![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There's been some interesting hullabaloo on the atheist/skeptic front lately. Two separate events come to mind, but they have some things in common, and things that I've seen in other areas as well and will probably continue to see.
The first was a forum thread in which I was called "arrogant" and "condescending" (two words that atheists in general are very familiar with being called) for my interview on the Does Polyamory Make You Atheist episode of Poly Weekly. For those who didn't listen to the episode, there was a very specific question - does polyamory make people atheist. Minx kept wanting to get off track and wander into the land of "I don't want to say anyone's beliefs are wrong because I think whatever makes sense to you is OK with me", which wasn't the point of the episode. I took special care to address only the question, and to not touch on any belief system or even to explain what atheism is, let alone my own brand of atheism. I pointed the listeners to my LJ atheist tag to learn more about that.
The question was, does polyamory make people atheist. My answer was very simple. No. I had only a few minutes of talking time in which to explain why I am both atheist and polyamorous and what, if anything, they had to do with each other, partly because the episode is only 30-45 minutes, partly because my interview was only a portion of the total episode, and partly because this segment was half-taken up by Minx going on about her acceptance of any and all belief structures, which was besides the point.
In this episode, I outlined the path that I took to both polyamory and atheism. I said that the same tools that led me to my version of atheism are the same tools that led me to my version of polyamory. In both cases, I looked at the evidence that the world around me presented to me with regards to religion and with regards to relationships, and I reached a conclusion using a logic and reason applied to the subjects of religion and relationships.
I was called "condescending" because I said I used logic to arrive at my conclusions, so some people claim that this necessarily implies that anyone who arrives at another conclusion must therefore be illogical. I was also called "arrogant" because I spent no time asking or learning about other people's beliefs. In an episode about how atheism affects polyamory, I was arrogant for talking all about atheism & not talking about paganism or Christianity.
This was the path, in a nutshell, that I took that led me to both polyamory and atheism. It's called "skepticism". Skepticism means, literally, inquiry. To be skeptical is to inquire. Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. It is often mistaken for "doubting", and for "cynicism", but those are not correct. Of course, some skeptics can ALSO be doubters or cynics, they are not mutually exclusive (I tend towards cynicism all too often), but they are also distinct from each other.
People can reach either conclusion (polyamory or atheism) via other means. I would not call Bill Maher a "skeptic", since he is not rational and does not use the scientific method, but he is most definitely an atheist. And people can use the tools of skepticism, or rational inquiry, and reach other conclusions, as I *did* imply when I said "No, I think it's more that skepticism and rational inquiry CAN result in both atheism and polyamory." We're not talking about something as simple as the claim "there is oxygen in this room". That's easily testable and can have only one answer - either there is or there isn't, and doesn't change depending upon the beliefs or prespective of the tester. We're talking about whether a person believes polyamory is the right relationship style for himself, or whether a person has belief, or lacks belief, in a deity. These are very complicated questions, and a person's perspective, which is naturally subjective, is a valid and important criteria in logically evaluating the questions and determining a conclusion. These are not empiric questions, they are subjective considerations. Questions about economic and politics are also very complicated questions and one can arrive at different conclusions using the same tools of logic and reason, depending upon one's priorities and subjective experiences. These are issues of value judgments, not purely empirical facts.
The validity of atheism is an empiric question, but that's not the question at hand. Is it possible to be polyamorous is an empiric question, but that's not the question either. The question is, are YOU an atheist or a polyamorist and how did you get there, not how correct is your position. My reasons for being a polyamorist may not apply to your position. Maybe you think you probably can love more than one person simultaneously, but your love and your devotion and your commitment to your existing partner is a higher priority than your commitment to polyamory - it's just not that big of a deal to you.
With that criteria, it is entirely logical and reasonable for one person to choose a monogamous relationship structure. Using logic, a different person may arrive at a different conclusion than I have because that person has information that I lack or vice versa. Much like my rant about the Fanboys, who want to insist that they have the answer for me without having all the information about the situation, or who have different priorities than I do & refuse to accept that another set of priorities are valid for other people, this is a matter of perspective and two people can arrive at different conclusions, even if they use the same, or similar, tools, such as logic.
Skepticism is a process. It requires that one investigate a claim, no matter who is making that claim. The scientific method is inherently skeptical in that it investigates claims, using a process that is designed to reduce human bias and come to conclusions that are reasonably empirical and free of human fallacy. It is a long, slow process that requires many different people and many different tests precisely because of the possibility of human error.
And one of the things that humans are prone to do, is to apply their skepticism inconsistently. A person can be a logical, rational, analytical, skeptical person in general, and still have one or some subjects about which they do not apply their logic, their rationality, their analysis, or their skepticism. In fact, that's pretty much everyone. Albert Einstein, noted brilliant scientist, refused to accept the idea of a universe based upon probability at the quantum level, which prevented him from doing any significant work in quantum physics. His entire life was devoted to the pursuit of scientific inquiry, which, as I've already pointed out, has at its heart skeptical inquiry. And yet, this was an area he was quite irrational about, in his refusal to accept the evidence presented to him. He died, still refusing to accept quantum physics.
Linus Pauling is a Nobel Prize winner. Pauling was included in a list of the 20 greatest scientists of all time by the magazine New Scientist, with Albert Einstein being the only other scientist from the twentieth century on the list. Gautam R. Desiraju, the author of the Millennium Essay in Nature, claimed that Pauling was one of the greatest thinkers and visionaries of the millennium, along with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. Pauling is notable for the diversity of his interests: quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, protein structure, molecular biology, and medicine. In all these fields, and especially on the boundaries between them, he made decisive contributions. However, Pauling got sucked into the idea that megadoses of vitamin C can cure cancer. He published lots of papers on the subject, all of which were refuted on the basis of flawed methodology and his conclusions were not repeatable when others tried to replicate his tests. In the end, it was concluded that vitamin C, in regular or megadoses, did not cure cancer and did not prevent colds. Pauling, who megadosed until his death, died of cancer.
Both examples are men who are considered brilliant scientists, and as I've said, skepticism is inherently at the core of science. And yet, both men held in reserve some subject for which they would not apply their skepticism. This does not invalidate their contributions to science and they deserve the accolades they have been given for their advancements in science. Their ideas are valid, regardless of what *other* wacky ideas they might also hold, because their valid ideas stand up no matter who is making the claim. Unlike faith-based, authoritarian systems, claims are not true because Someone said so, claims are true no matter who says so, and true claims are accepted even if the Speaker is batshit crazy on all other subjects (but maybe we'll reserve acceptance until someone a little less batshit crazy comes up with the same conclusion using legitimate testing methodology). For instance, Phrenology was the first discipline to claim that the brain had specialized areas. Of course, bumps on the head don't tell us jack shit about the brain, but the idea that our brains are not just one big lump of grey matter was tossed out when evidence came to light. Scientists didn't ignore phrenologists because they were crazy, they ignored them because they were wrong, but the itty-bitty part they got right was accepted even though the wacky phrenologists claimed it.
People are admired and revered for their contributions, but the science and skeptical communities know that people are still just people, not 2-D movie heroes (watch the Star Trek movie First Contact, where the crew goes back in time to discover that the inventor of warp drive, and consequently the father of their entire society, was a drunk bastard with an attitude problem, who just happened to also be a brilliant physicist, who hated hearing that they built a statue in his honor and taught about him in school, and who was nothing like what the textbooks said he was. Also watch the Jaynestown epsiode of Firefly, where an entire town makes a hero of the most disreputable, selfish, ego-centric members of the crew because he happen to drop a load of money on an impoverished indentured slave town - the good works was good works, but the people are complicated & not as equally good as their works). People are complicated, and even the most dedicated skeptics can be unskeptical about some things they hold dear. That's why we have science, to discover the truth even when we really want to believe in something false.
Which brings us to the other event. A particular astronomer has been singled out because she is a good astronomer, a science popularizer, and a Christian. Some people in the skeptical community want to make skepticism an atheist movement, which would necessarily remove all skeptics who have some sort of religious beliefs. I'm reminded of a Babylon 5 episode where a culture built some technology that would weed out the alien influences that had been seeded in the society to destroy them. The technology was designed by religious zealots and designed to kill the "impure". The problem is, there was no possible way to define "pure", since *everyone* had something different than everyone else. So the technology destroyed the entire race.
Some people want to cry hypocrisy of certain skeptics for allowing a religious believer into the ranks. And then there are others, like me and PZ Myers and DJ Grothe, who say that people are not skeptical of all subjects, all the time, and what matters are the claims. If a person is in favor of science, advances science, and promotes skepticism, they are, by definition, a skeptic, even if they hold a sacred cow, or, as Penn & Teller say on their show, a gris gris. Their legitimate claims benefit society and the scientific and skeptical communities as a whole. The individual should be welcomed in, but that does not mean that their beliefs or claims will not be scrutinized.
For the most part, a skeptic can and will respect a person, and fully believe that a person has the *right* to hold any particular belief, but this does not equate to respecting any given *belief* that the person in question might hold. That's how science gets done. If we just sat by in awe because someone famous said something, we'd never have corrected the flaws in their theories and claims, bringing us to an ever greater understanding of the universe. This astronomer is a respected astronomer. She does good science. She promotes science education. She leaves her religious beliefs out of the classroom. We respect her for that and we welcome her into the folds of the skeptics. But we are not required to also leave her religious beliefs untouched, especially when they come out into the public sphere. We can hold her in high esteem while not hiding our opinions on her religious beliefs. And we can have a conversation with her about skeptical topics without bashing her repeatedly for her religious beliefs when that's not the topic at hand. There's nothing hypocritical about treating people with respect while not respecting a belief, nor about sticking to the topic at hand about which we are in agreement while we disagree about other topics.
The first was a forum thread in which I was called "arrogant" and "condescending" (two words that atheists in general are very familiar with being called) for my interview on the Does Polyamory Make You Atheist episode of Poly Weekly. For those who didn't listen to the episode, there was a very specific question - does polyamory make people atheist. Minx kept wanting to get off track and wander into the land of "I don't want to say anyone's beliefs are wrong because I think whatever makes sense to you is OK with me", which wasn't the point of the episode. I took special care to address only the question, and to not touch on any belief system or even to explain what atheism is, let alone my own brand of atheism. I pointed the listeners to my LJ atheist tag to learn more about that.
The question was, does polyamory make people atheist. My answer was very simple. No. I had only a few minutes of talking time in which to explain why I am both atheist and polyamorous and what, if anything, they had to do with each other, partly because the episode is only 30-45 minutes, partly because my interview was only a portion of the total episode, and partly because this segment was half-taken up by Minx going on about her acceptance of any and all belief structures, which was besides the point.
In this episode, I outlined the path that I took to both polyamory and atheism. I said that the same tools that led me to my version of atheism are the same tools that led me to my version of polyamory. In both cases, I looked at the evidence that the world around me presented to me with regards to religion and with regards to relationships, and I reached a conclusion using a logic and reason applied to the subjects of religion and relationships.
I was called "condescending" because I said I used logic to arrive at my conclusions, so some people claim that this necessarily implies that anyone who arrives at another conclusion must therefore be illogical. I was also called "arrogant" because I spent no time asking or learning about other people's beliefs. In an episode about how atheism affects polyamory, I was arrogant for talking all about atheism & not talking about paganism or Christianity.
This was the path, in a nutshell, that I took that led me to both polyamory and atheism. It's called "skepticism". Skepticism means, literally, inquiry. To be skeptical is to inquire. Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. It is often mistaken for "doubting", and for "cynicism", but those are not correct. Of course, some skeptics can ALSO be doubters or cynics, they are not mutually exclusive (I tend towards cynicism all too often), but they are also distinct from each other.
People can reach either conclusion (polyamory or atheism) via other means. I would not call Bill Maher a "skeptic", since he is not rational and does not use the scientific method, but he is most definitely an atheist. And people can use the tools of skepticism, or rational inquiry, and reach other conclusions, as I *did* imply when I said "No, I think it's more that skepticism and rational inquiry CAN result in both atheism and polyamory." We're not talking about something as simple as the claim "there is oxygen in this room". That's easily testable and can have only one answer - either there is or there isn't, and doesn't change depending upon the beliefs or prespective of the tester. We're talking about whether a person believes polyamory is the right relationship style for himself, or whether a person has belief, or lacks belief, in a deity. These are very complicated questions, and a person's perspective, which is naturally subjective, is a valid and important criteria in logically evaluating the questions and determining a conclusion. These are not empiric questions, they are subjective considerations. Questions about economic and politics are also very complicated questions and one can arrive at different conclusions using the same tools of logic and reason, depending upon one's priorities and subjective experiences. These are issues of value judgments, not purely empirical facts.
The validity of atheism is an empiric question, but that's not the question at hand. Is it possible to be polyamorous is an empiric question, but that's not the question either. The question is, are YOU an atheist or a polyamorist and how did you get there, not how correct is your position. My reasons for being a polyamorist may not apply to your position. Maybe you think you probably can love more than one person simultaneously, but your love and your devotion and your commitment to your existing partner is a higher priority than your commitment to polyamory - it's just not that big of a deal to you.
With that criteria, it is entirely logical and reasonable for one person to choose a monogamous relationship structure. Using logic, a different person may arrive at a different conclusion than I have because that person has information that I lack or vice versa. Much like my rant about the Fanboys, who want to insist that they have the answer for me without having all the information about the situation, or who have different priorities than I do & refuse to accept that another set of priorities are valid for other people, this is a matter of perspective and two people can arrive at different conclusions, even if they use the same, or similar, tools, such as logic.
Skepticism is a process. It requires that one investigate a claim, no matter who is making that claim. The scientific method is inherently skeptical in that it investigates claims, using a process that is designed to reduce human bias and come to conclusions that are reasonably empirical and free of human fallacy. It is a long, slow process that requires many different people and many different tests precisely because of the possibility of human error.
And one of the things that humans are prone to do, is to apply their skepticism inconsistently. A person can be a logical, rational, analytical, skeptical person in general, and still have one or some subjects about which they do not apply their logic, their rationality, their analysis, or their skepticism. In fact, that's pretty much everyone. Albert Einstein, noted brilliant scientist, refused to accept the idea of a universe based upon probability at the quantum level, which prevented him from doing any significant work in quantum physics. His entire life was devoted to the pursuit of scientific inquiry, which, as I've already pointed out, has at its heart skeptical inquiry. And yet, this was an area he was quite irrational about, in his refusal to accept the evidence presented to him. He died, still refusing to accept quantum physics.
Linus Pauling is a Nobel Prize winner. Pauling was included in a list of the 20 greatest scientists of all time by the magazine New Scientist, with Albert Einstein being the only other scientist from the twentieth century on the list. Gautam R. Desiraju, the author of the Millennium Essay in Nature, claimed that Pauling was one of the greatest thinkers and visionaries of the millennium, along with Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. Pauling is notable for the diversity of his interests: quantum mechanics, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, protein structure, molecular biology, and medicine. In all these fields, and especially on the boundaries between them, he made decisive contributions. However, Pauling got sucked into the idea that megadoses of vitamin C can cure cancer. He published lots of papers on the subject, all of which were refuted on the basis of flawed methodology and his conclusions were not repeatable when others tried to replicate his tests. In the end, it was concluded that vitamin C, in regular or megadoses, did not cure cancer and did not prevent colds. Pauling, who megadosed until his death, died of cancer.
Both examples are men who are considered brilliant scientists, and as I've said, skepticism is inherently at the core of science. And yet, both men held in reserve some subject for which they would not apply their skepticism. This does not invalidate their contributions to science and they deserve the accolades they have been given for their advancements in science. Their ideas are valid, regardless of what *other* wacky ideas they might also hold, because their valid ideas stand up no matter who is making the claim. Unlike faith-based, authoritarian systems, claims are not true because Someone said so, claims are true no matter who says so, and true claims are accepted even if the Speaker is batshit crazy on all other subjects (but maybe we'll reserve acceptance until someone a little less batshit crazy comes up with the same conclusion using legitimate testing methodology). For instance, Phrenology was the first discipline to claim that the brain had specialized areas. Of course, bumps on the head don't tell us jack shit about the brain, but the idea that our brains are not just one big lump of grey matter was tossed out when evidence came to light. Scientists didn't ignore phrenologists because they were crazy, they ignored them because they were wrong, but the itty-bitty part they got right was accepted even though the wacky phrenologists claimed it.
People are admired and revered for their contributions, but the science and skeptical communities know that people are still just people, not 2-D movie heroes (watch the Star Trek movie First Contact, where the crew goes back in time to discover that the inventor of warp drive, and consequently the father of their entire society, was a drunk bastard with an attitude problem, who just happened to also be a brilliant physicist, who hated hearing that they built a statue in his honor and taught about him in school, and who was nothing like what the textbooks said he was. Also watch the Jaynestown epsiode of Firefly, where an entire town makes a hero of the most disreputable, selfish, ego-centric members of the crew because he happen to drop a load of money on an impoverished indentured slave town - the good works was good works, but the people are complicated & not as equally good as their works). People are complicated, and even the most dedicated skeptics can be unskeptical about some things they hold dear. That's why we have science, to discover the truth even when we really want to believe in something false.
Which brings us to the other event. A particular astronomer has been singled out because she is a good astronomer, a science popularizer, and a Christian. Some people in the skeptical community want to make skepticism an atheist movement, which would necessarily remove all skeptics who have some sort of religious beliefs. I'm reminded of a Babylon 5 episode where a culture built some technology that would weed out the alien influences that had been seeded in the society to destroy them. The technology was designed by religious zealots and designed to kill the "impure". The problem is, there was no possible way to define "pure", since *everyone* had something different than everyone else. So the technology destroyed the entire race.
Some people want to cry hypocrisy of certain skeptics for allowing a religious believer into the ranks. And then there are others, like me and PZ Myers and DJ Grothe, who say that people are not skeptical of all subjects, all the time, and what matters are the claims. If a person is in favor of science, advances science, and promotes skepticism, they are, by definition, a skeptic, even if they hold a sacred cow, or, as Penn & Teller say on their show, a gris gris. Their legitimate claims benefit society and the scientific and skeptical communities as a whole. The individual should be welcomed in, but that does not mean that their beliefs or claims will not be scrutinized.
For the most part, a skeptic can and will respect a person, and fully believe that a person has the *right* to hold any particular belief, but this does not equate to respecting any given *belief* that the person in question might hold. That's how science gets done. If we just sat by in awe because someone famous said something, we'd never have corrected the flaws in their theories and claims, bringing us to an ever greater understanding of the universe. This astronomer is a respected astronomer. She does good science. She promotes science education. She leaves her religious beliefs out of the classroom. We respect her for that and we welcome her into the folds of the skeptics. But we are not required to also leave her religious beliefs untouched, especially when they come out into the public sphere. We can hold her in high esteem while not hiding our opinions on her religious beliefs. And we can have a conversation with her about skeptical topics without bashing her repeatedly for her religious beliefs when that's not the topic at hand. There's nothing hypocritical about treating people with respect while not respecting a belief, nor about sticking to the topic at hand about which we are in agreement while we disagree about other topics.
- A skeptic can respect a person who holds other beliefs, including beliefs that the skeptic does not think are "rational".
- A skeptic can disagree with, and even not respect, a set of beliefs while respecting or befriending a person with those beliefs.
- Holding a particular worldview in common with a skeptic does not automatically make that person a skeptic - plenty of people are atheists who are not skeptical, either about atheism or about other subjects. It's the process that makes someone skeptical, not whether they reached the same conclusion.
- Being skeptical or rational does not automatically mean two people will reach the same conclusion, depending on the subject, particularly those subjects for which subjective criteria are valid for informing one's conclusion.
- No one, including skeptics, are 100% skeptical about everything they do, think, feel, believe in, or choose 100% of the time.
- Some skeptics *strive* to be skeptical in all areas, and others are willing to section off a subject as outside of their skepticism, and both can be called "skeptical", or be under the umbrella of the "skeptical community".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 6/30/10 04:51 am (UTC)From:It's very similar to other relationship preferences. It is rational for me to be in a relationship with one or more males, because I am attracted to some men in a way that I just can't seem to feel for females (haven't figured out why, but all of the evidence I have so far is consistent, new evidence could, of course, change this). So, for me, it is rational to be involved with males. Someone else might be attracted to females and not to males. Obviously, rationality would lead them to be involved with one or more females instead of with males. That we got different conclusions does not mean that either of us is wrong, because we were asking different questions. I was asking what is right ~for me~ in ~my situation~, and they were asking what is right ~for them~ in ~their situation~.
I think people forget that those are different questions. That when you speak of what is right for you, you might actually mean that it is right for you rather than right for everyone. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that what works for them is right for everyone, so it would make sense they would apply this really bad reasoning to you, and assume you also feel that way. And thus you choosing differently is a threat to their conclusions about what is right for them.
Stupid one true wayism. We just need to knock that meme down wherever we see it. It does so much harm and so little good. And it's so clearly false in so many situations.
no subject
Date: 6/30/10 06:03 am (UTC)From:I was told that, instead of just talking about my atheist worldview, I should instead ask a believer why he believed. Again, the lost irony that they were not bothering to be as considerate by asking the atheist what the atheist believed, even when that was actually the question at hand. I didn't need to ask a believer because 1) we had that side of the conversation and now it was my turn and 2) we weren't talking about each other's beliefs anyway, we were talking about how I arrived at mine.
"Hey atheist, is your polyamory and your atheism related? But don't actually answer that question, make sure your answer is, instead, a question about our religious beliefs so we can talk about us and not you when we ask you about you."
It's very frustrating to be told I should be more considerate of other people by people who are not being considerate of me.
no subject
Date: 7/1/10 02:57 am (UTC)From:I certainly didn't notice any arrogance or condescension in your speech in that episode.
no subject
Date: 6/30/10 12:24 pm (UTC)From:And actually, it is not entirely the case. Both topics present many different questions; and while some of them can be decided based on our moral values or subjective preferences, some are simply questions of fact. Examples: "Could I maintain two romantic relationships so that all the people involved are happy?" is a subjective question, based on personal qualities and situation. "Is it ethical to give your love to more than one person?" is a question based on personal values [although, even with this question it is possible to use reason to reach the answer -- the important thing is to ask yourself which moral values are "axioms" and which are logical conclusions of these axioms]. But questions such as "Are poly relationships harmful to children?" or "Are poly relationsips less stable then mono relationships?" are purely questions of fact. They can (and should) be objectively researched and answered.
Same with atheism, and even more so. I mean, atheism contains much more objective questions, compared to polyamory. "Is there a sentient being who is solely responsible for creating the universe, who still watches over it and takes care of all of us personally etc etc.?" is a question of fact. Either there is, or there is not. No escaping it. They can't both be correct. Skeptical atheists have looked at the evidence, used logic and reason, and came to the conclusion that the God hypothesis is highly implausible. Yes, this arrogantly suggests that the people who believe otherwise seem to be mistaken. But why should you apologize for that?!
People got offended because you seemed to imply that anyone who didn't reach your conclusions was not using logic at all. Okay, this is certainly incorrect, even when dealing with 100% objective questions. We can all use logic and reason and reach different conclusions because we make mistakes (such as not considering all the available evidence -- to begin a very long list). Since when did it become offensive to suggest that your logical conclusions seem correct?
no subject
Date: 7/1/10 12:15 am (UTC)From:As I said, the question was not "How valid is your conclusion" or any other fact-based question. It was "how did you arrive at your conclusion" and "did this conclusion cause the other conclusion". Those are subjective questions.
And, I did point out in this post that things like missing information or having different priorities will, in fact, contribute to people using logic and reason and still arriving at different conclusions.
But to people who are not atheists (and to some atheists), it has always been offensive to suggest that one's own conclusions are "correct". Any statement of personal conclusion is, de facto, a suggestion that one has the correct answer. In other words, if one believes that Jesus Christ is our personal Lord and Savior, then that does imply that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. If we thought our views were wrong, we wouldn't hold them. But only the atheists, in this argument, get in trouble for implying that anyone else's conclusions could be wrong, which was my other point.
As for being wrong about admitting to using logic and reason to reach a subjective conclusion - logic and reason are not exclusive of subjective criteria. Logic and reason are the path one takes to evaluate the criteria, but the criteria can be subjective or objective. If you were to buy a house, you could use logic and reason to determine this house was good but that house was bad because it didn't offer a layout that welcomed socializing and family. I could use logic and reason to determine that the house was a certain dollar amount and a certain number of miles away from the nearest school. Both conclusions would be equally valid, for our different subjective priorities, and both conclusions would have been reached by logically evaluating the criteria based on our subjective priorities.
Deciding on a house because you had a "good feeling" about it's "aura", would not be using logic or reason.
First, thank you...
Date: 7/1/10 11:41 am (UTC)From:That said, there is so much information and there are so many different topics this post lost me about half-way through. I usually love the way you write, and the straightforward thought process and honest straightforward style you favor.
Your honesty and style worked for the section on poly, atheism, logic, and reason. And worked well, clarifying what you were seeing in comments and why you disagreed.
But once you got to skepticism you lost me. I'm not sure if it's data overload, or the change in topic or... The skepticism part feels really didactic (in a not so good way) to me, like I was back in grad school trying to comprehend Derrida or analyze Artaud's relationship to the surrealist painters Magritte, Dali, Miro et al.
I am certain that wasn't the intent here, and I'd really like to get a clearer understanding of what the second part of this post is about. Things started to get confusing shortly after: Skepticism is a process. It requires that one investigate a claim, no matter who is making that claim.
I tried coming back to it after a break from reading and starting at that paragraph, and things got a bit better, but I'm still missing a core piece of the discussion. I get the definition of being a skeptic and the scientific method. And I think I get what you're saying about religious people who are also skeptics about many things but not the underlying religious beliefs. And then I lose the whole string and find myself going back to that paragraph, stuck in a loop trying to figure out what this is about. Help please?
One minute I think you're discussing what happens when scientists and skeptics aren't skeptical of some portion of their belief system and science proves them wrong. But later I think this is about accepting people as skeptics/scientists even though they are religious (while I'm an atheist, I agree with this to an extent - but IMHO it depends on what religion and where they draw the line between practice and mythology). But then I'm still confused.
Also, the last paragraph is clearly meant to tear down myths about skepticism and atheism, however, if you mis-read the first sentence, it seems to bash skeptics as cruel and unfeeling; bashing religion in any form.
But again, I may be having brain lock/overload and that's why I'm not getting it. If so, I won't be upset if you tell me I'm missing the point; it is not my intent here to tear your thoughts down, just to understand them - because I usually think we'd enjoy a long conversation if we met IRL, and I'm disturbed that I'm not getting 1/2 the things you're saying here.
Re: First, thank you...
Date: 7/1/10 10:22 pm (UTC)From:Basically, what the skepticism has to do with this post is that skepticism *is the path* that led me to both polyamory and atheism. So I went on a sidetrip to explain what skepticism was, which was basically the same as my answer in the episode.
What I was trying to get at was that I was accused of implying that everyone who isn't atheist is irrational. I do not believe I implied that because there are so many other options - it's not a case of "if you don't agree with me, you're irrational and wrong", that depends on the individual and the specific topic, and some questions are multiple-choice answers. I said my atheism, and my polyamory, was arrived at by applying skepticism (rational inquiry) to the world around me. But people can be atheists without being rational and people can be rational without being atheists.
This is not the same thing as my opinion on any given belief system or any individual who happens to be a believer. I was talking about the *process* at arriving to a conclusion, not what the conclusion itself is, or its validity - that's a different question.
And then I elaborated (or tried to) on how one can arrive at a different conclusion using logic and reason, and how one can arrive at the same conclusion without using logic and reason.
And for the latter option, one can use logic and reason and arrive at a different conclusion because the subject matter is so complicated, that it includes subjective issues and/or allows for different sets of priorities (i.e. the poly example of prioritizing a specific relationship over a relationship model). Again, I'm not talking about how valid the conclusion is, I'm talking about whether one uses logic or reason as the *process* to reach that conclusion - one can use logic to reach an incorrect conclusion, if we're talking about empirical answers. One can also be, in general, a logical and rational person, but not apply that skepticism to certain subjects, which is what brings us to the story of the Christian astronomer.
Let's try it this way:
Irrationality
My Conclusion
Other Conclusion
Rationality / Skepticism
Topics include subjective criteria or differing priorities and so can result in multiple conclusion options
Individual is skeptical in most areas except this one, and so can result in differing conclusions
continued...
Re: First, thank you...
Date: 7/1/10 10:22 pm (UTC)From:Then, where I get to the point about the astronomer, my intention is to say that individuals should be accepted as members of the skeptical community based on their contributions to skepticism and science and/or understanding thereof, because if we reserve our membership just for the "pure skeptic", no one will be left. People should not be rejected *just* for being believers of something, they should be evaluated on their merits as skeptics. But accepting someone as part of the skeptical community *also* does not mean not addressing their unskeptical beliefs.
The issue there was that the astronomer was on a podcast in which the hosts made jokes about the presence of a "soul". One person said they should not have joked about something the astronomer believed in because they accepted her as a peer. If they disagreed with her beliefs of a soul and joked about it, they should "stop lying" to her about accepting her as a peer.
Critics of that blogger claimed that accepting someone as a peer does not mean their wacky beliefs are off-limits. It's a difference of respecting the person vs. respecting their beliefs. The astronomer is a nice person who values science and critical thinking and does good science. So she is respected as a person and as a peer. Her individual beliefs are not accepted just because we like her. But she should also not be rejected just because she holds a sacred cow, one that she takes pains to keep separate from her science and skeptical activism.
In other words, being a member of a group that values skepticism, logic, reason, and critical thinking, means that even if we like you (and sometimes especially if we like you), your beliefs are not untouchable from criticism by the rest of the community, but you are not automatically rejected from the group if you happen to disagree with the group on something - that depends on what the disagreement is, specifically.
Yes, sarcasm and irony are my typical defensive weapons, and out of context, it can make my statements appear to be in favor of the opposite position. That last paragraph is an example of what people who misunderstand skepticism and skeptics think about us, and my intent was to show how absurd those misconceptions were.
Did that clear some things up?
no subject
Date: 7/1/10 04:35 pm (UTC)From:I will be thinking about that!