The Bullshit Police

[rug]

By Michael Moynihan

In a flat expanse of southwest Las Vegas, six miles from the gaudiness and glitz of the Strip, sits the massive South Point Hotel, Casino & Spa. Enter its cavernous “gaming floor” and one is immediately pulled into a world of middle-aged waitresses in skimpy costumes, geriatric gamblers, and men in tanktops—arms invariably graffitied with tattoos—scanning The Racing Form.

But during a four-day stretch in mid-July, these stereotypical Vegas denizens shared the hotel with a very different, very un-Vegas crowd. On the far end of the casino and up an escalator, in a windowless conference center, there was an annual convention taking place called The Amazing Meeting—a gathering known to attendees simply as TAM.

TAM is organized by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), a group devoted to a philosophy called skepticism: the debunking of psychics, mediums, pseudoscientists, faith-healers, homeopaths, and anyone else who makes claims that defy the known laws of science. Skepticism has a wide following—the Internet is littered with self-proclaimed skeptic blogs, podcasts, and forums—and JREF is widely acknowledged to be the movement’s hub. Over 1,000 people attended this year’s conference, which featured an array of panelists and speakers, from magician Penn Jillette to comedian Father Guido Sarducci to Steven Novella, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine. (And yes, it was ironic that this militantly rational group decided to hold its annual meeting in a casino.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/08/16/james-randi-the-amazing-meeting-and-the-bullshit-police.html

Read on for the religious angle.

But the arguments over climate change are nothing compared with the biggest rift in the skeptic movement: the rift over God. The debate is not over the existence of God—almost all the skeptics I met at the conference were nonbelievers. Rather, the argument is over whether skepticism should be synonymous with atheism, or whether the two movements should stay separate.

[longship]

1. That is one of the age old questions; one not easily resolved.

Where is the demarcation line between science and non-science? And how does religion enter into it?

There are some very prominent scientists who are believers. There are even some notable skeptics who were believers, including the deist, Arthur C. Clark. Granted, they are few.

Myself, my education is in science. But I have been a non-believer since I can remember. So studying science was not the cause of my disbelief. The question remains whether my studying science originated from my disbelief. I have no answer to that.

Does skepticism or the study of science imply atheism? That's a difficult question. But certainly there is a correlation. I firmly believe that one should not ignore that correlation. One should do that without pissing people off.

Take that as you will.
R&K

[rug]

3. What do you think about nonscientific skepticism?

By that I mean, common sense or bullshit detecters.

Regardless of science or religion, aren't there many things that just defy common sense? Healing copper bracelets, sasquatch, Nigerian emails and the like.

As to whether skepticism implies atheism, I'm not so sure. Certainly it is a healthy and useful tool in exposing shams and frauds but it seems to me to be as ineffective o=in determining core religious questions as science is in disproving god.

[longship]

8. Good questions.

First, I don't think you can separate skepticism from science because I think the former is defined by the latter. So I would call non-scientific skepticism as an oxymoron.

Religion is another issue. I would frame my personal answer to this question with this. Although I am not an advocate of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria -- Stephen J Gould), when religion opposes science on ideological grounds they have stepped over the line. That should not be tolerated. IMHO.

Beyond that. I think people should tolerate others beliefs in general, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves.

That's the best I can do to describe how I would address the issues presented here.

Hopefully people will comprehend my babbling.

[rug]

9. I follow you.

Maybe informal science is a better term than non-scientific skepticism. Just about everybody will pull his or her hand off a hot stove without ever hearing of Kelvin. I suspect people have similar instincts about bullshit. JMO.

[cbayer]

7. I don't think the study of science implies atheism at all.

Though a larger percentage of scientists are atheists than found in the general population, I think the two things are unrelated for a lot of people.

So, I agree that there is a correlation, but causation is not that clear and is most likely multifactorial.

[edhopper]

2. The Center for Inquiry

has two publications.
The Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquirer.
SI deals with claims of the paranormal, they take on religion only when there is a religious claim for something miraculous or supernatural, weeping icons, the Shroud etc...
Free Inquirer is more about Humanist philosophy and takes religion head on.


I believe the idea is that Skeptics should deal with the claim or event only, to debunk or verify or explain it for the public and not challenge anyone's beliefs, unless those beliefs themselves are bullshit (psychics, astrology). The mission is to educate as many people as possible about the paranormal without offending too many.

Secular Humanists and Atheist confront the foundations of beliefs and religion.

But it is all a balancing act.

[rug]

5. I'm glad to see that distinction being consciously made.

It clarifies things and eliminates unnecessary silly arguments.

[longship]

10. Agreed! Too damned many silly arguments.

I could call myself an atheist, a humanist, a skeptic, and a science advocate. The only total overlap in those I see is the latter two (Per my post above).

[cbayer]

4. A really readable and enjoyable article.

Some real characters there, that's for sure.

I've always seen skepticism as distinct from atheism, though I think atheism could be considered a subset of skepticism.

Off topic, but that's a really interesting way they have added some of their graphics. I don't think I have seen that before.

[rug]

6. It is. Whoever Newsweek hired to run the Daily Beast is making the most of the medium.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. IMHO

They should allow religious atheists.

It is possible for one to identify with a philosophy but not to agree with all its tenants. I have a feeling that very very few of us could post here if we had to agree on the liberal position on every single position on every single issue. I feel the same works with skepticism.

Yeah, I can see an argument that theist/Deists are not perfect skeptics, but its possible to be skeptical on most claims but not on the one about the position of god.

Its also possible that they did approach the god question skeptically but felt that the evidence for his/her/their existence was strong enough to justify believing. Of course Im sure I and others would find said evidence far far from convincing.

As the article kinda alludes to, different people have different burdens of proof, and to me Skepticism is different than denialism. So I can see people coming to different conclusions on different issues. This does not mean they did not approach a question skeptically.

Ultimately, keeping them out sounds like a purity test and im not a fan of such practices.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. paranormal claims, medical healings and talking to the dead are frequently religious claims

Yet not all skeptics were comfortable with new atheism’s growing influence on the movement. Saunders of Australian Skeptics drew a distinction between traditional skepticism and atheism. “I’m what they label a Bigfoot skeptic,” he explains, “which is the old school. I’m interested in looking at proof of paranormal claims, weird creatures, medical healings, spoon bending, talking to the dead—that’s my game.”

People pray to dead saints for miraculous medical healing. They claim Jesus was resurrected and was born by a virgin, or that a magic hat allowed the translation of golden plates that then disappeared. They claim an angel revealed the Koran to Muhammad. Spiritualism calls itself a religion.