought"?-

No, I was born this way, all my concepts and ideas were fully formed and I never had to change a single one of them. Will you pleas get to the point!?

-Did the thinking start with someone's assertion that you needed to grow up and be more like them? Did sarcasm and ad homs prod your thinking along.

Well, actually, more or less. When you are confronted with people who present themselves as superior, it is very often necessary to confront them with their own arrogance. This is what I did in this case, and I’m quite happy with the way things worked out!
But notice that this is not my recommendation for how to persuade people of something, this is not my idea of how to present an argument in general. I could have chosen a much more humble attitude, and then you would not have been as offended on behalf of Randi, scepticism and the tool of reason! As it was, however, you were, but that was your choice.

They don't do it for anyone else either.

It is actually very annoying when you behave like a school teacher and pretend that because you have asked a question that even the most stupid (but very well-behaved (which I’m not)) child would know the required answer to, then it automatically follows that that is the answer you’ll get. I’m sorry, but you have to realize that I’m not one of your students and you can’t expect me to behave as if you had the power to grade and fail me. You don’t!

So it's important to consider your goal prior to posting.

Yes, it is, isn’t it?!

Now, I'm guessing that despite their ability to communicate effectively, your increasingly fewer supporters buy the basic premise that skeptics who point out the suffering caused by belief are pointing out something inconsequential as opposed the more pressing matter (to you) of poverty.

You’re not guessing, you’re pretending that you don’t know that Gurdur and Athon aren’t and never were my supporters, but just happened to agree with my objections to the article Time to grow up. That they also happened to disagree with you is no coincidence, but it is also no reason to think that it is a question of supporting me, dann, – and not simply those of my arguments that they tend to agree with! They also aren’t getting ”increasingly fewer”, as far as I can see, but many of the people who disagree with you and agree with my arguments against you do not share my view on politics in general. This is another reason why I want you to consider your words about them.
They don’t support me or even all of my arguments presented in this thread. Pretending that they do, does not make it so.
They also don’t ”buy the basic premise that skeptics who point out the suffering caused by belief are pointing out something inconsequential”. No matter how many times you repeat it, that never was the basic premise. Randi did not ‘point out’ the suffering suffering caused by belief. He and Sarah L. Hubscher, with whom he agreed “enthusiastically”, actually succeeded in misrepresenting an article from the CSM when they said:
“The article implies that many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them and so, voila, an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home as practitioners of black magic.”
Nothing in the article implies that Frida Tshama, who ”was forced to live on the street after her aunt kicked her out of the house” with the excuse that she had broken a glass, was one of the children accused of being ”practitioners of black magic.”
"I was staying with my aunt, and one day I was cleaning the house, and a glass that was on the table fell and broke," she says. "My aunt asked me to get out of the house. If I stay, she will poison me."

So let us take another look at this sentence again:
“The article implies that many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members”
Correct!
”who no longer wanted to have to support them”
Well, I would have phrased it differently: who no longer could support them and therefore didn’t want to. The article does not make a secret of that!
”and so, voila, an easily-explained incident such as a broken glass or a still-born child becomes an excuse to turn them out of home”
Yes!!! A fairly innocent incident is used as an excuse to kick them out.
”as practitioners of black magic.”
No! Sometimes witchcraft is used as an excuse, sometimes it isn’t! The broken glass in itself or simply asking for something to eat becomes the excuse!!! The belief in black magic is immaterial for this outcome. It contributes nothing essential to the practice of getting rid of the children that you can’t feed, which is why I chose to call it merely an ”added insult”.
The CSM article here
The article in James Randi’s newsletter here

But from my point of view that just shows how people are almost blinded to the role belief plays in tragedies.

No surprise there! From mine it just shows how some sceptics are so blinded by their preoccupation with superstition and religion that they attribute a very exaggerated importance to it in cases where the calamity isn’t really a religious or superstitious one, but just happens to take place among religious/suspicious people which, of course, adds a certain flavour to the whole thing.

It makes Randi and the letter writer's statement all the more significant--and your missing the point and presuming moral superiority all the more ironic.

Repeating it still does not make it so!

If you want to claim that poverty is the true cause of kids being called witches and/or that belief has little to do with the issue, then I suggest that you bone up on the difference between correlation and causation.

I’m beginning to get a little desperate now! Could somebody help me explain to articulett that she hasn’t once even indicated that she understands what I’ve been saying the whole time. Let me repeat it again: Belief has very much to do with kids being called witches, and very little to do with kids being left in the street to fend for themselves! Correlation and causation, my ….!

Before determining that Randi, and the letter write, and all those who agree with the letter writer and all those willing to stand up to your self important post need to "grow up"—

No, those are words that are inadmissible about repspectful people, right?
Starving Africans, need to grow up! Skeptics don't!

you might want to get your definitions down first.

I have, you haven’t! Your ad hominems are all you have.

And you might want to consider the fact that you took peoples failure to mention poverty as an indication that they were unaware of the role it played.

No, I mightn’t since I didn’t. "... the fact ..." (!)

Moreover, you took their mentioning of belief as something that they mentioned for superfluous reasons.

No, I didn’t.

The reasons aren't superfluous.

They aren’t even reasons, they are excuses. At least Randi and Hubscher were aware of that.

Your own post shows how people are "programmed" to overlook the damage it causes.

Yes, Mam, if you say so, Mam, I’ll go and stand in the corner.

 

[dann]

Athon, you have been most forthcoming to articulett, and this is your reward:

Athon,
Yes,you have, by far, been his most intelligent supporter. But you, like he, seem to think that the beliefs have nothing to do with kids being accused of being witches. Moreover, the newsletter in no way suggested that the people were accusing kids of being witches due to "immaturity" or ignorance. You extrapolated that.

Yes, Athon! Can't you see it? Read it very carefully and let the teacher guide you through the text again. Then you will notice that the title of the piece, Time to grow up, did not mean to imply any kind of "immaturity" in the Africans who abandon their children and sometimes call them witches.
Repeat it to yourself a couple of times, Athon: "The title Time to grow up, did not mean to imply any kind of "immaturity"!"
Say it again out loud: "The title Time to grow up, did not mean to imply any kind of "immaturity"!"
Don't be shy, Athon: "The title Time to grow up, did not mean to imply any kind of "immaturity"!"
Can you see it now? Good boy!

Do you see it, Athon? You may not understand the simplest of things, but at least you have now in articulett's eyes become by far the most intelligent of my disciples!
Praise the Lord!

 

[dann]

I agree that dann has poorly argued his case, and has used language that has clearly upset some people, but I would have thought some people would indeed be mature enough to not take affront at such a stupid thing. I consider myself a skeptic, and sure, being told to grow up is never good. But there is an argument beneath it, and in that case I tend to ignore the way it is presented and look solely at the facts. Getting emotional over it is, well, a waste of time.

OK, maybe we could get this discussion back on track (= away from Slimething and articulett's attempts at derailing) if you made it clear where you think I argued my case poorly. And when you say that I have used language that has upset some people, are you referring to my headline of this thread, Time for skeptics to grow up?, or something else?
I am well aware that articulett will welcome any kind of disagreement between us with enthusiasm, but that should not concern us. Clarification, however, should!
By the way, I wouldn't consider having to confess one's faith a necessity in a community of skeptics! I thought that something like that was only required in a congregation of believers, who tend to become anxious when they suspect someone of wandering away from the flock! (I'm referring to: "I consider myself a skeptic")

 

[athon]

Athon,
As I think about it, your complaint stems not so much that you believe that the belief factor is unimportant--but more that you felt that mentioning it (in the newsletter) seemed (to you) like blaming the victims or calling them ignorant. But re-read it and see if you still see it that way. Because the words don't say that at all, and that is not the message I got when reading it. You feel like you are defending the victims--maybe like I feel I'm defending Randi, and the letter write, and the "many skeptics" who need to "grow up".
But the victims were never attacked--just the notion that beliefs the invisible factor in this tragedy.

Perhaps.

I guess for many years I also directed my aggression and emotion at people who followed superstition with such terrible results, feeling honestly that they were indeed ignorant or stupid. I've found myself in recent years to be in a number of diverse situations where I seriously felt that critical thinking would benefit the people, yet could see no direct way of conveying it.

Maybe it's more accurate if I say that I often feel that the accusations of skeptics -- while technically correct -- are meaningless in a practical way. Looking at the structure in which superstitious thinking sits and understanding how the structure must change in order to accomdate more productive thinking skills gives a better chance of changing things.

I'll endeavour to respond to your other post when I get the time next week.

Athon

 

[dann]

I guess for many years I also directed my aggression and emotion at people who followed superstition with such terrible results, feeling honestly that they were indeed ignorant or stupid.

Since the word stupid in particular seems to upset many people, I would like to clarify what I mean when I use the word. Unlike ignorance, which means that there are things that we do not know – and everybody is ignorant about something in most fields of knowledge: too much knowledge and too many fields to be a know-it-all today – and also unlike learning disabilities which may be as diverse as dyslexia, which does not impair our understanding of a thought, but merely debilitates (slows down) our reading of the words that convey it, or Down’s syndrome, which definitely prevents you from understanding complex ideas, stupidity in my definition of the word (and in Wiki’s too, apparently) usually (but not always) demands an effort on our side: we interpret the facts the wrong way, come up with false explanations, because we want the facts explained in a certain way, i.e. we let our interests dictate our thinking in spite of what reality would tell us if only we looked at it in an unbiased way.
Sometimes, of course, we may have false notions of things because we haven’t given much thought to them and just accepted somebody else’s wrong explanation. (Like when my rather uneducated mother explained gravity to me: because the Earth spins so fast, it holds us down! When I couldn’t make sense of it, since I had experienced the opposite effect on merry-go-rounds, she insisted that merry-go-rounds just didn’t go fast enough! I wondered about that one for a couple of years. I was probably just being stupid asking her in the first place.)
The problem with the term probably is that we, like wiki, tend to define stupidity as: “stupid, or lacking intelligence”, and intelligence not simply as wrong explanations, but as the ability or capacity to understand and explain at all: “a property of mind that encompasses many related mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn.”, which is why stupid has turned into an insult: ‘It’s not that you won’t, it’s that you can’t!’ And for the same reason the word stupid usually ends the debate.
I like these explanations, but unfortunately they are in German only: Denken, Dummheit, Gefühl & Verstand, Wahrheit.

I've found myself in recent years to be in a number of diverse situations where I seriously felt that critical thinking would benefit the people, yet could see no direct way of conveying it.

A feature of the conveyance of any kind of thinking, thought or thinking skills is that it depends 100 % on the person you address. If somebody doesn’t understand or agree with what you are saying, there is no conveying of anything. In my next post I’ll give you an example (from the same edition of Skeptic in which the article about the mass suicide of the Xhosas appeared) of a situation where critical thinking probably will not help people unless the situation changes, which is the one thing the skeptical author leaves out of his list of things that need to be done to eradicate superstition, in spite of the fact that he has mentioned it as one of the ingredients of the source of superstition!

Maybe it's more accurate if I say that I often feel that the accusations of skeptics -- while technically correct -- are meaningless in a practical way. Looking at the structure in which superstitious thinking sits and understanding how the structure must change in order to accommodate more productive thinking skills gives a better chance of changing things.

I couldn’t agree more, but I think that it would help if you were more specific, i.e. if you described in more detail at least one of the diverse situations you are talking about and gave us an example of a structure that ”must change in order to accommodate more productive thinking skills”.

 

[dann]

And now for something completely ….. the same!

I already mentioned Skeptic, Vol. 11. Number 1, because of Steve Kowit’s article The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa – a Study in Collective Self-Deception. In the meantime it has actually been made available on the internet in English! Something to read for the Christmas holidays!
This is so cool!!! I’ve been wanting to be able to link to this text in English ever since it appeared in Skeptic. You will miss the illustrations, of course, but you can find those in the Danish version of the text.

In the same volume I can recommend another article, A Skeptical Look at African Witchcraft and Religion, by Leo Igwe, who has probably been to more poor countries than Slimething.
I do not recommend the article because I find it very well-researched and convincing, on the contrary. On the last page of the short article he describes The Source of African Witchcraft and mentions the following ”ingredients”: Fear, Ignorance, Poverty and Religion.

Poverty is described like this:
“Witchcraft accusations are rampant among indigent Africans both in rural and urban areas. Due to poverty, many sick people in Africa cannot afford to go to hospital for medical treatment so they resort to consulting witchdoctors and fortunetellers.”
And in the paragraph about fear it also becomes apparent that poverty and lack of proper health care plays a role since people are sometimes frightened by “high infant mortality”. Who wouldn’t be?
The article is interesting for a number of reasons, one of them being that it mentions that the belief in witchcraft was always present in Africa, but has only been reinforced by the arrival of Islam and Christianity. Leo Igwe also writes how a ”Nigerian witchdoctor recently boasted that Ifa (a Yoruba oracle) can cure AIDS!”, which is horrible, of course.
The weird thing, however, is how the article ends, the paragraph about Eradicating Witchcraft in Africa:

“The African continent must rid itself of the irrational belief in witchcraft and sorcery if it is to join the developed world. First governments need to pass legislation banning the practice of witchcraft, including witchcraft accusation, witch doctoring, and witch killing.
Such legislation should be backed by campaigns to educate the people about the dangers of irrationalism, occultism, and superstition. Courses in scientific skepticism and critical thinking should be introduced in all African schools, colleges, and universities, including and especially theological schools, Christian seminaries and Islamic institutions.
African scientists need to play a more active role in fostering scientific attitudes, and in combating religious fanaticism and obscurantism.
Finally, we need to establish more sceptical groups across the continent in order to counter false claims. For it is only sceptical associations that can put up a principled fight against witchcraft, pseudoscience, and fringe science.”

I quote the proposal in its entirety.
Do you notice what is missing? How does any of this help the poor Africans who can’t afford to go see a real doctor? By giving them to tools of reason to acquiesce, to come to terms in a rational way with the fact that they can’t do anything about their disease, except wait and hope that it will somehow either wear off on its own or get worse and kill them? Maybe they will even be able to enjoy the critical thinking skills that makes this so obvious to them, thus distinguishing them from their neighbours who still believe in superstition ....
Does it really matter much to them (or us) that they don’t know what kills them if this knowledge is not one that can be used to prevent premature death? Is it so important to skeptics that they would rather see these people deprived of the comfort they get from visiting the Yoruba Ifa? And will their aversion to listening to clever skeptics be due to stupidity, ignorance or the actual knowledge that in the situation they find themselves in it won't do them any good?

And, no, this is not another woowoo attempt at praising the comforting aspects of religion. Personally I prefer to do without, thank you, and I don’t fancy having to use a lot of energy on maintaining a delusion. But I mainly object to religion because it helps people acquiesce, accept conditions that they had better do away with. This is something that all religions have in common, be it Christianity or Yoruba: They try to make meaning of their lives, something which the way that reality is arranged very often prevents them from doing in the real world, which is why they look beyond reality to find meaning in the never-never land.

I also find the same problem in civilized, well-educated Denmark where cancer patients are sometimes put on standby for weeks or months before they can have their much needed operations, chemo og radiation therapy: What is the point of telling these unfortunate people, who very often turn to woowoo remedies in despair, that they had better put their fate in the hands of modern science instead of turning to quacks and witchcraft? They already did! But the government’s cutbacks in expenditures means that science can’t deliver. (We already know that quacks can't deliver either, but what's the point if there is no alternative? These people don’t go to quacks because they are stupid. They don’t go to quacks because they are ignorant. They go to quacks because they have been let down, have no other practical solution, and – of course – because they are poor! The rich patients go to a private hospital – in Denmark or abroad.

Any volunteers to teach these people the skills of critical thinking or the tools of reason? I would prefer to teach them about The National Health Service in a market economy – but preferably before it’s too late!

Merry Christmas!

 

[articulett]

Perhaps.

I guess for many years I also directed my aggression and emotion at people who followed superstition with such terrible results, feeling honestly that they were indeed ignorant or stupid. I've found myself in recent years to be in a number of diverse situations where I seriously felt that critical thinking would benefit the people, yet could see no direct way of conveying it.

Maybe it's more accurate if I say that I often feel that the accusations of skeptics -- while technically correct -- are meaningless in a practical way. Looking at the structure in which superstitious thinking sits and understanding how the structure must change in order to accomdate more productive thinking skills gives a better chance of changing things.

I'll endeavour to respond to your other post when I get the time next week.

Athon

My feelings towards the credulous (who are more often women like me) is more one of sympathy--I feel like their trust is so readily abused. And children too. And it has nothing at all to do with stupidity. I took me a long time to even question what I was told (and there was that whole "biting from the tree of knowledge thing" that heightened the fear--). One of the things I really like about Randi--is that he lets people be fooled and then he shows them how they fooled themselves. I have one of his tapes I've used for classes--with Uri Geller and Peter Popoff and the college class where the students get a personalized astrological chart--

I had believed in Gellers talents--he seems so sincere...so the kids watching believe in him too (they were like I was)--and then they see how he backpedals and blames when the Tonight Show foils his trickery. And we talk about what the world would really be like if Uri could do as he indicated. If you are an honest person, it doesn't even occur to you that someone who seems so nice and humble--could be a con artist. And Peter Popoff is really awful. You can see these old ladies believing he's healed them--and then the video plays the stuff Randi picked up on a wireless microphone from Popoff's wife. (This videos are all over youtube and I think Randi has links to the downloads...)

In the astrology section Randi does some of his magic, but he also has each students' astrology charts done--and he passes them back and people are really impressed--they all are amazed and give their chart 4 or 5 out of 5 stars. And then he tells each perston to pass their chart to the person behind them--and as they start reading the other person's chart they begin to realize they are reading the exact same thing that was in their own chart. All the supposedly "specific" charts are the same! It's a great moment-- you can see the look on his students face as they get it...and I can see the look on my students face as they get it--and I remember when I "got it". And there isn't a single person on that video you'd call stupid. You watch it and you identify with the deceived--which is the beauty of it, I think. Though villainised by assorted believers, Randi is one of the most respectful people I can imagine.

Randi says that the easiest people to fool are people who are overconfident--they don't think they can be fooled. I am an intelligent person-- I was indoctrinated with religion when I was young--and when I couldn't get that to make sense, I segued into "new age" woo, because it "resonated" with me. I didn't have a clue how to figure out what was a belief and what was the truth.

If you haven't been fooled or if you've never broken free from some strict religious paradigm, then it might be hard to see how insidious and destructive faith can be. There's no one to blame. Who do you blame when a Jehovah Witness kid doesn't get a needed blood transfusion--the parents are worried about the kids salvation...the clergyman believes he has the truth...faith is supposed to be noble--

I don't know if mentioning it does anything--but I am surprised at how often the faith factor is overlooked--never mentioned. The Priest in the article didn't seem to have a clue. I'm kind of in the Sam Harris and Dan Dennett camp on this issue--I think it's time we started talking about the elephant in the room. Because as long as "faith" is good or necessary for salvation--then extreme faith is better, right?--and blind faith best. And nobody has a choice as to which faith they are going to be indoctrinated with or who they are told their enemies are.

Yes, the poverty is horrible in Africa. But as I mentioned above, the abandonment of children is hardly the worst problem in Africa right now.
The kidnapping of children for holy wars is pretty awful. The missionaries preaching abstinence and no contraceptive use are a factor in the spread of AIDS and the birth of yet more children that their families can't support. And there is a faith factor in all of this. I hardly think any act of charity would make the situation worse--and I would not send money to any organization that had faith based string attached.

 

[articulett]

OK, maybe we could get this discussion back on track (= away from Slimething and articulett's attempts at derailing) if you made it clear where you think I argued my case poorly. And when you say that I have used language that has upset some people, are you referring to my headline of this thread, Time for skeptics to grow up?, or something else?
I am well aware that articulett will welcome any kind of disagreement between us with enthusiasm, but that should not concern us. Clarification, however, should!

By the way, I wouldn't consider having to confess one's faith a necessity in a community of skeptics! I thought that something like that was only required in a congregation of believers, who tend to become anxious when they suspect someone of wandering away from the flock! (I'm referring to: "I consider myself a skeptic")

This isn't a war. Quit attacking people. Almost every single one of your posts has a nastiness about it. I know my returned nastiness didn't help, but I felt like you attacked Randi, the letter writer, myself, and others who read the newsletter with the interpretation I had. But it dawned on me via Athon's post--he (and maybe you) felt defensive for the poor people--as though they were being called ignorant. Which makes him (and maybe you) less offensive in my eyes. I know I pissed you off--but read back--the nastiness came from you first--in your opening post even--and it never stopped. You said things about others that you wouldn't take kindly to if they had been said about you--and some of the stuff you said actually applies more to you than those you insulted.

So calm down and quit taking this so seriously.

To know Randi, is to know that he never calls anyone ignorant. He's more than aware that anyone can be fooled--especially those who think they can't--and the trusting. He's fooled scientists. There is no blame in this tragedy--what good does blame do? And the beliefs are actually in fact the most direct cause of children being accused of being witches. It's just a semantic point. But it's also something that should not be overlooked. Do you expect a group of skeptics to pretend that belief has no role in children being accused of being witches?

And it's far from the only tragedy going on in Africa, so fighting about what is the best way to help and what the true "cause" is--is pointless. As awful as being accused of being a witch is, it pales in comparison to child kidnappings in Uganda where children as young as 8 are methodically kidnapped from their homes by the Lord's Resistance Army. The children, many of whom are tortured, live a life of terror: girls as young as 12 are used as sex slaves, while the boys are forced to sometimes even kill family members. Once they have completed this terrible task, they are considered tough enough to be used in raids by the rebel army.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1711083.htm

And then there is the horrifying specter of AIDS--and the many homeless children because of AIDS.

I am not unaware--nor is Randi.

There is no need to blame, put down anyone, or play "us" vs. "them"--and there are many ways people can help--there is certainly no shortage of tragedy in Africa right now. And any and all attention to the problem can be used. Why the shame and blame game? And I didn't derail--you were all over the place--I was just trying to boil your argument down without responding to all your digressions, attacks, circular reasoning, and smug barbs. You derailed this thread yourself when you started divining what peoples' political persuasions were.

I'm so not in the mood to play. If you and Gurdur et. al. want to talk about how more grown up you are and how it's immature to mention the role of belief--be my guest. I think I've had my fill of this thread. I will leave you and your playmates in peace.

 

[articulett]

Dann, It's "belief in witches" that was being referred to in "it's time to grow up"--it's considered childish to believe in witches. I can see how it set you off--but I don't believe that it was a slight to anyone. I hadn't even noticed it before--and I read the newsletter, so clearly it didn't have a jarring effect on me. "Time for skeptics to grow up" did. But I shan't derail your special thread again.

 

[dann]

I'll ignore the repetitions:

You said things about others that you wouldn't take kindly to if they had been said about you--and some of the stuff you said actually applies more to you than those you insulted.

I guess I have proved one of my points then: Skeptics do not appreciate being told to grow up, even if it is in the form of a question. However, they do not seem to have anything against James Randi telling superstitious Africans to grow up. I turned James Randi's title against the skeptics, and ever since you have not stopped telling me that I was the one who started it!

As awful as being accused of being a witch is, it pales in comparison to child kidnappings in Uganda where children as young as 8 are methodically kidnapped from their homes by the Lord's Resistance Army.

I agree! And with the "specter of AIDS" too!

I'm so not in the mood to play. If you and Gurdur et. al. want to talk about how more grown up you are and how it's immature to mention the role of belief--be my guest. I think I've had my fill of this thread. I will leave you and your playmates in peace.

It is very hard to stop being patronizing and telling people that they are childish, isn't it?! But, of course, you are entitled to do so since you are a skeptic and I have offended you, right?!

Dann, It's "belief in witches" that was being referred to in "it's time to grow up"--it's considered childish to believe in witches. I can see how it set you off--but I don't believe that it was a slight to anyone. I hadn't even noticed it before--and I read the newsletter, so clearly it didn't have a jarring effect on me.

I'm sure that you hadn't even noticed it. Too few people did, apparently. If you notice it from now on, I guess I have accomplished something!
Merry Christmas to you too - and I mean that in a strictly heathen sense: Glædelig jul!

 

[Gurdur]

..... If you and Gurdur et. al. want to talk about how more grown up you are and how it's immature to mention the role of belief--be my guest. I think I've had my fill of this thread. I will leave you and your playmates in peace.

..But I shan't derail your special thread again.

Well, thank god for small mercies. I'm sick of the bitter whining and personal attacks which you and slimething use in place of a rational argument. Now maybe we can actually get a proper, substantiated discussion going here.

 

[dann]

Well, thank god for small mercies.

That's more like the spirit of Christmas, Gurdur!

Now maybe we can actually get a proper, substantiated discussion going here.

Did you read Steve Kowit's Xhosa article, Gurdur? Or Leo Igwe's about African witchcraft?

 

[Gurdur]

That's more like the spirit of Christmas, Gurdur!

Since they're so bloodymindedly militant and without empathy, they probably despise Xmas.

Oddly enough, I just got through wishing all my own board's members a Happy Season, and they're all nontheists, but appreciate it.

Did you read Steve Kowit's Xhosa article, Gurdur? Or Leo Igwe's about African witchcraft?

Read those and far more. One of my rather mixed academic discipline specialities was what the Germans call Afrikanistik, IOW mixed anthropology, linguistics and history of the whole region.

IOW, you have stumbled in on a grandmother/eggs/don't_advise situation.
Happy Season and all the very best!

 

[athon]

Right, maybe Xmas afternoon (after many Jack Daniels and a lot of seafood) isn't the best time to be considering this, but I really can't be bothered sitting and watching bad Xmas television right now.

But you, like he, seem to think that the beliefs have nothing to do with kids being accused of being witches.

Not at all. The superstition is relevant in that it is a way for the members of this community to address issues in their environment. The events around them which they feel are negative need a rationalisation, and their supertition provides them with one. Typically, in other communities, such a blame falls on members of the group who are pariahs already (the elderly is a good example in Pacific islander and New Guinea communities, for example). It's curious that children are seen as witches in African communities.

Why this is the case, I can only speculate. It's of course not a common thing for a family to banish their children, as having numerous offspring is seen as a way of ensuring a good retirement for those in many African cultures. However, it's not out of the question that again poverty may play a role in this.

I'm not for a second saying that superstition plays no role. I've said since the beginning that it is not a case of supertition playing an isolated role in a situation of direct cause and effect. There are other factors that need to be considered in order for the problem to be fully addressed.

Moreover, the newsletter in no way suggested that the people were accusing kids of being witches due to "immaturity" or ignorance. You extrapolated that.

The title suggesting that those who are supertitious should 'grow up' insinuated immaturity. It was not as much a case of necessarily sympathasising or being an apologist for those committing atrocities, but rather my opposition stemmed from the fact that such a suggestion contributes nothing to forming ideas that could lead to a solution.

The comment was about beliefs--and how they result in damage--and yet people seem blissfully unaware that they are even part of the problem. Certainly the priest in the quoted article didn't even question the belief system. Dann and you seem to think it's trivial. Do you think that the role faith played in the 9-11 hijackers' actions was trivial? Do you think there was a more direct "cause" than their honest belief that they were doing Allah's will and would be rewarded for it?

Belief is far from trivial, and again I think you've misread (or not read at all) my arguments.

Belief cannot be isolated from the culture it is developed in. For instance, while it lay behind the 9/11 attacks, how many people in the world share similar beliefs without ever committing such deeds?

The attacks would never have gone ahead if not for an additional respect for martyrdom and a sense of injustice these people felt (for right or wrong). The absolute regard for suicide in the name of glory played just as big a role, something that is less religious belief and more a sense of social glorification (reward in Heaven plays only a part of the incentive to becoming a martyr).

Claiming it is a simple matter of just 'faith', IMO, is trivialising something that is a much more complicated issue involving more than just a religious belief.

Yes, religious charities feed people, but they do so in exchange for adherence to their teachings. If poor families in your country were accusing their kids of being witches and abandoning them on the street, do you really think that feeding those kids and the families they come from would be the only solution? It doesn't even address the direct cause --people see behavior they don't understand in others and attribute it to supernatural things--gods, demons, witches, evil forces, or whatever it is they have been taught via their culture. If you give them money and food, it doesn't make them suddenly think the kids they abandoned aren't witches. It doesn't make the kids called witches feel better about themselves. It doesn't keep the problem from happening again when poverty comes around again. It doesn't guide them as to the best means of handling children they can't afford nor does it help them plan their families so they're not having children they can't afford. *snip*

Why the need to see it so simple? Changing the way a society functions is not a one-step program. I don't believe that removing poverty will remove superstition, and I challenge you to show me precisely where I suggested that.

I've already explained the links between poverty, social interaction and collectivist beliefs and superstition. If you have a need to critically analyse what I've said, start there, and not with another straw man argument, as most of the remainder of your post follows.

To comment on the dangers of beliefs or faith filled notions is hardly passing judgment on people. Why would you think it is? Has Randi ever appeared judgmental to you?

Judgemental? Not as such. However, I do think some comments he makes from time to time are less than effective in producing solutions. Clearly he is somebody with a wealth of experience and has suffered from the challenges a man in his position faces regularly. Patience thins, and understandably he readily feels inclined to regard most believers in superstition as ignorant and foolish. Frustration is a part of the game here, although it is a useless emotion to have.

I'd love to feel the same, and with many people in our society, I do. However, there are experiences I've had where the same way of thinking about religion and superstition won't produce effective measures.

Athon

 

[dann]

Read those and far more. One of my rather mixed academic discipline specialities was what the Germans call Afrikanistik, IOW mixed anthropology, linguistics and history of the whole region.

IOW, you have stumbled in on a grandmother/eggs/don't_advise situation.
Happy Season and all the very best!

No advice intended, not even checking up on you to see if you've done your homework. I was just wondering, what do you think of the articles? Your extensive knowledge of Africa would make it even more interesting to hear what you have to say about the two articles, Steve Kowit’s and Leo Igwe’s. I have never been to Africa myself. I suppose you have as part of your studies. Do you actually speak any African languages?
I have gained intimate knowledge of the Yoruba religion, but only in the Afro-Cuban version which to me appears to contain a lot of making-it-up-as-you-go-along elements after it was more or less reinvented in the 1990s when poverty struck hard. The CNN had a news item early in the morning of Dec. 25 about Christmas celebration in Cuba, which included Santeria, the combination of Catholicism and Yoruba, showing Cubans worshipping Babalú Ayé/San Lazaro, but I haven’t been able to access it on-line.

Another article by Leo Igwe mentioning the role poverty plays in ritual killings in Nigeria. Not for the faint-hearted.

 

[Slimething]

As I've written previously, simple things for simple minds:

Your so-called challenging my credentials consisted in telling me that you had been to more third world countries than I had, but you tend to forget that this was never my argument (and it would have been a very childish one if I had): 'I've been to more third-world countries than Randi, Slimething and articulett, and therefore I'm right and they're wrong!' That is your kind of argument, not mine:

Again you misunderstand plainly written English. Either you are really dense or you are merely pretending to misunderstand because your thesis has fizzled.

And for the education of others, who are not as argumentatively challenged as you appear to be, let us take a look at the way you create your strawman:
I mention Cuba as an example of a poor country with educated inhabitants but growing superstition.

That's just the point, dann, you can't use Cuba as an example when you've only been to one third-world country, that being Cuba! Got it yet? Cuba is not the Congo. It's not Brazil. It's not Mexico. It's like saying that France and England are the same because they're both first-world countries. You're not a simpleton, are you? Ah, never mind!

You 1) only quote me for saying that I've been to Cuba, 2) ignore the rest,

OK. The rest was just filler anyway. Verbosity does not count for much with me, as you have noticed.

3) pretend that I have assumed a position of superiority based on this

You did, dann. You big boss you jus' tellin' the peons to grow up 'cuz witch hunts originate with poverty so we shouldn't criticize poor people for accusing kids of bein' witches. Remember that, boss?

and 4) try top this by telling us that you have not only been to more poor countries, but even to the poorest one of them all, which 5) you seem to think makes you win the superiority competition,

It does give my credentials a certain luster which yours lack, I would say. Or haven't you noticed? Suppose you and I both entered a Dept of State and started offering observations of socioeconomic conditions in the third world. Who's word do you think they would find authoritative? A person who had been to one and thought that all third world nations were the same or the other guy who's been to more and can elucidate on their differences and how they are different? Go ahead. There's another guessing game for you.

which you 6) even conclude with a guessing game!

Life does seem to be a guessing game for you, dann.

I cannot see how it can get more childish than that!

How about me going on line and telling a group of people to grow up because of an infantile, baseless opinion on my part? How about that?

You mentioned the Malleus Maleficarum, and I replied that the people behind it were extremely educated,

That's all you need to say, dann. Your posit that witch hunts or even superstition as a whole arises from poverty is gone. Dust. Nothing remains. But you must prattle...

because so far that is what has been mentioned as the panacea for curing all superstition by you and articulett. However, it is a little ironic that you, of all people, seem to think that mentioning an example of persecution of heretics -

Heretics as in witches, yes?

"By questioning any part of Catholic belief, one could be branded a heretic. Scientists were branded heretics by virtue of repudiating certain tenets of Christian belief (most notably Galileo, whose theories on the nature of planets and gravitational fields was initially branded heretical). Writers who challenged the Church were arrested for heresy (sometimes formerly accepted writers whose works had become unpopular). Anyone who questioned the validity of any part of Catholic belief did so at their own risk."

I thought even you were bright enough not to quote without attribution, dann. My mistake.

This is the way that fundamentalists of all persuasions, religious, political or .... skeptical, tend to behave, be they religious, political ..... or skeptical, apparently.

I just love it. First, a rigid accusation that all fundamentalists behave in a certain way that dann has ordained and then "apparently". Everyone who disagrees with your simplistic point of view is now a "fundamentalist", dann? So nice to be able to pidgeonhole everyone who disagrees. Perhaps you are right: someone needs to grow up.

Fundamentalism can't do without exaggeration, without hyperbole,

Dann, I was not the simpleton telling everyone in a group to which I did not belong to "grow up". You did. It takes a lot of brazen hubris to do that. To date, I have not met anyone who paints with a broad brush who turned out to be right.

Personally I don't know a single Christian who believes "in the existence of witches as a real and valid threat"

Dann, you don't get around much. We've already established that.

Destitution is limited which means that the preachers of hell and damnation do not have an audience. I do know that the belief in the existence of witches exists in certain corners of the Christian world, but I also know that you don't need a document from the middle ages in order to create a witchhunt:

In your mind, all that is needed is poverty. Not so. Case close. Mind closed as well, I see.

The human mind is a very creative thing

Writing from experience, I see.

Yes, you are indeed "someone who has not responded substantively" , which is why you've only managed to shoot yourself in the foot. [I can't believe it's come to this!]

Why are you responding, then? I know why. You only started responding when you trotted out the "slimething won't partake in intelligent exchange" or some such crap. So then I just reminded your buddies about your idiotic replies after I first answered. Now, you feel you have to.

So, how did I shoot myself in the foot? Here you are jumping at another baseless conclusion. You think you're avoiding the Maleus Maleficarum issue? Not by a long shot.

In science this would be called outright lying and misrepresentation, and people doing so would probably lose their jobs.

Let me guess. You've visited one lab?

Worse yet. Liars in my field go to jail. But, you have to substantiate. Where have I lied? You only said I shot myself in the foot. But I didn't. You still have not reconciled the larget witch hunt in history with your loser hypothesis. Do that, and I go away.

You lost it from the very beginning. Pretending that it isn't so may make you look like a winner in your own eyes, the tough, in-your-face, stick-to-the-facts, don't-take-no-crap-from-nobody kinda guythe John Wayne of Skepticism, in other words,
so keep it up and give us more examples of rational, critical thinking to hold up to the world of superstitious ignorants as an example of all that's best in rationality, science, skepticism and the tool of reason!

My goodness, dann, you sure are full of resentments, aren't you? John Wayne, of all people! He wasn't even a skeptic or a scientist. He was one of your camp, dann.

Stop making idiotic blanket statements about people and your life will improve, dann. I'm new here and perhaps the skeptics who have been here longer know to ignore you but I"m having a lot of fun with this. It's not often I meet someone with little sense and, in polite society, I'm not allowed to make them appear more foolish than they are but this is a luxury the web affords me.

 

[dann]

My goodness, dann, you sure are full of resentments, aren't you? John Wayne, of all people! He wasn't even a skeptic or a scientist. He was one of your camp, dann.

Stop making idiotic blanket statements about people and your life will improve, dann. I'm new here and perhaps the skeptics who have been here longer know to ignore you but I"m having a lot of fun with this. It's not often I meet someone with little sense and, in polite society, I'm not allowed to make them appear more foolish than they are but this is a luxury the web affords me.

The holidays have done you a lot of good, Slimething. This is priceless!!! I thought that your first third-world competion was inimitable, but you actually managed to improve upon it, and you even heard that John Wayne was neither a scientist nor a skeptic! Hilarious. Not even John Cleese could make something like this up if he tried. I welcome John Wayne to my corner:

I'm not going to be drawn to your level, dannie. "No, you started it!" Whatta buncha crap.

Kinda losing it, aren't you?

 

[articulett]

Dann, to me and others communicating via pm--you seem to be the one decompensating.

You falsified your own claim multiple times and don't even seem to be aware of it. You misinterpreted the newsletter itself and assumed that because someone rightly noted that "superstition breeds homelessness" (evidenced in the article)--that people were blaming the believers rather than the beliefs themselves. You also presumed that these people overlooked poverty and that you could judge them because of this perceived judgment they passed on others! You thought they were judgmental, so you passed judgment upon them. THAT IS IRONY.

Bravo, Slimething--and rest assured, there are very smart people on this forum however none of them start threads about their superiority--nor do they attack all of those who disagree. Rest assured (and I've heard from back channels) that many people feel as you do. If nothing else, the irony of almost every statement from Dann or Gurdur's mouth provides unending amusement. Plus you gotta love the flailing and mud slinging and drama etc. they go through to keep their silly claims afloat and each others' egos afloat.
They are asking for it--and I haven't got the patience. But I do appreciate your tenacity and all the tantruming that ensues.

Really boys--you'd be so much more respectable if you actually took the time to ask "could this statement apply to me?" before you make another inane claim in print. Or at least try not to contradict yourself or get lost in semantic games and ad homs.

 

[dann]

A few days of rest didn't do you any good, apparently. So not only your students allegedly agree with with you, but now "others communicating via pm" do too? Very convincing! No others "start threads about their superiority", which I allegedly do? And every "statement from Dann or Gurdur's mouth" (we've actually got two, you know!) only amuse you, which is why you appear to be so very amused!

Go back and read Athon's latest post:

I've already explained the links between poverty, social interaction and collectivist beliefs and superstition. If you [= articulett] have a need to critically analyse what I've said, start there, and not with another straw man argument, as most of the remainder of your post follows.

New readers who would like to know where the condescending arrogance begins can start here: Time to grow up, articulett.

I guess I shouldn't ask you, but speaking of poverty, social interaction and collectivist beliefs and superstition: Did you read The Mass Suicide of the Xhosa: A Study in Collective Self-Deception?