![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some Thoughts On Skepticism & Its Scope
Apr. 14th, 2010 02:35 am I'm kinda sorting something out here, so the position I'm about to present may not be the best defended position, but it's a starting point. There has been a big bruhaha in the Skeptical community over the whole Pope Palpatine Ratzinger being accused of covering up a child molestation case (or several ... hundred). the details are not important for the sake of this post, since I'm not going to talk about this case in particular. The question on the floor is, should the Skeptical movement *as a movement* care, and why?
The two sides are, in a nutshell:
A) child rape is child rape and is always bad, no matter who does it, so we as individuals should be up in arms, but that has nothing to do with skepticism, and the skeptical community is just yelling because it's a religious figure - where was the skeptical community for all the child rapists that aren't priests?
B) Being the head of a major religion is relevant and makes this a skeptical issue on top of the fact that we should be up in arms as individuals over the child rape thing.
I want to make clear that both sides of the debate are equally in agreement that child rape is bad and there is no category of person for which raping a child is worse or less-bad than any other. The question is whether or not this is a *skeptical* issue *on top* of the whole child rape is bad issue, so let's take as a given that we all agree child rape is bad, period, no exceptions.
I would like to pose one possible reason for why this might be considered a skeptical issue, but I may word this poorly, since this is my first attempt to put it into words.
The Skeptical Movement (TM)'s agenda is on skeptical inquiry. From what I can tell, the bottom line for the movement is to encourage scientific / skeptical inquiry in all things. This has a very broad reach, covering topics from religion to cryptozoology to alien abductions. The reason why it has become a movement, and not just a personal philosophy for how to view the world around us by individuals, is because public policy is often not made based on evidence or reality. Encouraging skeptical inquiry results in utilizing the tools of science and rational & critical thinking when it comes to big questions of policy, like the separation of church and state, climate change regulations, medical research and funding, lawsuits, civil rights issues, etc. These things take the issue out of the realm of personal choice or philosophy and make how these issues are decided *everyone's* concern.
One of the things that those most concerned with skepticism cover under this large umbrella of issues, is the idea that certain people and ideas are held exempt from skeptical inquiry. Some of us believe it is very dangerous to allow any issue to be considered "off limits" from skeptical inquiry, and that once we allow it in our own minds, we then allow it, collectively, as a society, and once that happens, it is a small step from there to allowing exemptions from skepticism for popular, though unfounded, ideas to pass into legislation.
Religion, of course, is the giant elephant. It is considered socially awkward, at best, to engage in critical analysis and skeptical inquiry of religion and of religious figures. It's "rude", and in some cases, cause for lawsuits for attempting to "deny religious freedom", and in other cases, justification for infringing upon the rights of others. In many variations, religion itself prohibits critical analysis and skeptical inquiry of its tenants and of its leaders, and relies, instead, on the Argument from Authority as its very foundation. By not holding its ideas or its authoritarians up to the light of critical examination, religion has, historically, gotten away with some of the most atrocious acts the human race is capable of. The US government was founded on the idea that ultimate authority was a supremely Bad Idea and was intentionally created to avoid giving any individual person or group that kind of unquestionable power.
In the case of the Pope and his alleged cove-rup, this is exactly what happens when an individual, an office, or an elite group are given carte blanche authority, when they demand unquestioning faith and allegiance, and are allowed to operate with no transparency or accountability. So, on top of the horrible crime of child rape, the Skeptical Community itself may find this issue relevant because it is an example of what happens when skepticism is hampered or discouraged.
When an individual rapes or molests a child, it is no more or less tragic or horrendous than when a priest rapes or molests a child. But when an individual in our society does so, he does not have the support of millions of people around the world turning a blind eye and approving of his actions to cover up the crime, nor do people or societies attempt to justify the crime with such blatantly bullshit excuses like "demons have infested the Vatican". Make no mistake, I am not saying our current system of justice, nor our society, has all the bugs worked out. Oftentimes the molester does have a support system, oftentimes neighbors and other observers do turn a blind eye. And, of course, oftentimes the crime is kept undiscovered so we *can't* raise up in arms even if we wanted to simply because we're unaware of it.
When I was in high school, I had a friend who had been regularly molested by her father since she began puberty. Her mother alternately ignored it or blamed her for capturing the father's roaming eye. When I finally found out about it, I convinced her to talk to our school counselor, who convinced her to press charges. She did, her father was brought in for questioning, but ultimately released on the condition that he not leave the state before his upcoming trial. He booked passage to Canada that night (where he and his family had dual citizenship & he had male relatives that all came from the same culture that approved of subjugation of female family members and the family agreed to put him up and hide him and my friend so he could continue to molest her and now punish her - the rest of the family was staying behind). My friend called me in tears, terrified that she was about to be abducted. I immediately drove over there with a mutual friend, and her mother let us in on the pretext that we were sharing homework. The moment her mother went into the kitchen for something, I and the other friend grabbed our friend and yanked her out the door, threw her in the car, and drove off.
She stayed with the mutual friend for a few days until we could get in touch with the school counselor again and ask what to do. The counselor took her in for another few days until she could be processed in the juvenile system that housed kids with no parents. Eventually, her father did get prosecuted, she went back to live with her mother who screamed at her night and day about what a slut she was and a homewrecker, and she finally went into foster care to escape.
So, believe me when I say I COMPLETELY understand that the system is broken, and that many of the flaws of religion that are relevant to this issue are not unique to religious establishments.
What's different is that we do not have a socially sanctioned agreement that all parents or all boy scout leaders or all teachers are off the hook for punishment and social unacceptance when they do rape or molest a child just for being a member of the club. When he is found out, legal and/or disciplinary action is often pursued. When an organization seeks to cover it up, the organization is held accountable. When the police come knocking on the door to arrest a molester, he is not usually in a position to laugh at the cop, claim illegal diplomatic immunity, and leave the area. Yes, often the bad guys get away, molestation goes unreported, and individuals attempt to cover for and assist these people.
But they do not have the power, money, and prestige behind them of an international organization that demands the unquestioning faith and subservience of millions of people around the world, and the collective willful ignorance of entire governments. The very same unquestioning faith and willful ignorance that the skeptical movement is dedicated to pursuing and eradicating.
And it is *that* part which the Skeptical Movement, I think, can lay claim to having a vested interest in the Pope and his cover-ups when we don't see the Skeptical Movement up in arms over every other child rapist who is just some guy who happens to have access to kids.
Now, I'm not saying there isn't a point to be made about letting our own emotional reaction and dislike of the church being at least partially, if not wholly, motivating for the Skeptical Movement, or by some individual skeptics, in this issue. I do see where certain individuals ranting and raving about the Pope while being completely silent on the issue of child rape when it happens to anyone *not* connected to the church can appear hypocritical or, at least, using it as an excuse to do more hating on the church. I think that's a valid concern and criticism.
I just also see the fact that it *is* the leader of an organization that is the very antithesis of the Skeptical Movement, and it is for those very reasons why it was allowed to happen, allowed to be covered up, and will probably allow it to go unpunished - and this is a direct result of unskeptical behaviour and mindsets perpetuated by this very organization. The Catholic Church created the environment that allowed the scandal and corruption to spread as far, as wide, and as high as it has and will suffer no serious consequences for it, when a society that embraced skeptical inquiry would not have allowed this environment to flourish. I have no doubt scandals like this would have still occured had we lived without the influence of the Catholic church and others of its ilk, but the environment the church created of anti-skepticism is tailor-made for corruption and crime.
The Pope will most likely remain largely free of consequences for his role played in this crime, just like all the various priests who have been found out recently have remained largely free of consequences for their crimes. And the reason for his lack of consequences is directly related to the Skeptical Movement - a society built upon generation after generation of bullying and intimidation and torture until even the mere act of questioning the motivations and actions of an authority figure is frowned upon by those who don't even share the views of that authority figure, in some places and in some cases punished (i.e. Simon Singh & the UK Libel laws), and the perpetrators of crimes are heralded as leaders, heroes, and martyrs.
As skeptics, it is our responsibility and our interest to shine the light of inquiry into the dark crevices of superstition and myth. The Catholic Church, with its secrecy, it's authoritarian-based structure, it's antagonism to inquiry and doubt, it's refusal to change its stance in the face of evidence, the Church utilized those very concepts the Skeptical Movement is opposed to in these crimes. The very nature of the church creates an environment that is a breeding ground for such crimes, and it is the very nature of the Church that the Skeptical Movement is opposed. The issue of the molestation charges is, in addition to being heinous in their own right, the spotlight into exactly *why* the Skeptical Movement is opposed to the Church in the first place.
And that's why I think it is not unreasonable for the Skeptical Movement to concern itself with the issue of the Pope, specifically, with regards to abuse. This position, however, is not without its own, legitimate, concerns.
*A disclaimer: I am speaking of organized religion, not necessarily about the inevitablity of crime and corruption in any individual religious person. An individual religious person, even one who is part of the organization, can be transparent, honest, responsible, accountable, and skeptical. The organization, however, bases its policies on the exact opposite, and it is about the organization I am speaking, not any given individual.
The two sides are, in a nutshell:
A) child rape is child rape and is always bad, no matter who does it, so we as individuals should be up in arms, but that has nothing to do with skepticism, and the skeptical community is just yelling because it's a religious figure - where was the skeptical community for all the child rapists that aren't priests?
B) Being the head of a major religion is relevant and makes this a skeptical issue on top of the fact that we should be up in arms as individuals over the child rape thing.
I want to make clear that both sides of the debate are equally in agreement that child rape is bad and there is no category of person for which raping a child is worse or less-bad than any other. The question is whether or not this is a *skeptical* issue *on top* of the whole child rape is bad issue, so let's take as a given that we all agree child rape is bad, period, no exceptions.
I would like to pose one possible reason for why this might be considered a skeptical issue, but I may word this poorly, since this is my first attempt to put it into words.
The Skeptical Movement (TM)'s agenda is on skeptical inquiry. From what I can tell, the bottom line for the movement is to encourage scientific / skeptical inquiry in all things. This has a very broad reach, covering topics from religion to cryptozoology to alien abductions. The reason why it has become a movement, and not just a personal philosophy for how to view the world around us by individuals, is because public policy is often not made based on evidence or reality. Encouraging skeptical inquiry results in utilizing the tools of science and rational & critical thinking when it comes to big questions of policy, like the separation of church and state, climate change regulations, medical research and funding, lawsuits, civil rights issues, etc. These things take the issue out of the realm of personal choice or philosophy and make how these issues are decided *everyone's* concern.
One of the things that those most concerned with skepticism cover under this large umbrella of issues, is the idea that certain people and ideas are held exempt from skeptical inquiry. Some of us believe it is very dangerous to allow any issue to be considered "off limits" from skeptical inquiry, and that once we allow it in our own minds, we then allow it, collectively, as a society, and once that happens, it is a small step from there to allowing exemptions from skepticism for popular, though unfounded, ideas to pass into legislation.
Religion, of course, is the giant elephant. It is considered socially awkward, at best, to engage in critical analysis and skeptical inquiry of religion and of religious figures. It's "rude", and in some cases, cause for lawsuits for attempting to "deny religious freedom", and in other cases, justification for infringing upon the rights of others. In many variations, religion itself prohibits critical analysis and skeptical inquiry of its tenants and of its leaders, and relies, instead, on the Argument from Authority as its very foundation. By not holding its ideas or its authoritarians up to the light of critical examination, religion has, historically, gotten away with some of the most atrocious acts the human race is capable of. The US government was founded on the idea that ultimate authority was a supremely Bad Idea and was intentionally created to avoid giving any individual person or group that kind of unquestionable power.
In the case of the Pope and his alleged cove-rup, this is exactly what happens when an individual, an office, or an elite group are given carte blanche authority, when they demand unquestioning faith and allegiance, and are allowed to operate with no transparency or accountability. So, on top of the horrible crime of child rape, the Skeptical Community itself may find this issue relevant because it is an example of what happens when skepticism is hampered or discouraged.
When an individual rapes or molests a child, it is no more or less tragic or horrendous than when a priest rapes or molests a child. But when an individual in our society does so, he does not have the support of millions of people around the world turning a blind eye and approving of his actions to cover up the crime, nor do people or societies attempt to justify the crime with such blatantly bullshit excuses like "demons have infested the Vatican". Make no mistake, I am not saying our current system of justice, nor our society, has all the bugs worked out. Oftentimes the molester does have a support system, oftentimes neighbors and other observers do turn a blind eye. And, of course, oftentimes the crime is kept undiscovered so we *can't* raise up in arms even if we wanted to simply because we're unaware of it.
When I was in high school, I had a friend who had been regularly molested by her father since she began puberty. Her mother alternately ignored it or blamed her for capturing the father's roaming eye. When I finally found out about it, I convinced her to talk to our school counselor, who convinced her to press charges. She did, her father was brought in for questioning, but ultimately released on the condition that he not leave the state before his upcoming trial. He booked passage to Canada that night (where he and his family had dual citizenship & he had male relatives that all came from the same culture that approved of subjugation of female family members and the family agreed to put him up and hide him and my friend so he could continue to molest her and now punish her - the rest of the family was staying behind). My friend called me in tears, terrified that she was about to be abducted. I immediately drove over there with a mutual friend, and her mother let us in on the pretext that we were sharing homework. The moment her mother went into the kitchen for something, I and the other friend grabbed our friend and yanked her out the door, threw her in the car, and drove off.
She stayed with the mutual friend for a few days until we could get in touch with the school counselor again and ask what to do. The counselor took her in for another few days until she could be processed in the juvenile system that housed kids with no parents. Eventually, her father did get prosecuted, she went back to live with her mother who screamed at her night and day about what a slut she was and a homewrecker, and she finally went into foster care to escape.
So, believe me when I say I COMPLETELY understand that the system is broken, and that many of the flaws of religion that are relevant to this issue are not unique to religious establishments.
What's different is that we do not have a socially sanctioned agreement that all parents or all boy scout leaders or all teachers are off the hook for punishment and social unacceptance when they do rape or molest a child just for being a member of the club. When he is found out, legal and/or disciplinary action is often pursued. When an organization seeks to cover it up, the organization is held accountable. When the police come knocking on the door to arrest a molester, he is not usually in a position to laugh at the cop, claim illegal diplomatic immunity, and leave the area. Yes, often the bad guys get away, molestation goes unreported, and individuals attempt to cover for and assist these people.
But they do not have the power, money, and prestige behind them of an international organization that demands the unquestioning faith and subservience of millions of people around the world, and the collective willful ignorance of entire governments. The very same unquestioning faith and willful ignorance that the skeptical movement is dedicated to pursuing and eradicating.
And it is *that* part which the Skeptical Movement, I think, can lay claim to having a vested interest in the Pope and his cover-ups when we don't see the Skeptical Movement up in arms over every other child rapist who is just some guy who happens to have access to kids.
Now, I'm not saying there isn't a point to be made about letting our own emotional reaction and dislike of the church being at least partially, if not wholly, motivating for the Skeptical Movement, or by some individual skeptics, in this issue. I do see where certain individuals ranting and raving about the Pope while being completely silent on the issue of child rape when it happens to anyone *not* connected to the church can appear hypocritical or, at least, using it as an excuse to do more hating on the church. I think that's a valid concern and criticism.
I just also see the fact that it *is* the leader of an organization that is the very antithesis of the Skeptical Movement, and it is for those very reasons why it was allowed to happen, allowed to be covered up, and will probably allow it to go unpunished - and this is a direct result of unskeptical behaviour and mindsets perpetuated by this very organization. The Catholic Church created the environment that allowed the scandal and corruption to spread as far, as wide, and as high as it has and will suffer no serious consequences for it, when a society that embraced skeptical inquiry would not have allowed this environment to flourish. I have no doubt scandals like this would have still occured had we lived without the influence of the Catholic church and others of its ilk, but the environment the church created of anti-skepticism is tailor-made for corruption and crime.
The Pope will most likely remain largely free of consequences for his role played in this crime, just like all the various priests who have been found out recently have remained largely free of consequences for their crimes. And the reason for his lack of consequences is directly related to the Skeptical Movement - a society built upon generation after generation of bullying and intimidation and torture until even the mere act of questioning the motivations and actions of an authority figure is frowned upon by those who don't even share the views of that authority figure, in some places and in some cases punished (i.e. Simon Singh & the UK Libel laws), and the perpetrators of crimes are heralded as leaders, heroes, and martyrs.
As skeptics, it is our responsibility and our interest to shine the light of inquiry into the dark crevices of superstition and myth. The Catholic Church, with its secrecy, it's authoritarian-based structure, it's antagonism to inquiry and doubt, it's refusal to change its stance in the face of evidence, the Church utilized those very concepts the Skeptical Movement is opposed to in these crimes. The very nature of the church creates an environment that is a breeding ground for such crimes, and it is the very nature of the Church that the Skeptical Movement is opposed. The issue of the molestation charges is, in addition to being heinous in their own right, the spotlight into exactly *why* the Skeptical Movement is opposed to the Church in the first place.
And that's why I think it is not unreasonable for the Skeptical Movement to concern itself with the issue of the Pope, specifically, with regards to abuse. This position, however, is not without its own, legitimate, concerns.
*A disclaimer: I am speaking of organized religion, not necessarily about the inevitablity of crime and corruption in any individual religious person. An individual religious person, even one who is part of the organization, can be transparent, honest, responsible, accountable, and skeptical. The organization, however, bases its policies on the exact opposite, and it is about the organization I am speaking, not any given individual.
