Skepticism; atheism — a concentric Venn

Aaron Higashi's comment to Paul Baird's post in the Unbelievable? Facebook group, about the next Qestion.Explore.Discover convention, raises some definitional points about skepticism that I'd like to address. Aaron's comment in full is as follows:

This is somewhat tangential to your post, but it just reminded me about how much I dislike identifiers that frame the opposite side in a way that they would never self-identify as. For example, pro-life. The opposite of pro-life would be anti-life or pro-death. No one would identify as such. Same for pro-choice. I don't think any pro-life people would identify as anti-choice. The identifier has a pretty obvious polemical element to it. It not only identifies a group, but indicts the opposition.

I think "skeptic" is that sort of identifier. Same with "reason rally" or "brights." People do not self-identify as gullible, irrational, or dim. Considering "skeptic" has next to nothing to do with philosophical skepticism in a classical sense, the word exists only in its popular connotation, it frames the opposite group as those who lack critical thinking skills, or who are disinclined to use them. It is not as though one cannot be both religious and "skeptical" in the contemporary sense. Any sufficiently critical attitude would be skeptical in a contemporary sense, and there are entire movements, interpretive frameworks, and denominations based on being critical of this or that other thing.

If it's a science conference, let it be a science conference. If it's a group of "skeptics," i.e. atheists and other non-religious folk, let it be that.

Having said all that, I hope some of the videos from the conference will be on youtube afterwords.

I agree with Aaron's point about the way attitudes are framed, but I don't think there's much that can be done about it. People are always going to spin their own point of view to make it look more reasonable or favourable than the opposition. It's up to skeptics to recognise this and identify it.

As for skepticism itself, I don't agree with Aaron's implied definition — ...a group of "skeptics," i.e. atheists and other non-religious folk... — which seems to be confined to atheism and opposition to religion. It's true that many skeptics are atheists, but atheism and skepticism are not the same thing. You could say that atheism is skepticism about gods — and that's pretty much the stand I take. My atheism is part of, or a subset of, my skepticism.

Skepticism is simply an unwillingness to accept unsubstantiated claims as true. The reason religion features strongly in skeptical discourse is that it has a long history of making unsubstantiated claims, and a reluctance (or inability) to provide substantiation when requested to do so. In addition, religion's standards of evidence seem in many cases to be inadequate. And there appear to be a great many more people who accept religious claims than who accept the existence of Bigfoot, or space aliens on Earth, or the usefulness of alternative medicine — to name but three of the many issues with which skeptics may be concerned.

Some high-profile skeptics will not discuss religion at all, and some of those even say that religion should be kept out of "skepticism" altogether. Personally I don't see how that's possible. If you're skeptical of ghosts, for example, that probably means you're skeptical of the afterlife — which is mostly a religious idea — and if you argue that there's no compelling evidence for an afterlife (near-death experiences notwithstanding) you will be seen as attacking religious belief.

The issue comes back to Stephen Jay Gould's flawed notion of non-overlapping magisteria. The problem is that they not only overlap — in many cases the magisteria are inextricably entwined.

QEDcon — Manchester, 10th & 11th March 2012

Last February's Question.Explore.Discover conference in Manchester was a great success, and Northwest Skeptical Events Ltd are doing the whole thing again next March. The list of speakers so far announced looks impressive. No news on a "break-out room" yet.

Tickets went on sale today. I've got mine, and I'm booked in to a nearby Travelodge (I note that the conference hotel — the Ramada Jarvis Piccadilly — has upped its room rates, such that the Travelodge is now more than just marginally cheaper.)

If the last QEDcon is anything to go by, next year's should be a superb event and lots of fun, beginning with the meet and greet, pre-registration session on Friday in the hotel bar.

Launching tomorrow — FreethoughtBlogs.com

This looks like an interesting development. P. Z. Myers has been dropping various hints and/or threats recently about leaving Science Blogs, and this appears to be where he's going. From the FreethoughtBlogs Facebook event page:

A new blog network is hitting the web on August 1. Led by two of the most prominent and widely read secular-minded blogs in the country – PZ Myers’ Pharyngula and Ed Brayton’s Dispatches from the Culture Wars – Freethoughtblogs.com will be THE central gathering place for atheists, humanists, skeptics and freethinkers in the blogosphere.
Freethoughtblogs will be more than just a place for people to read the opinions of their favorite bloggers. It will be a community of like-minded people exchanging ideas and joining forces to advocate for a more secular and rational world.

The network will launch Aug. 1 with a handful of blogs with many more to be added after the first three months of operation. Here are the five blogs that will lead the way:

Pharyngula. PZ Myers has built one of the most popular atheist blogs in the world. Never one to shy away from controversy, Myers has built an astonishing following over the last few years and has traveled around the world speaking to skeptical audiences. As a PhD biologist he is the scourge of creationists everywhere but he takes on a wide range of subjects in his blogging, including religious criticism, women’s rights and progressive politics.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Ed Brayton was raised by a Pentecostal and an atheist, sealing his fate forever as someone who is endlessly fascinated by how religion intersects with other subject, particularly science, law, history and politics. He is a popular speaker for secular organizations around the country, has appeared on the Rachel Maddow show and is pretty certain he’s the only person who has ever made fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

The Digital Cuttlefish. Cuttlefish are shy and elusive creatures; when necessary, they hide in their own ink. This particular cuttlefish has chosen as its habitat the comment threads of science, religion, and news sites, where it feeds on the opinions of those who are emboldened by the cloak of internet anonymity. Cuttlefish is an atheist, a skeptic, and is madly, passionately in love with science. The Digital Cuttlefish has, since October of 2007, been a repository of commentary and satire, usually (but not exclusively) in verse and now moves to Freethoughtblogs.

This Week in Christian Nationalism. Chris Rodda is the author of "Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History." Since the release of her book in 2006, Chris has been blogging at Talk2Action.org and Huffington Post about the use of historical revisionism in everything from education to legislation. Chris is now launching her own blog on Freethoughtblogs.com that will accompany her weekly podcast, This Week in Christian Nationalism.

Zingularity. Steven "DarkSyde" Andrew is a 40 something former stock and bond trader and one time moderate conservative. He grew up in the Southwest and has long been fascinated by science, particularly evolutionary biology, physics, and astronomy. He is a frequest contributor to the popular progressive website Daily Kos and now blogs at Zingularity, where legit science disappears forever down an event horizon of petty snark and cynicism.

If you would be so kind as to help us have a successful launch, please post the above information, or at least a link to the new network, on your Facebook pages, on your own blogs and in forums in which you participate that might be interested in it.

We want this to quickly become the most important gathering place for the skeptical community in the blogosphere.

The first three months' "settling in" period should give a good idea of how it will work, so watch this — that — space...

Alan Moore at TAM London 2010

I'm not a fan of comic books. Not that I have anything against graphic novels as such — it's just that I never really got into them. I've read Watchmen, seen the film, and enjoyed both, despite a certain ambivalence towards the superhero genre. I also have a couple of Neil Gaiman's Sandman series which I've yet to get to.

I didn't know what to expect of Alan Moore, though I was aware he is revered by many. I have to admit that the twenty-minute poem he proceeded to read to us on Sunday afternoon at TAM London 2010 left me cold. Maybe if I'd been more attuned to his oeuvre, or even his voice, I would have got something out of it. (I should point out that for me poetry in general is a bit of a blind spot, so I'm not qualified to assess its worth, and my comments in this regard are probably worthless.)




After the poem we were back to the discussion format, with Alan Moore in conversation with Neil Denny and Josie Long. My overall impression was of an expectation that the audience would be at least partially familiar with the subjects discussed, which I was not.

But you win some, you lose some. I know that there were people attending TAM London for whom Alan Moore's appearance was the highlight of the weekend. Alas, I'm not one of them.

The 2010 TAM London was a different animal from its predecessor. I've already mentioned the preponderance of discussion panels — a format that's fine in moderation (excuse the pun), but I would have preferred fewer of them and more of the structured talk format. I also noticed a shift towards an atheistic emphasis. This isn't something I'm against, because it fits with my own skepticism, of which my atheism is merely a subset. I suspect, however, that there will be some who feel that skepticism should not necessarily imply or assume atheism.

On the whole TAM London 2010 was highly successful and I'm glad I went. I look forward to the DVDs and to the announcement of the speaker line-up for TAM London 2011. And I'll finish with a couple of shots of the man himself wrapping up the weekend:

Melinda Gebbie at TAM London 2010

After her skilful moderation of the Technology and New Media panel, Rebecca Watson was on stage again in discussion with writer and artist Melinda Gebbie, who talked about her collaboration with Alan Moore in the production of erotic comic-book Lost Girls. One might reasonably ask what a discussion about an erotic comic-book has to do with skepticism, but there were issues of free speech and censorship involved, so it was as relevant as one wanted it to be. (For a discussion of TAM London's skeptical relevance in general, including an approximate way to quantify it, see my blogpost of 19 October 2010, plus the ensuing comments.)

Technology and New Media panel — TAM London 2010

The first panel of the second day of TAM London 2010 was a discussion between TV reporter Kate Russell, writer Gia Milinovich, blogger and journalist Martin Robbins (aka the Lay Scientist), and Little Atoms host Neil Denny. The panel was expertly moderated by Skepchick Rebecca Watson.

Technology and new media don't have special relevance exclusive to skepticism — they're relevant to everyone who interacts with others in the modern world, and for that reason they're worth discussing at an event such as TAM London. Subjects covered (in a fairly roundabout manner) included social media, podcasting and interaction with media consumers. If there was a single thread, it was that the new media are much more responsive than old media — instantaneous in some cases. As if to demonstrate this an impromptu competition on Twitter, instigated from the audience, decided the most significant feature of one of the panellists. It may have been frivolous, but its spontaneity perfectly illustrated the main thrust of the discussion.

D. J. Grothe at TAM London 2010

JREF president D. J. Grothe's talk at TAM London 2010 was a bit like a State of the Union address, focussing on the moral imperatives of skepticism (briefly referencing Sam Harris's new book just published) and on how he sees the skeptical movement in general, both globally and locally. As for locally, he announced that the fund-raising of TAM London would be channelled to JREF projects in the UK, and mentioned the grass-roots, loosely affiliated Skeptics in the Pub gatherings that seem to be burgeoning nationwide. Some of these appear to be a direct result of unofficial arrangements made at TAM London itself.



I was looking forward to hearing the new JREF president, and DJ's rallying cry to "the troops" didn't disappoint.

James Randi at TAM London 2010

TAM London's first day's talks concluded with the man himself, James the Amaz!ng Randi, who was interviewed on stage by Robin Ince. He talked about his skeptical origins and some of his encounters with so-called psychics, mediums and faith healers. It was clear that Randi's preoccupation with such people is not merely idle interest but an abiding passion. They may be deluded about their "powers" or they may be out-and-out charlatans; Randi has encountered both extremes and everything in between, and in all cases he is dedicated to exposing them for what they are, not least because they mislead innocent people who pay good money for something that isn't real.

It was inspiring to hear Randi speak live about his life in skepticism, but if I have one niggle it would be that he and Robin Ince should have swapped places — Randi was positioned on stage such that he gazed mostly off to the side, away from the camera producing the view that filled the big screen.



After his discussion with Robin Ince, Randi presented two awards. The TAM London 2010 award went to Ben Goldacre, who accepted it by pre-recorded video. Ben was unable to accept the award in person, but the video was an unexpected bonus — it initially freeze-framed, giving us a static second or two of typical zany Ben Goldacre expression. (And check out what must be the geekiest bookcase ever....)



The second award was for Grassroots Skepticism, and went to Rhys Morgan for his single-handed stance against quack-remedy "Miracle Mineral Solution", which despite being basically bleach, has been promoted as effective against ... pretty much anything except amputation. Rhys has Crohn's disease, one of the huge list of afflictions that MMS is claimed to cure, and it was this that led him to investigate it, and subsequently to campaign against it. Such activism is to be commended in anyone, and so the award is richly deserved — more so in this case as at the time Rhys was only 15 years old.

Book review: Don't Get Fooled Again by Richard Wilson

On 23^rd February 2010 Richard Wilson spoke at the second Winchester Skeptics in the Pub, and he was selling copies of his book. I had previously checked out the book on Amazon, so when his price on the night showed a considerable discount, plus the opportunity to have the authorial signature, I snapped it up.

I'm glad I did. The book's subtitle, The Sceptic's Guide to Life, may be a bit ambitious as an aim, but the content offers excellent advice on how to check if what you're being told can be believed.

He covers dubious advertising, news stories that are no more than uncritical rehashes of press releases, manufactured controversies and much else besides, all with examples and copious footnotes (so if you have any doubt you are free to check his sources — many of which are available for free on the web).

By way of example he goes into detail about Trofim Lysenko's bogus attempts to reform Soviet agriculture — a subject he dealt with in his SitP talk — as well as examining Clarence Cook Little's initially successful efforts in the 1950's to obfuscate the growing concern about a link between tobacco and lung cancer.

There's a chapter about AIDS denialism — the claim that there's no evidence HIV causes AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs actually cause AIDS. He deals with the tendency to invent neologisms to disguise and defuse serious problems, whether factual or ethical, and he even goes into some detail on the religious question, in response to the "new atheist" publishing phenomenon.

He touches on corruption in high places, mentioning the secrecy surrounding MP's expenses (the book was published before the recent widespread scandal — which is probably a good thing, else it would  be twice the length and dominated by a single issue).

This is a comprehensive overview of matters that should concern us all, by someone who appears to be of a generally liberal/left persuasion (something that he doesn't conceal — nor should he). It covers a selection of sceptical subjects, but gives the overall impression that these are but a fraction of what's going on, and with which we should be engaged. In the modern world he could probably write another book with entirely different examples, and we should therefore be eternally vigilant.

Richard Wilson's blog of the same name, Don't Get Fooled Again, can be found at http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/

Richard Wilson, Don't Get Fooled Again: The Sceptic's Guide to Life (Icon Books Ltd, 2008), Hardcover, £12.99
ISBN-10: 1848310145, ISBN-13: 978-1848310148

D. J. Grothe on The Pod Delusion

When I launched my occasional sceptical podcast Skepticule in September last year I lamented the apparent dearth of British sceptical podcasts. Little did I know that at the very same time a weekly UK-based sceptical podcast, The Pod Delusion, was also in the process of being launched. Though I had reservations about the variable audio quality of the first few episodes of The Pod Delusion, which perhaps is inevitable when a variety of independent contributors are involved, this now seems to have settled down.

Audio quality, though important, is secondary to content, and the latest edition of The Pod Delusion has scooped the global sceptical podcast community by releasing an interview by Jon Treadway with the new president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, D. J. Grothe. (And by the way, the audio quality is fine.)

D. J. comes to the JREF from the Center for Inquiry and the well-respected podcast Point of Inquiry. I've related elsewhere on this blog how I discovered sceptical podcasting — Skepticality was the first, but Point of Inquiry runs it a close second, and D. J. has some exciting revelations about the future of Point of Inquiry as well as sceptical podcasting from the JREF.

He also announced that there will be a second TAM London in 2010. This is great news. TAM London was a defining event for me last year and I'm delighted to hear that there will be another this year. I only hope the venue will be big enough, and that the registration will be less of a lottery.

The relevant Pod Delusion episode is available here:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2010/01/08/episode-16-8th-january-2010/

or you can subscribe in iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=332231975

or with any podcatcher using this feed:
http://www.ipadio.com/phlog_rss.asp?phlogid=9216

You can listen to an extended version of the D. J. Grothe interview here:
http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/PodDelusionExtra/2010/01/08/The-Pod-Delusion-DJ-Grothe-Interview

and this is also downloadable from RapidShare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/333329812/PodDelusionExtra_DJGrothe_20100108.mp3

It seems that UK scepticism is at last taking off; we've already had the relaunch of the UK Skeptic magazine, and later this month I shall be pleased to attend the inaugural Winchester Skeptics in the Pub. Things are looking up.

Non-overlapping scepticism

Within what might loosely be called the sceptical community there is a faction holding that scepticism should be confined to matters of "woo-woo" – in general such things as alternative medicine, astrology, lay-lines, dowsing, claims of psychic ability, spiritual mediumship, alien abduction and so forth, and should not be concerned with religion. Daniel Loxton, editor of Junior Skeptic, in his 2007 essay "Where Do We Go From Here?" – an impassioned rallying cry to sceptical endeavour – suggested that the atheism/theism debate was diverting scepticism from its true concerns, and urged a return to those concerns. (Incidentally you can hear him deliver the essay in episode 63 of the Skepticality podcast. Note also that there is now a follow-up publication, "What Do I Do Next?")

To me, this partitioning of religious scrutiny has a flavour of Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), an idea suggesting that science and religion are separate disciplines addressing different things: science being concerned with the material, physical realities of the universe, and religion with the spiritual, moral aspects of human life. I find this to be a false distinction, and it can be seen as such by looking at religious claims (and their tacit assumptions). For example the Catholic Church recently complained that Reiki, a form of "energy healing", isn't backed up by scientific evidence. It's hard to believe that those Catholics behind this statement don't see the huge irony of what they are saying.

From the scientific point of view NOMA would be just fine – science isn't concerned with the spiritual or moral aspects of life. At least, not until religion attempts its own overlapping on to the scientific side – which it does all the time (see the Catholics' objections to embryonic stem-cell research, or the Pope's claim that condom use increases the incidence of HIV in Africa, for example). NOMA is all very well, but "you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone" only works if both sides play by the rules. They don't, and the biggest offender is the religious side.

Science, I admit, does encroach on to the "spiritual" side occasionally, but usually only as a result of specific challenges. Scientists have little incentive to keep to their own side when religion is so blatant about not doing so itself.

Another problem with confining scepticism, as a movement, to "woo-woo" is the tricky matter of delineation. Does excluding religion also exclude spiritual mediumship? I think it does. But the existence of communicating spirits, or of ghosts in general (or faeries, or aliens for that matter) are clearly matters warranting scientific investigation. As is, therefore, the existence of a god.

Jerry Coyne fueled the debate recently with a blog-post entitled "Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down" in which he took issue with the US National Academy of Science and the National Center for Science Education's "accommodationist" stance regarding the compatibility of science and religion.

Coyne's post may be incendiary, but when we're dealing with what's true and what's false, clouding the issues with equivocation will be ultimately counterproductive.