Reflections on the skeptic and atheist movements

[rug]

Massimo Pigliucci is a biologist and philosopher at the City University of New York. His main interests are in the philosophy of science and pseudoscience. He is the editor-in-chief of Scientia Salon, and his latest book (co-edited with Maarten Boudry) is Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (Chicago Press).

on May 11, 2015
by Massimo Pigliucci



Groucho Marx, one of my favorite comedians of all time, famously wrote a telegram to a Hollywood club he had joined, that said: “Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” [1]

I have recently considered sending such a letter to the skeptic and atheist movements (henceforth, SAM), but I couldn’t find the address. Besides, I don’t actually want to “resign,” as I consider myself a skeptic (in the sense of David Hume: one who attempts to proportion his beliefs to the available evidence) as well as an atheist. I am also a humanist, and more recently, a Stoic. [2] Unlike my colleague Neil deGrass Tyson [3] I don’t have a problem with labels, especially self-selected ones, since I find them to be useful heuristics to navigate a bewilderingly complex world.

Besides, I’ve been into SAM for a long time now. I still remember, back in 1997 — my second year as an Assistant Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville — when a guy named Carl Ledendecker approached me after a talk by a creationist and asked me if I wanted to join the “Fellowship of Reason” (now the Rationalists of East Tennessee [4]), a group devoted to fighting the good fight on behalf of science and against irrationalisms of all stripes. I thought this was a weird idea, and besides I had to work on my tenure (and I had already started one of the first Darwin Days anyway [5]). Still, after a while I decided to give it a try. I’m still friends with Carl after all these years, and with a number of others I met first there and then throughout the country while attending local, national and international SAM meetings (including, incidentally, the two co-editors of Scientia Salon).

I can honestly say that being a part of SAM has immensely enriched my life, added meaning to it, and hopefully has allowed me to contribute my expertise and reflections to the general improvement of society, in however small a way.

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/reflections-on-the-skeptic-and-atheist-movements/

[immoderate]

1. Nothing to see here.

Philosophers.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

2. Thanks rug for a very interesting link.

Two things stand out here at DU about many exchanges with some of the atheist/agnostic stalwarts:

The first is the tone and attitude, that Pigliucci summarizes very well:

"The Harris-Chomsky exchange, in my mind, summarizes a lot of what I find unpleasant about SAM: a community who worships celebrities who are often intellectual dilettantes, or at the very least have a tendency to talk about things of which they manifestly know very little; an ugly undertone of in-your-face confrontation and I’m-smarter-than-you-because-I-agree-with [insert your favorite New Atheist or equivalent]; loud proclamations about following reason and evidence wherever they may lead, accompanied by a degree of groupthink and unwillingness to change one’s mind that is trumped only by religious fundamentalists; and, lately, a willingness to engage in public shaming and other vicious social networking practices any time someone says something that doesn’t fit our own opinions, all the while of course claiming to protect “free speech” at all costs."

I would add in the attitude expressed by some at DU that, because they are non-believers living in a country where the majority of people identify as people of faith, they have minority status and no one could possibly understand how they feel. This gives them, the rude few, free rein to express their contempt for believers.

And when Pigliucci says:
"And speaking of great science popularizers who are very much adored within SAM: Richard Dawkins has actually trashed yet another field (besides philosophy) of which he knows nothing: epigenetics and the study of its inheritance. Luckily, what he referred to as a “bandwagon” (actually very sound, cutting age biological research) keeps going regardless of Dawkins’ opinion, producing thousands of papers every year and securing tens of millions in funding from evidently profoundly misguided federal agencies. And let’s not go (again) into the exceedingly naive approach to religious criticism that has made Dawkins one of the “four horsemen” of the New Atheism."

It seems to me that some here have substituted Dawkins, Sagan, and Hitchens for the prophets that they reject. I have previously used the term "atheist fundamentalists" to describe these tendencies and have been chastised for daring to suggest it.

[Fumesucker]

4. Do you really understand what it's like to be thought of by your family as the Devil?

Being thought of that way is the ultimate in dehumanization, the target becomes a demon, the absolute embodiment of evil and worthy of no human consideration. Look at what people do to their own children sometimes thinking they are demons or possessed by them.

It's like living in Fred Phelps' church, surrounded by people who will be happy to hate you if you are silly enough to let them know who you are. No, not every theist, not every Christian.. But then not every man or every white person or every straight either, yes?

Have a Blessed day.

[guillaumeb]

33. I cannot understand what it is to be like anyone but myself. That goes also for all.

Can you imagine what it must be like to be a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? Everyone not in your congregation is an outsider, and probably evil as well. It is possible to imagine it, but not truly possible to "really understand" unless one is a member of the church.

But then your replies are usually more nuanced than some here.

Have a peaceful day.

[Fumesucker]

43. Maybe I haven't been abused as seriously as some of these other people

Religion causes a huge amount of grief and hurt for a lot of people, some of us who have been harmed by religion come to places like this to let off some steam since speaking of these things in our communities will bring yet more grief and hurt.

Grief and hurt are not normally noted for being conducive to nuanced expression, generally they are more associated with angry outbursts.

It seems that virtually all of the theists and even some of the atheists here are simply incapable of recognizing or understanding the damage that religion often causes in family and other social relationships and that anger is a legitimate response to the harm caused.

[guillaumeb]

45. Another nuanced reply.

But let me add another perspective. While it is true that, as you well said:
"Religion causes a huge amount of grief and hurt for a lot of people, some of us who have been harmed by religion come to places like this to let off some steam since speaking of these things in our communities will bring yet more grief and hurt. "

Religion, and faith in general, can also be a source of comfort and provides a guideline for behavior that many people find useful. Religion provided comfort for the slaves in the American South, and religion was the inspiration for many of the Abolitionists who fought the horror of slavery. Religion also was the inspiration for many war resisters, including the Berrigan brothers and Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement.

We can all recognize that religious belief, like any belief system, can be interpreted in different ways, and religious institutions, like any institutions, can do much harm when led by unscrupulous individuals. And especially in a small town, religion is an identifier for people, an expression of group identity. Someone who does not share that group identity can be treated as an outsider. But that same thing can happen when a majority of people in an area are from one ethnic group, or share a common language. My family is from a very small town in an area where the vast majority of people speak French as the primary language and have French surnames. The small number of English speakers undoubtedly felt that they were "outsiders" in some circumstances.


And your comments about anger as an outlet and a relief from pressure are also true. Anger is a legitimate and probably necessary response. I could not and would not criticize the anger, but my feelings are that at a certain point we must also recognize what we have in common.

[Lordquinton]

46. no, don't add another perspective

Listen, acknowledge, learn. Your doing the exact same thing that people who have been harmed by religion face every time they try to open up. You notice they are speaking, then shut them up and tell them they are wrong. Your not expressing a bold new perspective, your parroting the majority opinion, and are enabling those who use religion to abuse others.

You say that religion helped the slaves in the south? Well it also helped to enslave them. Where do we draw the line of cost/benifit?

[guillaumeb]

51. I do listen, but not always in agreement.

And I did not tell anyone here that they are wrong for feeling, as atheists, that they are treated like outsiders. THAT is obvious. There are far too many theists in the US who condemn Muslim theocrats while cheering for Christian theocrats. I do not want to live in a country where there is a state religion.

And what I said was that religion was a comfort to the slaves. The paradox is that people who profited from slavery used religion as a justification for the practice of slavery.

[Lordquinton]

53. You my not intentionally be dismissing people's experiences

But when you read someone saying how much religion has screwed up their life and you retort "but many people get good stuff out of it" you are dismissing their experience.

your "different perspective " is the default, all your doing is shutting down other perspectives. The atheist saying "hey religion has really screwed up a lot of lives" is a different perspective.

Yea, Christians are pretty crappy towards muslims as well, again religion negatively affecting others.

[guillaumeb]

54. Dare I offer yet ANOTHER perspective?

Religion, and belief systems in general, also have a group identity function. Same as citizenship in a country. Humans require a group to function and survive. Except for some sociopaths and psychopaths, we are definitely hard-wired for group identification.

Patriotism has also been used by power seekers as a means of control. The problem is not with the concept, it is with the use of the concept.

I hope I do not dismiss anyone's perspective here. The anger, hurt, and other negative emotions are quite obvious. As I have stated in prior conversations here, I do not want to live in a theocracy.

[Fumesucker]

49. Nuance is all well and good but sometimes the torpedoes need to be damned and full speed ahead

Life is frustrating and often very annoying and vexing, sometimes it's downright tragic, some people pray to God for strength and let Him take all their burdens upon His Mighty Shoulders while others go online and textually abuse one another in vile loathsome pits of digital iniquity with misshapen diseased memes gelatinously oozing through the loathsome clinging miasma of blind heretical fanaticism.

Of course there are always long term trolls too, I have no idea what people get out of that but some do it.

For the natural atheist who really doesn't "get" religion living in a heavily theist society there are really only two explanations, either you are missing some sense that everyone else has or everyone else is to use a technical term, nuts. I still haven't quite made up my mind which is less disturbing to ponder.

[guillaumeb]

50. Nicely put, and disturbing also.

Liked your description:
"while others go online and textually abuse one another in vile loathsome pits of digital iniquity with misshapen diseased memes gelatinously oozing through the loathsome clinging miasma of blind heretical fanaticism."

I know that you must be talking about some other digital, dark, and disturbing den of iniquity, since DU is limited to cool, calm, and reasonable discourse.

To digress, there was a very disturbing post today about a church in Texas with a truly bizarre Pastor who has some truly hateful ideas about LGBT people.

Thanks for your input.

[Yorktown]

52. Your question is dead on

For the natural atheist who really doesn't "get" religion living in a heavily theist society there are really only two explanations, either you are missing some sense that everyone else has or everyone else is to use a technical term, nuts. I still haven't quite made up my mind which is less disturbing to ponder.

The first vegeterians among cannibals must have felt odd.

[edhopper]

8. And you have always been wrong

to use that term.

[guillaumeb]

34. Wrong or incorrect?

And about what specifically, might one inquire?

[edhopper]

40. incorrect

as has been explained a hundred times.

[cbayer]

41. Incorrect according to whom?

If you are referring to the term fundamentalist atheist, it's clearly defined on atheism.about.com and used in many contexts and by many people.

http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Fundamentalist-Atheist.htm

A simple search for the term will give you over 400,000 hits with many different POV's.

It is clearly pejorative and I am sure that some people don't like it one bit, but it's not incorrect.

[guillaumeb]

42. Fundamentalist atheists share many of the same attitudes

as fundamentalist believers. The intolerance for other viewpoints, the insistence on being correct, the sometimes harsh language used against any who would question the holy words or cherished assumptions.

Also the veneration of celebrity atheists who express the same viewpoints as the fundamentalist atheists themselves. When we have the issue of the celebrity atheists, we see all the classic signs of confirmation bias on the part of the non-celebrity atheists. An example would be that because Dawkins believes it (whatever it may be, in this case the non-existence of a creator) to be true, that makes it true. And because I agree with Dawkins and he is intelligent that means that I also am intelligent.

As I have now explained 101 times. Mustard seed on stony ground.

[cbayer]

12. Ooooh, you're going to get it now. The emperor has no clothes

and some people aren't going to like this at all.

[guillaumeb]

35. My reply names no one, nor is it required.

But my agreement is primarily with the observation by the author, and how aptly the description fits for some few in the atheist/agnostic group. Most people at DU are quite respectful of the opinions of others, but some here have no respect for any opinions other than their own.

[cbayer]

37. No names are required, I agree.

Thanks for taking a stand. It isn't easy and there are consequences, but you have consistently been thoughtful and civil in your remarks.

[hrmjustin]

16. Very interesting response.

Especially about rudeness part.

[guillaumeb]

36. There is no excuse for rudeness.

It generally serves to close off dialogue. Other than, in my view, it being a silly attempt to score presumed intellectual points on the part of the rude responder, what does rudeness accomplish?

[hrmjustin]

38. Nothing, it accomplishes nothing.

[cbayer]

44. Oh, it accomplishes something, but only if you let it.

[Sobax]

39. +1

[cbayer]

3. I like where he is going and hope to see more follow.

[nil desperandum]

5. Pigliucci

I have always found this man quite interesting...after all he said this:

And you know what the icing on the cake is? At 1:58 Craig actually demands an argument from his opponent (who, I take it, happened to be developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert) to show that god doesn’t exist, when in fact it is Craig (or any other apologist) who owes us an argument for believing in imaginary beings for which there isn’t a single shred of evidence. I’m an a-theist in the same sense in which I’m an a-unicornist, because I don’t see any evidence for the existence of unicorns, and if you are a unicornist, you owe me that evidence, I don’t owe you anything at all, as “any intro to philosophy student” (0:51) ought to know.

[cbayer]

9. So, what do you think of the position he takes in this article?

[nil desperandum]

13. I think

he's right to consider that confrontational only for the sake of the confrontation isn't the best method for introducing or continuing discourse.

However he's been more than a little confrontational over the years as a necessary response to his critics as well.

So it remains to be seen how successful his withdrawal to a more neutral corner turns out over the long term. His past position has been clear that he does not consider that there is no god to be on an equal footing as those who proclaim loudly there is a god.

Regardless of this current essay it remains to be seen that he intends to give (or believes they deserve) the pro-unicorn crowd the same respect as the no-unicorn crowd.

I also find that his discussion about anti-intellectualism among those with doctorates in physics because they don't fawn of over philosophy doctorates entertaining. He makes it seem as if that is unique to the field of physics. Ego is an essential part of any technical science field and certainly those who are among the best are often arrogant, even to a fault, when considering other disciplines. Especially those disciplines they consider to be a lesser science or math than their own.

It's not uncommon at the high school level where the physical education teacher is often considered a lunk head compared to the calculus teacher...

[cbayer]

17. I'm not very familiar with him so I appreciate the background you are providing.

I am very much in agreement with him in regards to his criticism of the approach some have taken and how counter-productive it is.

The hard science/soft science struggle is nothing new. Each has it's place and each requires a different set of skills.

Sometimes the PE teacher has a lower IQ than the calculus teacher, but has a great deal more creativity and ingenuity.

[MisterP]

32. but of course the ol' burden-of-proof blame game is pretty dangerous for someone so close to LogPos

[Lordquinton]

47. they will ignore that he made this argument

They claim that while hey believe in god they don't believe he exists so the burden rests on atheists to prove he doesn't.

Happened right here on DU, guess a lot of philosophy dropouts hang around here.

[MellowDem]

6. I'm not sure what evidence he has...

That the "SAM" movement (never defined) worships these people he criticizes. I agree with a lot of his criticisms, and think many atheists would too.

It seems more that he is lamenting that because these groups have become more mainstream, there are now popular atheists out there with plenty of flaws that can actually be seen now.

I think many atheists can appreciate some aspects of what each person he criticizes (as the author does himself for some of them, at least) has brought to the table in terms of criticizing some of the worst aspects of religion without saying they agree with every aspect of the person's criticism.

And there is no dogma among atheists that says such popular figures must be followed and worshipped.

From what I've seen, most of the mainstream world knows little about and cares little for academic philosophy, which is probably frustrating to some academic philosophers. Maybe some were hoping the SAM movement would popularize philosophy in mainstream discourse and are finding it hasn't?

[cbayer]

11. "I have recently considered sending such a letter to the skeptic and atheist movements

(henceforth, SAM), but I couldn’t find the address." is an acknowledgement that "SAM" doesn't really exist as an entity.

I agree with you that prominent non-believers have become more visible and that some of the criticism he levels is valid.

And while there are no rules about following and worshipping these prominent non-believers, I think within some subgroups there is quite a bit of dogma.

[nil desperandum]

14. Indeed

And while there are no rules about following and worshipping these prominent non-believers, I think within some subgroups there is quite a bit of dogma.

One could argue that among some sub-groups the hero-worship is so prevalent it almost represents its own style of belief and religion, ironically those in these sub-groups fail to see the inherent hypocrisy of such views.

[MellowDem]

15. Where?

I don't see the evidence of it, or if there is, it would be helpful to show which sub-groups worship certain people, but specifics are never given.

[Rob H.]

19. I find it helpful in situations like this to remember

Christopher Hitchens' famous quote: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[cbayer]

20. Hitchen's Razor: The burden of proof in a debate lies with whoever makes the claim.

So it's important to also see that this means that those who claim that something does not exist also bear the burden of proof.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[cbayer]

22. What claim have I made and what have I been asked to provide evidence for?

[cbayer]

25. That wasn't asked of me. You might be bowing out, but it's not for the reason you state.

See you around.

[cbayer]

26. It needs to be noted that your post was edited while I was replying to it,

so as to avoid any false assumption that I simply ignored what you said.

I did say that I think that within some subgroups there is quite a bit of dogma.

The word "think" indicates that this is my opinion and is not being stated as a fact or a claim. At no point was I asked to provide evidence for this, but if you would like me to, please feel free to ask.

Your claim that I was asked hours ago and did not answer is false, but not unexpected. Are you going to provide evidence for that claim?

[cbayer]

29. I did not assume anything else and did not think it was nefarious in any way.

I just wanted to be clear that I had responded to a post that did not include those quotes and that they were added after I had read the post.

[MellowDem]

23. I'm not claiming it doesn't exist...

I concede it could, though I don't think it's likely, so we're left with only one claim.

I guess they need to start looking? Maybe a Sam Harris' website or subscribers would be a good place to start? Even if a bunch of obnoxious sycophants are found around some personality, I'm having a hard time believing it would be sincerely comparable to the worship of figures in religion.

And really, I wouldn't be surprised if a fan group was identified as the best example, which is kinda the point. Is a fan group a sub group of SAM? And if it is, is it fair to use them as a litmus of how worshipful the SAM movement, undefined, is? It's all rather silly if you don't define anything.

[cbayer]

27. A subgroup is a subgroup. If it's a fan group, then that's kind of the point.

I never said they should be used as a litmus test for the general population of skeptics and atheists. In fact, I think they are not representative at all.

I was merely saying that I think there are some dogmatic subgroups.

[Lordquinton]

48. logic fail

10 yard penalty. first down.

[cbayer]

18. Not only do they fail to see the inherent hypocrisy, their righteous indignation about it

is deafening.

[edhopper]

7. NDT on philosophy

more specifically, the philosophy of science:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/

More nuanced than Pigliucci says.

I have enjoyed Pigliucci's writing for years, he is a great defender of the rational.

[cbayer]

10. Looks like turf battles to me.

I found this article very rational and full of some well deserved criticism.

[Jim__]

31. It sounds like the Chomsky/Harris exchange pushed Pigliucci over the line.

Can't say I blame him.