Skeptical Snobbishness

Skepticism.  It appears to be the possession of the super intelligent, those who look down their noses at others less curious.  Those who don’t understand the concepts of PHD level science.  If you are not a skeptic you’re an idiot.  If you’re not a hard core skeptic then you’re not committed.  Unless you’ve read the back catalogue of Carl Sagan and the complete works of Plato then how dare you call yourself a skeptic.  We don’t want to have wishy washy middle grounders involved.  Screw those who think ESP might be worth investigating.  Go to hell all of you who think that there is even a slight possibility that the investigation of anomalous, usually “paranormal” activity is worth the time energy and money of modern science.  Leave the room and never come back all of you who don’t follow our doctrine to the letter.

This is the impression I’m beginning to get of modern skepticism.  I used to take offence at believers and non-skeptics accusing us of cynicism, of being close minded and being fundamentalists.  But, after numerous discussions with skeptics, it appears that the opening paragraph is not a million miles from the truth.  I have had numerous conversations that have included phrases from the OP and its worrying to see this level of “evangelism”.  It reminds me of the West Borough Baptist Church, home of the Phelps clan and their insistence that theirs is the right path of Christianity and all those who disagree (even other Christians) are doomed to hell.  We are not too different- we are the right type of skepticism, all those who don’t agree, even rational scientists and other skeptics can go to hell.

We have gone from legitimate enquiry and research to almost becoming what we fought against.  I’m not talking about legitimate debates, I’m talking about the general attitude.  An attitude that “I’m better than you”.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think the belief in ghosts, gods and alternate medicine is silly, bordering on the psychotic in some, but should we really elevate ourselves above our station?  Should we become what we criticise and fight against?

By focusing just on the choir, on those already hardened skeptics, we become a private members club.  Many a time I have said “the information and evidence needs to be freely available” and the response has been “it is”.  Well I would argue it’s only freely available to those who know its there and for the most part that’s the choir.  People like Professor Richard Wiseman, Professor Chris French and James Randi make this information available and accessible to all.  I have read criticism of these gentleman- mainly of Mr. Wiseman arguing he isn’t doing “real” science.  Well my response to that is to kindly shut the fuck up.  So what if he isn’t presenting ream after ream of garbled scientific jargon.  There are plenty of people doing that.  What people like Wiseman, French and Randi are doing is far more important.  They are making the information accessible to everyone.  They are presenting their findings in a way that the layman can understand.  I am not a scientist, I could have a discussion about science but not a debate.  I make the occasional scientific Malapropism and occasionally misunderstand an argument.  But so what.  By the terms of the opening paragraph I should be shunned by the skeptical community.  But people like Wiseman, French and Randi make science appealing and understandable.  It is them that will help to encourage more critical thought.  Not self righteous skeptics groups sat in the back room of a dirty old pub, organising their new empire and deciding the terms and conditions for involvement in the group of “super-friends”.

This is just my humble pinion.  Many skeptics seem quite happy to involve the other side in discussion, but when you develop the attitude of “I’m better than you”, then there is an issue.  Skeptical snobbishness is rampant.  Many a time I have heard a snort of condescending laughter at an innocent comment, or a refusal to “waste our time” testing mediums or psychics.  I don’t see it as a waste of time.  If we can encourage one believer to question rationally and look for a logical answer to their questions then I think our time was well spent.

I have also heard it said that the “middle ground” is already hardened skeptics who just don’t get involved.  What a ridiculous notion.  The middle ground already agrees with us?  How is that the middle ground?  The name of the author/ scientist/ whatever that put this notion forward escapes me, but if one person says its true it must be, right?  Then lets ignore anyone who isn’t us.  Better yet, lets put a stake in the middle of Edinburgh’s Grass market and burn them for heresy.  Tripe.

Most of what we consider beneath us, is what we should be embracing.  Its fine to have social meet ups and sit around discussing the latest scientific breakthrough in words of 8 syllables or more, it’s a great night for like minded people.  There should be much more Skeptics in the Pubs and similar groups.  But to do only this will cause us to stagnate and the skeptical community must change its name to Cynical Evangelists.  I’m not suggesting we spend every day debunking psychics or overdosing on homeopathy to prove a point, but once in a while, and more often than we currently do, we must take off our self righteous hats and embrace a little pop Skepticism.

If we don’t, we might as well Christen Richard Dawkins a Messiah, and hold up David Icke as the anti-Christ, put together a book of sins and fables, then declare ourselves the “Church of Skepticism”.

Yours Sincerely,

Father Alex Pryce

Edinburgh Chapter

Darwin Conversion and the middle Ground

Okay.  So you may have gathered from the last blog entry that I have made some fairly obvious onservations.  Well yes thats the point.  There are three camps: Those who wholeheartedly believe without a shadow of a doubt, the hardcore skeptics who are active and know the best way to counter arguments from the other side and then there’s the middle ground.

No I’m not talking agnostic or going to start rambling about definitions again, by the middle ground I mean those who may not be sure.  Those who may be skeptical and not believe in, say, ghosts or psychics but don’t know enough about the subject to really have a discussion on the matter.  those who are easy prey for the fraudulent mediums, the street preachers and the Most Huanted followers.  Those who simply don’t believe BUT could easily be swayed if a creationist came along with a really stron SOUNDING argument full of big words that would stun the confused middle-grounder.

They’re the ones I’m interested in.  Have been since I started Edinburgh Skeptics, in fact that was one of the driving forces behind it.  There are some wonderful videos on Youtube (I point you in the direciton of “Qualiasoup”s back catalogue) but its a case of getting the right people to watch.  One of the things I;ve started doing at the Skeptics in the Pub meetings is to demonstrate “Classic Debunking”, taking a claim of the paranormal or supernatural that ahs already been debunked  and that we as the faithful congregation already know about.  But the fact that there are still people out there who believe its possible to melt the head of a spoon off simply by using your mind and rubbing it.  These people may see it as a trick but not know how its done and being told by a psychic its paranormal could tip a fgew people over to the dark side.

I’m not interested in the hard core of each side.  Yes its fun to debate a street preacher, or point out to ghost hunters that orbs are just dust (YES some of them still believe otherwise!), but that won’t convince anyone and is done more for the contest, the debate and the contest,  It also helps to keep your debating mind fresh and up to date for when you need it.

So, if some of these posts seem a little obvious at times, then well, I’m not going to apologise. You may know spoons can be melting with pre bending, or that some psychics use cold or hot reading but others do not and its them I want to help.

So that brings us on to our first main point, something we’ve all heard and I assume most know is false:

Charles darwin’s Death Bed Conversion:

This story ahs been doing the rounds for a while now, and along with the eye quote from Chapter 6 of “…species” is one of the main weopns pulled out against (mainly) atheists and evolutionists ro blacken Darwin’s name.

So lets look at this story shall we:

The story concerns a woman named Lady Elizabeth Hope.  Hope was born in Australia in 1842, the daughter of a British Army Officer.  Whilst living in England, she and her father became involved in the evangelical temperance movement (basically a religious group dedicated to being teetoal) and resided just 6 miles from Darwin’s home Downe House in Kent in the early 1880s.

With her second husband (her first being Admiral Sir James Hope) she moved to America and it is here in 1915 (33 years AFTER Darwin’s death) that she started to make the claim that she had visited darwin shortly before his death and that he had recanted his Theory of Evolution and had ordered a congregation so he may preech of the saviour Christ.

The revelation appeared in an American religious magazine entitled “Watchman Examiner”.  Here is the text of the original article by Lady Hope:

It was one of those glorious autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin. He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more strongly than on this particular occasion.

He was sitting up in bed, wearing a soft embroidered dressing gown, of rather a rich purple shade.

Propped up by pillows, he was gazing out on a far-stretching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of one of those marvelous sunsets which are the beauty of Kent and Surrey. His noble forehead and fine features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room.

He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.

“What are you reading now?” I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. “Hebrews!” he answered – “still Hebrews. ‘The Royal Book’ I call it. Isn’t it grand?”

Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.

I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.

He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”

Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on “the holiness of God” and the “grandeur of this book,” looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: “I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there,” pointing through the open window. “I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?”

“What shall I speak about?” I asked.

“Christ Jesus!” he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, “and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?” The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: “If you take the meeting at three o’clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing.”

How I wished I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!

So, according to a devoutly Christian woman living several miles from Darwin at the time of his death, the author of one of the greatest and most important books in history has changed his mind and accepted Christ.

The problem is, there is no evidence to suggest that Lady Hope had ever met darwin let alone be present at his deathbed.  Indeed the Darwin family have actively protested against this suggestion and state Hope was nowhere near their father nor did he recant.

Now some may argue that Lady Hope is telling the truth and that the Children are lying to protect their father’s reputation.  This deathbed conversion has been used as an important weopon by creationists to cast doubt on darwin and to blacken his name – though the most troubling things is, I’ve heard it used more often than not as some sort of debunk of Evolution.  That the creator of the idea dismissed it surely shows that it is a false theory.

This is where we get the problems and where we are fully able to debunk and refute these rediculous claims.

1.  The fact that the claim has been refuted by two of Darwin’s children publicly and that there is no record or mention of Hope ever visiting Darwin casts immediate doubt on the validity of the claim.  This is of course not a strong argument but serves as cirumstantial evidence.

2. This is the main argument against this claim.  It’s entitled “So What?”.  So what if Darwin did recant on his deathbed?  How does this in anyway destroy the Theory of Evolution?  Darwin was not the first perosn to put the idea forward, he simply did it in a detailed and accessible way.  Since Darwin we have discovered DNA and mapped the human genome, combined with the fossil record and observable examples of micro evolution we don’t even need Darwin to show that Evolution works.  Without the “Origin of the Species” it may have taken a little bit longer, but with the other research being done at the time it wouldn’t have made much of an impact (if any) on our current understanding of Evolution.

If Darwin recanted, so what.  Maybe he was delusional at the end?  But, even if he in sound mind turned to god and rejected Evolution, it still would not dent the Evolution vs Creation debate.  Does it blacken his name at all?  No, maybe he recanted, maybe he didn’t.  The man’s legacy and contribution to our understanding of evolution and the natural world is overwhelming.  His personal views don’t have any bearing on his scientific contribution.

This argument that he recanted is pointless and irrelevent.  If its ever mentioned, don’t fight back, just say “so what?”

Alex Pryce

Information on Lady Hope and the claim can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hope

Yes I know its Wiki, but there are links through it that back it up.

But ehre’s a CHRISTIAN MINISTER refuting it: http://www.traviscase.org/Sermons/Appendix/12-LadyHopeStory.html

Definitions

So where to begin?  What do we call ourselves?  There are so many terms and words out there to describe groups of people who are basically the same thing.  We also have the mis-labelling.

Humanists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, brights, free thinkers, critical thinkers.  There are so many words out there that the mind boggles at the suggestion of new descriptions.  Now yes, you can argue that technically atheists and agnostics are not the same and that skeptics and humanists are not in the same game.  Generally though each of these groups tend to find it rather easy to mingle and interact with one another.  Its like one group is Rugby Union and the other Rugby League.  Playing the same game but with slightly different rules.

Of course you can be a theist and skeptical about ghosts, you can be an atheist but still believe in ghosts and alternative medicine.  Its not always very likely but its very possible and I’ve met several people who don’t believe in gods in any way be it straight theist or pantheism yet still believe that homeopathic medicines can cure what ails ya!

So what do we call ourselves?  Each word, I have heard people state, can conjur up negative opinions and associations.  As a skeptic I am constantly called a cynic and closed minded.  Thats just not true.  I find that to be a skeptic you have to be MORE open minded than the believer.  As a skeptic I would happily believe in ghosts, gods and Santa Clause if the evidence was there, or at least good evidence.  Anecdotes and faith are not enough to proove the existence of spirits.  But I would accept them if the evidence came in.  Surely that is a lot more open minded than a believer refusing point blank to accept that they might just be wrong.  So I ask again, who is the closed minded one?

We then have the word Bright.  Now I attend the Bright’s meetup in Edinburgh, great bunch of people and a wonderful afternoon of conversation and discussion ensues over a few pints of Caledonian 80.  As a group they’re great, but the word is something I don’t like.  “Bright” is a term I believe was first put forward by Daniel Dennett in the States and later picked up by Richard Dawkins and basically implies an intelligent, “Bright” individual.  Basically its Atheism in all but name.  My issue with the word is that it has the opposite implication that anyone who is not a “Bright” is dim, dull and unintelligent.  This is just not true, the fact that these groups exist is great for the “cause” and the furtherment of critical thinking, I just worry that the word gives off the wrong impressions.

We then come to agnostic.  I’ve never quite “got” agnosticism.  As far as I can see there are only two options when it comes to theistic belief- you either believe in god or you don’t.  By not being sure or not knowing as agnostics claim you are therefore placing yourselves in the atheist camp by the very definition of the words.  A theist is someone who believes in god, an atheist doesn’t.  If you don;t know or aren’t sure if god exists then you cannot be a theist you become an atheist because you are “without god” (dicitonary definition of atheist).  People may try and argue that agnostic is a separate camp and that atheism, theism and agnosticism are all equal and different belief systems.  They’re not.  Agnosticism is part of either theism or atheism.

Agnostic Theist:  Someone who believes in god but doesn’t have all the evidence in.

Gnostic Theist: Someone who KNOWS god exists.

Agnostic Atheist: Someone who doesn’t believe in god, but cannot proove for a fact he doesn’t exist.

Gnostic Atheist:  Someone who KNOWS god doesn’t exist.

Now agnostic theists seem to be quite rare, when was the last time you heard a theist say “I believe in god, but I’m not sure”?  However with atheism the term “Agnostic Atheist” tends to be the most common.  With the exception of a few beer induced rants I can think of no atheist that claims to know for a fact that god doesn’t exist, even Richard Dawkins, probably the world’s best known atheist, states quite clearly in “The God Delusion” that he is a agnostic atheist but with leanings toward a gnostic attitude.  So even the patron saint of atheism doesn’t state catagorically that God does not exist.

So what are we to learn from the constant labelling?  Well, simply that human beings like to have their little groups and names.  In an attempt to bring rational thinking to a wider audience all sorts of names have been thrown around.  I’m quite happy sticking with Atheist and Skeptic.  I see no need to have a dozen words for near identical causes, it creates the religious problem- it divides.  Instead of creating new labels and new groups we need to be unified if we are ever going to get anywhere in changing society for the better.  To open up critical thinking to include all, we need to know who we are and what we stand for.

The words Atheist and Skeptic have been around for thousands of years and are still the best descriptions of what we are and what we do.  Why do we need to change that?  If people think the words are negative then we have to educate them to the actual meanings, it is far better we do that than create a new sub genre.

Atheist, Skeptic, Out and Proud!

AP

Welcome

Hello there!  We are really starting to take off with the Edinburgh Skeptics and felt we needed to “get out there” more, and so, we are getting involved with the creation and administration of a variety of new online options.  We have a forum starting any day now, podcasts in the pipeline, video podcasts, a regularly updated website, we’re heading onto Twitter and we now have this blog!

Myself (Alex Pryce) and Alex Boque will be adding to the blog when we get the chance with news and informaiton as well as a fair ammount of whining (Most likely from myself!).

We want to encourage the membership of Edinburgh Skeptics to get involved also.  Drop us a line, an email, get in touch with something you want to shout about.  Got a link for a vid or webpage of interest get in touch.  Read a good book, seen a great lecture, want to tell us your latest encounter with the street preachers regularly stalking the Royal Mile, then get in touch.

Visit our website www.edinburghskeptics.info and email us.  This blog is about, and for, the wider skeptical community.

That said, lets move on and up!

AP