What I Believe - Science and the Power of Humanity by M. Shermer

[greyl]

"I believe in the power of science and humanity. Specifically, I believe that biodiversity is a good thing and that we have been rapacious in our treatment of the environment, although I think the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe. I don’t mind eating cows and fish, but dolphins and whales have big brains and they’re cool, so I don’t think we should kill them. I drive an SUV because I haul around bicycles, books, and dogs, but as soon as there is a bigger hybrid, I’ll buy it. And although I am a libertarian heterosexual who is about as unpink (in both meanings) as you can get, I believe people should have an equal opportunity to be unequal. As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.

I don’t know why the God question is so interdigitated with political and economic issues, but it is. It shouldn’t be. It’s okay to be a liberal Christian or a conservative atheist. I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I don’t think there is a God, or any sort of anthropomorphic being who needs to be worshipped, who listens to prayers, who keeps a moral scoreboard that will be settled in the end, or who cares one iota about who wins the Super Bowl.

This is why what we do in this life matters so much—and why how we treat others in the here and now is more important than how they might be treated in some hereafter that may or may not exist. If we knew for certain that there is an afterlife, we wouldn’t have great debates about it, and philosophers wouldn’t have spilled all that ink over the millennia wrangling over it. Since we don’t know, it makes more sense to assume there is no God and no afterlife, and act accordingly. That is, act as if what we do matters now. That way, we’ll think about the consequences of what we are doing."

I am sick and tired of politicians, and just about everyone else, kowtowing to the religious right’s hypersensitivities and politically correct “tolerance” for diversities of belief—as long as one believes in God—any God will do, except the God who promises virgins in the next life to pilots who fly planes into buildings. Those of us who do not believe in god have had enough of this rhetoric. This is America. We are supposed to be good and do the right thing, not because it will make us rich, get us saved, or reward us in the next life, but because people have value in and of themselves, and because it will make us all better off, individually and collectively. It says so, right there in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—products of a secular eighteenth-century Enlightenment movement.
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-02/022406shermer.html

[LaurenG]

1. Two things

1. I do think the planet is in BIG trouble so I disagree with that.

2. The definition of God. What is God. I just can't deny something that can't be defined. There are too many beings from too many centuries who have spoken of something that is out there.

The rest I am not in conflict with at all.

[YankeyMCC]

2. Best part:

"I don’t think there is a God, or any sort of anthropomorphic being who needs to be worshipped, who listens to prayers, who keeps a moral scoreboard that will be settled in the end, or who cares one iota about who wins the Super Bowl.

This is why what we do in this life matters so much—and why how we treat others in the here and now is more important than how they might be treated in some hereafter that may or may not exist."

===

I'm not sure I agree with this guy on all things (I used to feel as he does about the strength of the environment, I'm not so sure nowadays) but he comes very close to expressing how I feel about the idea of gods and the supernatural.

[greyl]

4. I agree with you two on the environment tip.

Rapacious is a strong word, but not strong enough.
When he says "...I think the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe", he's addressing two different things: "our condition" and "the environment".

As George Carlin has said, Earth(our environment) may eventually shake us off like a bad case of fleas, but then that would mean that "our condition" is pretty damn grave, don't you think?

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Shermer's actually a pretty conventional Libertarian

However, he's also a former competitive athlete (I'm not sure whether he was a professional one). They seem to be attracted to Libertarianism and its humanized version of the "Strong (Individual) Man" view of the world.

For most Libertarians, atheism and "skepticism" are articles of faith. Ayn Rand spent considerable time and effort disproving God and advertizing Objectivism as being scientific, rationalistic, anti-superstitious, and intellectually pure -- in short, the One True Philosophy for Mankind (and Girls).

The Libertarians, as a movement, have also convinced themselves that they have "debunked" environmentalism. For a while, their bible was The Skeptical Environmentalist until it was in turn debunked; many have since disclaimed the book. Shermer, to his credit, didn't buy into the anti-environmental hype when the book came out. But he was also editing Skeptic magazine and about half of his readership was environmentalism-friendly.

Shermer is also much less ridicule-oriented than most of the JREF/CSICOP supporters tend to be, and has written extensively on avoiding it, in that respect breaking ranks both with most of the followers of Rand and Randi. In one book, he even quoted Jewish mystical scholar Maimonides and got away with it. The topic, IIRC, was about not making one's mind up too quickly.

--p!

[trotsky]

6. Oh, Shermer has incurred just as much wrath as the rest.

Doesn't matter if you're "ridicule-oriented" or not, any response to woo-wooism less than "Gosh, that is just swell!" gets some pretty interesting backlash from such open and tolerant minds. Such as being lumped together with libertarians or being labeled a "follower" of James Randi (eh?).

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Michael Shermer, religion accusations, and assorted notes

No one needs to “lump” Shermer with Libertarians or Objectivists. He owns up to it. It’s what he believes, if “belief” is the right word. (But also see below.) Shermer is an anomaly among professional pop skeptics in that he writes unashamedly about the positive features of religion, although he’s hardly a religionizer or a fundamentalist. However, if you want to better understand where the contention that atheism is a surrogate for religion comes from, you should certainly take a look at the criticisms of Objectivism as well as Communism (especially Koestler’s disenchantment with Soviet Communism). The Wikipedia article on Atheism cites a wide range of opinions on Atheism as a philosophy, a movement, and as a form of identity.

Shermer’s a pretty cool guy, actually. I disagree with the Libertarian stuff, and have many criticisms of (or as some around here would say, “suppressive acts against”) pop skepticism, but he’s much less combative than James Randi -- or Robert Sheaffer, whose main contribution to pop skep is his thorough, irrefutable, and scientific “debunking” of Feminism. (Yes, I’m being sarcastic about Sheaffer.)

But if I read your post correctly, you’re unaware of these issues within your movements. You do also know that Martin Gardner is religious, don’t you? And that Penn Jillette supports The Society for the Separation of School and State, a primarily religious-right organization which snarkily blames public schooling for the death of Terri Schiavo (speaking of “Bullshit™”).

Skepticism and Atheism are not the sole provinces of lefties. If anything, the Randroids (acolytes of Ayn Rand, NOT James Randi) are even more gung-ho with their own Objectivist assertions that they are defending the Citadel of Science. There is also a growing literature of Skeptics “debunking” Objectivists, like Albert Ellis’ 1962 Is Objectivism a Religion? (out-of-print but available through Amazon). Shermer is no longer a Objectivist, but a Libertarian; his book Why People Believe Weird Things contains a shorter treatment of the subject of Ellis’ book. He’s “conventional” in the sense that like Harry Browne (also see the Wikipedia article), he is not a fanatic, and has been able to listen to those who disagree with him. But I am nearly certain that he opposes government programs based on philosophical principles rather than empirical evidence.

And you need not be so defensive of James Randi. While you were studying rhetorical fallacies (yes, as I, myself, have done), you probably also came across figures of speech, including “Alliteration”. Because here is what I wrote:

... the followers of Rand and Randi. ...

It contains two double alliterations, so it sounds somewhat poetic, even though I am no great stylist. Since there are followers of both Rand and Randi, simultaneously, it is also evidentially true.

--p!
Featuring my new DU quote-inserting macro!

[trotsky]

8. I'm afraid I don't know why you're launching into this sidetrack.

I simply pointed out that one needn't be "ridicule-oriented" to receive a fair amount of scorn from the believers of crystals, astrology, Ramtha, zappers, or whatever else is trendy. Your response seems to confirm that.

And I'm well aware of the Objectivists and their prominence within the realm of skepticism. We're a pretty diverse bunch, believe it or not, which tends to be a good thing so you don't get locked into just listening to folks who tell you what you want to believe, or what sounds good.

Your weak excuse of alliteration aside, there is no such thing as a "follower" of Randi. There is no one that worships him, no one that hangs on every word he says, none of that. It is simply the mindset of the non-skeptic that INSISTS that skeptics must be part of a "cult" that has to hold someone up to godlike status. Just ain't so. Randi is a cool guy, I like how he thinks, and I like what he does. But I don't "follow" him any more than I "follow" my mailman.

[unschooler]

3. This is kind of the inverse of Pascal's wager.

Since we don’t know, it makes more sense to assume there is no God and no afterlife, and act accordingly. That is, act as if what we do matters now. That way, we’ll think about the consequences of what we are doing."